FEDERALIsM AND INDIVIDUAL SovEREIGN1~

I have been both surprised and disturbed by two sources of opposi-tion to efforts to move toward federalist structures in which political authority is divided between levels of government. I refer, first, to the opposition in Europe, mainly in Britain, to movements toward effective European federalism. Second, I refer to the successful agita-tion that blocked the proposed Conference of the States in the United States in 1995. What is disturbing about these sources of opposition to the very idea of political federalism is that both emerge from groups that are identified variously to be right-wing, conservative, or libertarian. We should not, of course, be surprised at all by socialist-inspired opposition to the federalist idea and ideal. Socialists have been and remain forthright in their desire to extend the range of politicized control over the lives and liberties of persons. But why should conservatives, classical liberals, or libertarians join socialists in opposing structural reforms that embody federalist principles? I suggest that a coherent classical liberal must be generally support-ive of federal political structures, because any division of authority must, necessarily, tend to limit the potential range ofpolitical coercion. Those persons and groups who oppose the devolution of authority from the central government to the states in the United States and those who oppose any limits on the separate single nation-states in modern Europe are, by these commitments, placing other values above those of the liberty and sovereignty of individuals. The incoherence in values that such anti-federalist ambivalence reflects is not widely acknowledged. The relationships between feder-alist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must b