I tend to think that a federal organization system is a caution against the dangers of nationalim and chauvinism, during the French Revolution the "Jacobines" (centralists)won against the "Girondines"("federalists").
Maybe I am not right, but I wish federalism or something approaching for my country.
actually i was a little confused about the Hamilton quotes aswell, don't get me wrong i give the guy his props but you make him out be far more the gentlemen than i remember being taught...
Brilliant series of lectures. Madison (with Monroe) wasn't just philosophically aligned with the Jeffersonians, he was a Jeffersonian and much a Republican (not modern).
I love these lectures, though I am a touch dismayed at the number of Hamilton quotes to favor Republicanism in the past lecture (Dem vs. Repub), as his political position was against both Republicanism and Democracy. By him speaking against Democracy he was motivated in favor of strong central government not a Republic.
It also just occurred to me that when I was debating with these dogmatic anarchists that when they were saying "Shane must be too stupid for Anarchy" they must not have noticed that you cited the source for your definitions, even if the modern sources like WIkipedia (the one they used to try and dispute your claims) forget to include this minor, yet important detail.
Thanks for the reference. Basically, I had people from Mises telling me that federalism = centralized form of government:
"So when individual states come together to form a federation, say for the purpose of creating a common defense, is not a centralization of political power? When several Soviet states broke off the Soviet Union, was that not a de-centralization of political power?"
I showed two of them this video. To rebut it, a post of Wikipedia's anti-federalism article was posted.
I even tried (before he made up this strawman) explaing like you did that Federalism = bottom up pyramid of power with individuals having most of it, while nationalism is the opposite. Both are forms of federal government organization. I never said that it wasn't when I talked to him.
The founders were actually quite adamant that there be no central bank, which is the biggest part of our woes. So instead of kicking themselves, they'd probably be saying, "We told you so!"
I'd love to learn more about the constitution and America's political heritage. I just don't trust State-run Academia to give me the honest picture. =)
Im for State's rights and a federal government operating at the absolute minimum power. Thats a lot safer for liberty and youre a lot less likely to oppress minorities with your policies.
Let states and local governments do wacky things just dont let it effect anything out side of that state or local governments reign. Let people vote with their feet as well as their ballot.
It wasn't suppose to be, the U.S.A. was suppose to be a relatively lose confederation of states which are whatever they define themselves so long as they are themselves republics(Government of laws not specific people).
There are countries in this world that clame to be federalist but in practice are nationalist with power concentrated at centre. They are only federalist in name.
I describe Federalism as Bottom up power and Nationalism as Top down Power. Government's just powers are derived from the governed. Ultimately, the people choose to be slaves or to be free, so federalism is the reality, and nationalism is a result of fraud or illusion. Unfortunately with our media controlled by only 5 major corps, nationalism rules our world today. Mr. Franklin understood the importance of diverse media to remain free people. Now we have the open internet! But for how long?
That's right. It is getting more Nationalistic, isn't it? Which do I favor? I'm more of a Nationalist, so I'll call myself a Federalist. ;)
Why a Nationalist? Er, Federalist? Things like the Dover evolution trial. Local governments are always doing really wacky things like that. And Massachusetts's anti-videogame legislation. Yeah, I'm a National-- um, Federalist.
I'll bet you're an Anti-Federalist, eh Shane? ;) I get all the pretty words. lol
I'm an anti-Federalist/federalist, except where it comes to protection of individual rights. So I agree with stuff like the Dover trial, too. But the Federal government should have no authority to set policy in internal state matters.
what about federalism and confederalism, managing controlling own internal affairs, limiting the central governments role to militatry, currency, foreign affairs (although maybe reduced), communication
Thanks Shane! I really enjoy these constitutional lectures.
That said, you've actually explained a small part of the reason why I disagree with you on the EC. With mass communication that was not previously available, the zeitgeist has shifted towards nationalism, and federalism is becoming increasingly less relevant. Therefore, the role of the states is also less relevant, and the role of the public at large more so.
I think there may be some truth to what you say, but I think the biggest reason is that we are so far removed in our experience and in our emotions from the reasons federalism was seen as so necessary, that too many people distrust them.
Shane, your videos are fascinating. I'm based in the UK so none of it applies directly to me but it's fascinating all the same.
mangoswiss 1 year ago
I tend to think that a federal organization system is a caution against the dangers of nationalim and chauvinism, during the French Revolution the "Jacobines" (centralists)won against the "Girondines"("federalists").
Maybe I am not right, but I wish federalism or something approaching for my country.
teddythefrency 1 year ago
Additionally I like how you keep trying to press A. 1 S. 8 on everyone.
The government is controlling most of the US unconstitutionally and people rather sit there and let it go on than do something about it.
DarkAngelGRM 2 years ago 2
Hameltionians LMAO
Sounds like some alien race.
On a serious note I'm really enjoying these.
DarkAngelGRM 2 years ago
actually i was a little confused about the Hamilton quotes aswell, don't get me wrong i give the guy his props but you make him out be far more the gentlemen than i remember being taught...
he was kinda fickle though...
TheAtheistTEEN 2 years ago
Brilliant series of lectures. Madison (with Monroe) wasn't just philosophically aligned with the Jeffersonians, he was a Jeffersonian and much a Republican (not modern).
I love these lectures, though I am a touch dismayed at the number of Hamilton quotes to favor Republicanism in the past lecture (Dem vs. Repub), as his political position was against both Republicanism and Democracy. By him speaking against Democracy he was motivated in favor of strong central government not a Republic.
blankfist 2 years ago
It also just occurred to me that when I was debating with these dogmatic anarchists that when they were saying "Shane must be too stupid for Anarchy" they must not have noticed that you cited the source for your definitions, even if the modern sources like WIkipedia (the one they used to try and dispute your claims) forget to include this minor, yet important detail.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Assuming that talks of Federalism in the context/meaning of this video: Thanks for the reference. :)
No kidding...
Along with the bailouts presided over by Bush... All thanks to President Bushama!
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 2
I'm having trouble finding that name change from "Nationalist to Federalists".
Do you know where I can find this?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
It happened between Gouverneur Morris's comments in the debates (see Madison's notes) and the publication of the Federalist Papers.
shanedk 2 years ago
Thanks for the reference. Basically, I had people from Mises telling me that federalism = centralized form of government:
"So when individual states come together to form a federation, say for the purpose of creating a common defense, is not a centralization of political power? When several Soviet states broke off the Soviet Union, was that not a de-centralization of political power?"
I showed two of them this video. To rebut it, a post of Wikipedia's anti-federalism article was posted.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I even tried (before he made up this strawman) explaing like you did that Federalism = bottom up pyramid of power with individuals having most of it, while nationalism is the opposite. Both are forms of federal government organization. I never said that it wasn't when I talked to him.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I think our constitutional framers may be kicking themselves right now for nationalizing the monetary system.
ryanjurek 2 years ago
The founders were actually quite adamant that there be no central bank, which is the biggest part of our woes. So instead of kicking themselves, they'd probably be saying, "We told you so!"
Hamilton might be kicking himself, though...
shanedk 2 years ago
I'd love to learn more about the constitution and America's political heritage. I just don't trust State-run Academia to give me the honest picture. =)
ryanjurek 2 years ago 3
You and me both.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
@ryanjurek This is not State-run academia. Are you saying this guy works for the government?
proconsulaugustus 5 months ago
compleat...
Philc103 2 years ago
Im for State's rights and a federal government operating at the absolute minimum power. Thats a lot safer for liberty and youre a lot less likely to oppress minorities with your policies.
Let states and local governments do wacky things just dont let it effect anything out side of that state or local governments reign. Let people vote with their feet as well as their ballot.
Monorprise 3 years ago
america is a country which represses minorities
manwitamap 3 years ago
It wasn't suppose to be, the U.S.A. was suppose to be a relatively lose confederation of states which are whatever they define themselves so long as they are themselves republics(Government of laws not specific people).
Monorprise 3 years ago
very true
manwitamap 2 years ago
all this teaching and the world is still in chaos why? this implies my senior seminar theory right.
dan020350 3 years ago
Nationalist V Federalism.
There are countries in this world that clame to be federalist but in practice are nationalist with power concentrated at centre. They are only federalist in name.
23hari 3 years ago
Including ours.
shanedk 3 years ago
yep nailed it.
laplante31 3 years ago
I describe Federalism as Bottom up power and Nationalism as Top down Power. Government's just powers are derived from the governed. Ultimately, the people choose to be slaves or to be free, so federalism is the reality, and nationalism is a result of fraud or illusion. Unfortunately with our media controlled by only 5 major corps, nationalism rules our world today. Mr. Franklin understood the importance of diverse media to remain free people. Now we have the open internet! But for how long?
Nebularnemesis 3 years ago
That's right. It is getting more Nationalistic, isn't it? Which do I favor? I'm more of a Nationalist, so I'll call myself a Federalist. ;)
Why a Nationalist? Er, Federalist? Things like the Dover evolution trial. Local governments are always doing really wacky things like that. And Massachusetts's anti-videogame legislation. Yeah, I'm a National-- um, Federalist.
I'll bet you're an Anti-Federalist, eh Shane? ;) I get all the pretty words. lol
jergsden 3 years ago
I'm an anti-Federalist/federalist, except where it comes to protection of individual rights. So I agree with stuff like the Dover trial, too. But the Federal government should have no authority to set policy in internal state matters.
shanedk 3 years ago
what about federalism and confederalism, managing controlling own internal affairs, limiting the central governments role to militatry, currency, foreign affairs (although maybe reduced), communication
23hari 3 years ago
Great video.
hewhoseeall 3 years ago
I wish I understood anything about politics.
TomSFox 3 years ago
Alexander Hamilton and his linguistic coup. I did read about it. Thanks Shane.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Thanks Shane! I really enjoy these constitutional lectures.
That said, you've actually explained a small part of the reason why I disagree with you on the EC. With mass communication that was not previously available, the zeitgeist has shifted towards nationalism, and federalism is becoming increasingly less relevant. Therefore, the role of the states is also less relevant, and the role of the public at large more so.
civisromae 3 years ago
I think there may be some truth to what you say, but I think the biggest reason is that we are so far removed in our experience and in our emotions from the reasons federalism was seen as so necessary, that too many people distrust them.
shanedk 3 years ago