Show of HandsShow of Hands

NDAmerican February 4th, 2014 10:14pm

Which is a more flawed system of government, a unitary government or a confederacy?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 3:17 pm

Confederacy, but both are extremely flawed.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 3:21 pm

I would disagree, why would you say confederacy. I agree though they are both flawed but unitary seems a bit more.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 3:23 pm

A confederacy is constantly on the brink of collapse. You have potentially dozens of different governments feuding with each other over anything and everything, with a national government that's no more than a figurehead with an excessive salary.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 3:37 pm

True but with a Unitarian gov you have a constant threat of totalitarian gov, no representation in local or regional issues, or power of the people.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 3:39 pm

No, as long as the unitarian govt has an elected legislature that problem's solved.
There's an inherent risk of totalitarianism in every form of govt, from anarchy to democracy. The only thing that changes is who gets to be the dictator.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 3:42 pm

Legislatures don't prevent military take overs, in a confederal system the military is extremely well funded except in times of war, so the central gov never gains major power.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 3:46 pm

Legislatures provide a voice for the people, that's what I was referring to.
IMO multiple govts would actually make it easier to have a military takeover. No unified response. Governments don't play nice with each other, as a rule.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 3:50 pm

Federal programs don't always benefit local communities. And the military wouldn't be strong enough to overcome the different states.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 3:57 pm

Not all at once, no. But with time they could easily do so.
Regardless of actual benefit, the legislatures provide a voice.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 4:01 pm

I would rather have the actual ability to make change then just a voice. I guess that's what differs between us. And I believe states wouldn't allow a central force strip the power from them.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 4:07 pm

With a legislature you have a way to make change. The only way to give you direct power is to either get elected or to have mob rule.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 4:10 pm

Not always, people for instance from New York won't want to direct funds to wv for their local improvement. While in a confederal system, the state or local community has direct power to use their own funds to operate projects.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 4:33 pm

But WV and other impoverished states would more than likely band together to vote for aid for all in a unitarian legislature.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 4:37 pm

Not all the small rural states are poor, and the large states would still hold strong power. I trust my mayor or governor more than my congress.

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 4:40 pm

Sadly I don't (I have the conservative Blagojevich, aka Christie.)

usernamehere Raise a little hell
02/04/14 4:41 pm

My point is that a confederacy isn't really a government, and I have trouble seeing a confederacy as one unified national entity.

NDAmerican Florida
02/04/14 4:43 pm

Confederacy is a form of government, just the states control domestic affairs while the federal congress controls the foreign policy.