Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Venice wants independence from Rome

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:11:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
'We will be richest in Europe': Venice wants independence from Rome
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:13:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:11:43 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
'We will be richest in Europe': Venice wants independence from Rome



Venice is not in Rome, they are 2 different provinces. Don't you mean independence from Italy?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:19:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And Scotland wants independence from the United Kingdom.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:19:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:13:30 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:11:43 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
'We will be richest in Europe': Venice wants independence from Rome



Venice is not in Rome, they are 2 different provinces. Don't you mean independence from Italy?

Hell, they are not even in the same region; Rome is in the Lazio region, and Venice is in the Vento region.

Rome is the capital of Italy, which is a unitary state. That does not make Italy Rome, it only makes Rome the most influential province.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:22:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:19:37 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
And Scotland wants independence from the United Kingdom.

Again, the UK is a unitary state, centered in England. Just like Italy is a unitary state centered in Rome.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:23:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:18:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
And Catalonia wants independence from Spain.

surprise, surprise, another unitary state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:40:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I were in Italy Id want to leave too.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:42:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:22:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:19:37 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
And Scotland wants independence from the United Kingdom.

Again, the UK is a unitary state, centered in England. Just like Italy is a unitary state centered in Rome.

England is a unitary state, Scotland is a devolved region. Italy is a unitary state.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:54:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:42:52 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:22:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:19:37 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
And Scotland wants independence from the United Kingdom.

England is a unitary state, Scotland is a devolved region. Italy is a unitary state without devolution. Which causes some major differences.

firstly, I managed to accidentally click review, then accidentally click send instead of edit... -_-

Also, Catalonia wanting independence essentially ended in 2011 among most contemporary political analysers due to most terrorist groups disbanding. Also, I imagine that this is a snipe at unitary government, but on a pragmatic basis Scotland has the same rights as most States in most regions, and other nations with federal governments have separatist movements, e.g. Australia
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:43:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:42:52 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:22:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:19:37 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
And Scotland wants independence from the United Kingdom.

Again, the UK is a unitary state, centered in England. Just like Italy is a unitary state centered in Rome.

England is a unitary state, Scotland is a devolved region. Italy is a unitary state.

The UK is still a de jure unitary state. NH is a Unitary state, but the US is a Federation of Unitary states. Scotland may be it's own nation, but it does not have it's own state. The Sovereignty of the Scottish parliament is dependent on the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That's why there are groups pushing for federalism within Scotland, and other parts of the UK. The US is not a unitary state, the States are not devolved, they are separate entities. Unlike in a devolved state, the central government cannot alter/assume the powers reserved for the member states, because the member states are separate entities.

Scotland is still part of the unitary state, that is the UK.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:47:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:55:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They still want independence... who cares what kind of state it is?

The reason why they want independence is because it's a unitary state. Total Centralization usually results in the oppression of subgroups, in favor of the aggregated community.

Centralization is only good when the population is small with little to no diversity. The more diverse a population, and the larger the population, the more the government needs to be decentralized.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:45:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yugoslavia had a system similar to the one in USA: a federal government and republics with their own authority. That's often better than independent states. Bosnia currently has a very decentralized government, and that is wrecking the country. (Despite having three constituent peoples.)
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 4:50:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:13:30 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:11:43 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
'We will be richest in Europe': Venice wants independence from Rome
Venice is not in Rome, they are 2 different provinces. Don't you mean independence from Italy?

It's metonymy. Rome is used to represent the Italian government; another example is Hollywood for the American film industry or Washington used to represent the US Federal Government.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ConformistDave
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:05:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've heard a lot of anarcho type theories that big globalist governments may end up breaking into smaller decentralized nation states.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:15:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 4:50:22 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:13:30 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:11:43 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
'We will be richest in Europe': Venice wants independence from Rome
Venice is not in Rome, they are 2 different provinces. Don't you mean independence from Italy?

It's metonymy. Rome is used to represent the Italian government; another example is Hollywood for the American film industry or Washington used to represent the US Federal Government.

The US federal government has no geographical jurisdiction other than federal districts (like DC) and US territories (like Guam). DC is used to refer to the federal government because it is the main federal district. It would be pretty stupid to call the federal government "Guam".

A better example would be calling the UK, "England".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 2:45:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
Yugoslavia had a system similar to the one in USA: a federal government and republics with their own authority. That's often better than independent states. Bosnia currently has a very decentralized government, and that is wrecking the country. (Despite having three constituent peoples.)

Bosnia's issue is the complexity of their Federal system. They have a Federation of two states, on of which is a federation, the other is a unitary state that is split into two regions on either side of the sub-federation.

Their war of Independence ended less than 2 decades ago, so they are a relatively new nation.

I don't know how you could claim Yugoslavia was similar to America.

There are 3 types of states;
Unitary
Federated
Confederated

Unitary is the most centralized and Confederated is the most decentralized. Alaska is almost as large as the US, but has a small population, and which means that they can successfully pull off a unitary state. The US is very diverse, with a large population, which means they must have either a federation or a confederation. Allot of the problems in the US stems from the fact that the US has become more centralized as the population grew and became more diverse, when it should have decentralized.

A federation could either be a centralized federation or a decentralized federation. A decentralized federation grants more power to the member states (like the 10th amendment of the US Constitution), and a centralized federation grants more power to the union state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 7:04:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 5:40:00 PM, DanT wrote:
Bosnia's issue is the complexity of their Federal system. They have a Federation of two states, on of which is a federation, the other is a unitary state that is split into two regions on either side of the sub-federation.
That's a decentralized government. The issue in Bosnia is that the federal government has little effect on the government of the Serb entity, and they often operate as if Bosnia were two countries. This is fatal.

Their war of Independence ended less than 2 decades ago, so they are a relatively new nation.
That's no problem. If the government had been more centralized and much more limited, the country would have been far better off. Thanks to America and a stupid decision on the side of Bosnian politicians, the country became split despite being able to be fully united.

I don't know how you could claim Yugoslavia was similar to America.
It was split into several republics, each with their own governments. They had less power than the states in the US, but the concept is similar nonetheless.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:39:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 7:04:41 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:40:00 PM, DanT wrote:
Bosnia's issue is the complexity of their Federal system. They have a Federation of two states, on of which is a federation, the other is a unitary state that is split into two regions on either side of the sub-federation.
That's a decentralized government. The issue in Bosnia is that the federal government has little effect on the government of the Serb entity, and they often operate as if Bosnia were two countries. This is fatal.

No it just means there's more levels in the hierarchy, not that it's more decentralized.
Their war of Independence ended less than 2 decades ago, so they are a relatively new nation.
That's no problem. If the government had been more centralized and much more limited, the country would have been far better off. Thanks to America and a stupid decision on the side of Bosnian politicians, the country became split despite being able to be fully united.

Not true.
I don't know how you could claim Yugoslavia was similar to America.
It was split into several republics, each with their own governments. They had less power than the states in the US, but the concept is similar nonetheless.
So you agree the US is more decentralized.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 3:00:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 12:39:58 AM, DanT wrote:
No it just means there's more levels in the hierarchy, not that it's more decentralized.
Let me introduce you to the definition, since you obviously dance with words all the time. "Decentralization -- the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to intermediate and local governments or quasi-independent government organizations and/or the private sector." http://www1.worldbank.org...

The federal government has limited power because a lot of it is given directly to (1) the other entity, and (2) the cantons. Bosnia is NOT just made up of two entities and governments, but also cantons. (In the federation only.) These have a lot of authoritative power that the federal government does not limit.

Not true.
The entities have created a huge mess in Bosnia, as well as the cantons. The government works best when it has more authority than any other institution, but with very limited power regardless. I don't know how you can say it's not true that the split in Bosnia wrecks the country. It's a completely undeniable fact, seen both from a historical and political perspective.

So you agree the US is more decentralized.
I never said Yugoslavia was entirely similar. The system it had resembled the US one, nothing else.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:06:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 3:00:54 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:39:58 AM, DanT wrote:
No it just means there's more levels in the hierarchy, not that it's more decentralized.
Let me introduce you to the definition, since you obviously dance with words all the time. "Decentralization -- the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to intermediate and local governments or quasi-independent government organizations and/or the private sector." http://www1.worldbank.org...

That definition doesn't really support your argument, it supports mine.
A federation with 3 levels of authority is not necessarily more decentralized than a federation with 2 levels of authority. If the complex Federation holds 60% of the power, the sub-federations holds 20% of the power, and the member states of the sub-federation holds 20% of the power, than it is a mostly centralized federation. If the simple federation holds 20% of the power, and it's member states hold 80% of the power than it is a mostly decentralized federation.

According to oxford dictionary centralize means to "concentrate (control of an activity or organization) under a single authority", and decentralize means to "transfer (authority) from central to local government" or to "move departments of (a large organization) away from a single administrative center to other locations"

Therefore a decentralized government would be locally administered, and a centralized government would be administered by the central authority. Especially since you can't seem to comprehend what you are reading in the dictionary.

I learned about centralization and decentralization in my business management course, so I don't need you to point out the definitions.

The federal government has limited power because a lot of it is given directly to (1) the other entity, and (2) the cantons. Bosnia is NOT just made up of two entities and governments, but also cantons. (In the federation only.) These have a lot of authoritative power that the federal government does not limit.

Again, complexity is the issue, not decentralization. The geographical division of the Republic of Srpska is one harmful factor. That's like California being split into 2 sections, 1 on the east coast and one on the west coast. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is also complicated, because it has 3 levels of authority. If those 3 entities can't work together it causes problems. If each canton was it's own member state, rather than a sub-member state than it would run much more smoothly. The fact one member state is unitary and the other is federated adds to the complexity of the situation.
Not true.
The entities have created a huge mess in Bosnia, as well as the cantons. The government works best when it has more authority than any other institution,

I agree. For example, in the US the states have more power (constitutionally) than the federal government. The size of the population, and level of diversity would determine whether the state should be unitary, federated, or confederated.
but with very limited power regardless. I don't know how you can say it's not true that the split in Bosnia wrecks the country. It's a completely undeniable fact, seen both from a historical and political perspective.

The decentralization didn't harm Bosnia, the complexity of their government's power structure is what hurt them.
So you agree the US is more decentralized.
I never said Yugoslavia was entirely similar. The system it had resembled the US one, nothing else.

Other than being a federation of states, what are the similarities in regards to decentralization? The topic is decentralization, if the US is more decentralized than Yugoslavia, than Yugoslavia is not a good comparison.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:08:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 11:06:38 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/14/2012 3:00:54 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:39:58 AM, DanT wrote:
No it just means there's more levels in the hierarchy, not that it's more decentralized.
Let me introduce you to the definition, since you obviously dance with words all the time. "Decentralization -- the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to intermediate and local governments or quasi-independent government organizations and/or the private sector." http://www1.worldbank.org...

That definition doesn't really support your argument, it supports mine.
A federation with 3 levels of authority is not necessarily more decentralized than a federation with 2 levels of authority. If the complex Federation holds 60% of the power, the sub-federations holds 20% of the power, and the member states of the sub-federation holds 20% of the power, than it is a mostly centralized federation. If the simple federation holds 20% of the power, and it's member states hold 80% of the power than it is a mostly decentralized federation.

According to oxford dictionary centralize means to "concentrate (control of an activity or organization) under a single authority", and decentralize means to "transfer (authority) from central to local government" or to "move departments of (a large organization) away from a single administrative center to other locations"

Therefore a decentralized government would be locally administered, and a centralized government would be administered by the central authority.

I learned about centralization and decentralization in my business management course, so I don't need you to point out the definitions.Especially since you can't seem to comprehend what you are reading in the dictionary.

that line was somehow misplaced
The federal government has limited power because a lot of it is given directly to (1) the other entity, and (2) the cantons. Bosnia is NOT just made up of two entities and governments, but also cantons. (In the federation only.) These have a lot of authoritative power that the federal government does not limit.

Again, complexity is the issue, not decentralization. The geographical division of the Republic of Srpska is one harmful factor. That's like California being split into 2 sections, 1 on the east coast and one on the west coast. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is also complicated, because it has 3 levels of authority. If those 3 entities can't work together it causes problems. If each canton was it's own member state, rather than a sub-member state than it would run much more smoothly. The fact one member state is unitary and the other is federated adds to the complexity of the situation.
Not true.
The entities have created a huge mess in Bosnia, as well as the cantons. The government works best when it has more authority than any other institution,

I agree. For example, in the US the states have more power (constitutionally) than the federal government. The size of the population, and level of diversity would determine whether the state should be unitary, federated, or confederated.
but with very limited power regardless. I don't know how you can say it's not true that the split in Bosnia wrecks the country. It's a completely undeniable fact, seen both from a historical and political perspective.

The decentralization didn't harm Bosnia, the complexity of their government's power structure is what hurt them.
So you agree the US is more decentralized.
I never said Yugoslavia was entirely similar. The system it had resembled the US one, nothing else.

Other than being a federation of states, what are the similarities in regards to decentralization? The topic is decentralization, if the US is more decentralized than Yugoslavia, than Yugoslavia is not a good comparison.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle