First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc.

Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop...

And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear

I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government

This seems to a terminology / definitional problem we have, something I am trying to get beyond because like I said from the beginning a "union" in the US is not the same as a "Union" in the UK/EU, that is my point from the start

So when we have these international discussions and people from the UK/EU are aghast that anyone in the US would be opposed to Unions they are talking from what they understand from the Unions on their nation, which IS NOT what we have here in the US.

My attempts to convey the differences has failed with terminology issues and technicality gotchas largely due to a massive political bias in favor of unionization so any time anyone tries to convey a negative about a union is gets drowned out either by people not in the US that have no idea what a US Labor union really is like, or by people in the US that only understand the concept of a US Labor union but not the reality of it

Wow, opposing mob rule is "Disgusting." now

>real democracy

That is why I oppose "real democracy", I prefer a Constitutional Republic with powers widely distributed in a federalist model.

>if the majority goes psychotic nothing will help us

No, that is the exact thing a Constitution, Distributed Power, and Checks / Balances is designed to counter, to ensure the majority can not simply force their will over the minority.... and the smallest minority is the individual

What is actually disgusting is your rejection of natural individual rights in favor of majoritarian rule

Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program that the member states then have to fund with domestic taxes?

Generally speaking for the federal government, if they want to pass a program or requirement the federal government must also pay for that, for example the federal government could not require the state governments to put in bike lane on all road with out giving the states the money to do it.

That is why the Federal government is so large..

Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national defense, something the EU nations never do

They absolutely can and do. State government are under no compulsion to enforce federal law, nor do they have aid federal law enforcement. Sure the FBI can still arrest you but as a practical matter the federal government relies heavily on local law enforcement for support in their efforts and task forces.

The state governments can neuter federal enforcement by refusing to supply personnel and equipment or other support to federal law enforcement task forces and actions

Conversely the federal government also supplies (i.e bribes) local law enforcement with money, and gear to grease the wheel for that support.

The supremacy you are referring to with the Supreme court is about when Federal Law and State law conflict then Federal law would win over State Law. Personally I think this is bad but until there is a constitutional amendment to change it that is the reality. However that supremacy does not mean state law enforcement or governments must enforce federal law, only that they can not overrule/supplant a federal law with their own

>> A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition

Well according to the Current Draft our federal government did not have the power either. It is funny you mention trade, you do know that ACA is a trade regulation the constitutional power that allows ACA to exist is the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution, that was MASSIVELY expanded in power by the court in the abomination / disgraceful 1942 Wickard decision which effectively made every activity a commercial interstate activity that can be regulated by the federal government.

Personally if the court is in the mood for over turning precedent someone should take a case to them aimed squarely at over turning that abomination, putting the federal government back into their proper scope and place

that alone is a big WIN for PS imo

Also I find Powershell to be more enjoyable to use (I like the verbosity, the help system, and passing objects instead of text streams.. I know I am crazy), and easier to train new Admins on PS than bash or python.

that is the beauty of local control, if School Board in another state does something you do not like, good news it does not effect you. If the Dept of Labor does something nationally you do not like well there is nothing you can do about it as your power is diluted due to national level, and you can not move...

I use both Authy and Bitwarden

Buy a custom domain, and use that for your important email this way you can never be locked out of your email....

If I was in the EU I would support sovereignty of the nation states,and oppose efforts to make the EU Government all powerful

the move to make governments larger and all encompassing including calls for a 1 world government, are IMO a threat to individual freedom and will not have the desired effect you seem to think

The question I would then have is do the employee of Nationwide have to join the Nationwide Union or could they if they wanted choose a different union, or no union at all. Practicality or downsides aside is it legal for them do make that choice.

Union Shops, where by in Non-Right to work States the union negotiates with the Employer (private not public) that all employees of the group will be represented by the employer the employer can still be required to force employees to join the union with in 30 days, normally this is an automatic process for "union shops"

Again this varies by state, and Right to work states can not have such a provision, however Janus decision DID NOT outlaw union shops.

Also none of your comment seems to refute or attempt to explain the differences between UK or other EU unions and US unions, which is the context we are discussion, gotcha technicalities do not go to this over all conversation which is the vast differences between how unions operate in the US vs other nations.

Right to Work states are a counter to Union Shops, which there is active efforts to do away with Right to Work laws

[1]Closed Shop A company that only employs union members and requires them to secure and maintain union membership as a condition of employment.

[2]Union Shop A company that doesn’t require employees to join a union in order to be hired, but they must join within 30 days of employment.

In the US, typically, the is a 1:1 union, enterprise relationship. If you want to work at company X, you must join Union Y with no options to join a competing union, no options to opt out, and no regress if you do not feel the union is representing your interests.

referred to as "closed shops" there is large amounts of corruption, favoritism, and other negative quality to many US Unions.

I have no respect or trust of "main stream" media so the reporting on the issue has me questioning what the reality on the ground really is, and the reality from people experienced in working at other warehouses.

Happy employees do not vote to unionize. The "hot take" here is that Amazon management wanted to the managers to some how play hardball with the union, in my experience with issues like this normally management does the opposite and trys to "kill it with kindness" and attempts to stave off unionization by trying to resolve the complaints of the work force while balancing the needs of the company.

Sometimes the workforce is just too far apart from where management wants to be then I union is likely to form, but my guess is upper management at amazon feels these middle managers did not do enough to address the workforce's concerns.

"Unions" in the US are very very very very very different legally than "unions" in EU and other nations, personally i think they are so different we need a different term for them...

The closest we have to a EU style union would be something like SAG, or the other entertainment unions, which often referr to themselves as Guilds.

The employment unions like being formed at amazon are different animals all together which have ALOT of downside for even the workers in them.

ATT is the worst company, even worse than comcast. Doing something to just be hostile to their customer base is in their DNA, they are used to their monopoly status from the say of Bell Telephone, that company will never change and will never be customer friendly