d4rk wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by syster in Good news or bad news: Raddle already supports federation by syster
As I understand it, Federalism combines a general, the central or "federal" government with regional governments in a single political system. Its distinctive feature is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which powers are divided between two levels of government of equal status[1]. Simple concept really.
You see Federalism is a process, it has a fixed result. Its Cartesian just because you can reduce things to a process doesn't mean that process can have different results, more often than not, it leads to the same problems.
syster OP wrote
As I understand it, Federalism combines a general, the central or "federal" government with regional governments in a single political system
Ok. But how does your reply relate to my post then? I've been speaking about an egalitarian federation model, not an hierarchical federation model. It seems you disagree on semantics, without engaging on the presented argumentation.
In other words: you're completly offtopic, but use this as an argument why I'm wrong
d4rk wrote
- Someone that creates and maintains the software.(Central government)
- the software and it's hardware infrastructure that is required to let it run (single political system)
- a user/friend/comunity that interacts with the software to reach each other (relationship of parity)
need I say more.
syster OP wrote
Someone that creates and maintains the software.(Central government)
As already said, it is not an requirement to have one software, you can have many, developed by many different individuals/communities/collectives.
It's like arguing that dialects/languages need an central organization to evolve. Obvious, it can help to promote one specific dialect over the other, but a central government is not an requirement.
need I say more?
d4rk wrote
Having different individuals/communities/collectives is not the point where I equate it to the textbook definition of Federalism as I have said above, but it is that S o m e o n e in this case a single individual/community/collective creates and maintains that of the others thus creating a hegemony.
syster OP wrote
where I equate it to the textbook definition of Federalism
right. But I've not been speaking about that kind.
but it is that S o m e o n e in this case a single individual/community/collective creates and maintains that of the others thus creating a hegemony.
Do you differentiate hegemony and culture? Why do you speak english, instead of a language you invented yourself?
d4rk wrote
Hegemony within the textbook definition as earlier, is when the use of one aspect of a culture is being standardized as a mode of communication or expression. For example, the policy before in our country against the use of mother tongue.
Culture would be when we agree upon using a certain language or tradition whether implicitly or explicitly. In my case, I am a polyglot, I'm more than happy to use other languages even my own in discussions.But we agreed with english because its mutually intelligible
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments