• trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s all good as long as this body doesn’t have final control over the other territories.

    The US/EU states/countries are also… states and countries, so that could change.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Originally, the federal government in the US was very, very limited in power and states had much higher degrees of autonomy than they do now. It resulted in tons of problems, even agreeing on a basic common currency was problematic.

      Now, I think that it’s swung too far in the other direction and that the federal government nowadays in the US has too much power. I think it’s possible to meet in the middle, where you have a semi-central body where federated communities have a common ground to address and resolve grievances with an outside, neutral party mediating things.

      Anyway, just my two cents.

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem with the “middle ground” approach is that eventually it’s bound to start acquiring more power.

        This is just the nature of top down government structures and is pretty much inevitable.

        • bassomitron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          True, that is a valid point. Maybe with direct democracy, hard safeguards, and very limited terms and funding, it could potentially be limited from expanding power. But, I’m not an expert, so I’ll leave hypothetical future social governance planning to those who are more competent.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You think it’s ok for a local federated state to allow slavery?

      Because it took a centralized government to have final control over those states rights.