Amerika

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think we are missing something wrt Amerika and that is that we all love to bash some dirty foreigner, and right now we are only allowed to get up on chairs and bash Americans. I've said it before. We'd go purple at the gills if we sat about debating how ignorant and arrogant Nigerians are. But yankees... sure go right ahead.

Do you think so? I'm struck listening to comedy shows how much more aggressive and overt the anti-French and anti-German jokes are. People are always at pains to say 'I like Americans, it's just the policies of the Bush administration I don't like', yet no-one thinks twice about saying 'I hate the French'.

Anyway, on the more interesting topic of democracy, I fear your direct involvement may be missing something, Reveilled. Namely that large systems have interconnecting parts. You can't run a country using pick-and-mix strategies with anything like the effectiveness of joined up policies.

Britain desperately needs a written constitution and a bill of rights. Support Charter 88 now.

 

Of course, there's always the European Constitution. :ph34r:

Anything bad about Amerika is a gift from its European founders.  Anything good is a gift from those who realized that Europe is the cause of many of the world's sins.

If someone made the reverse comment, 'Anything good about America is a gift from its European founders', he would be accused of anti-Americanism. Why aren't we discussing anti-Europeanism in America - arguably that's just as big a problem? How many American commentators have turned the fact that many European countries opposed the Iraq war into an excuse to insult and denigrate the people of an entire continent?

[Volourn]

"someone made the reverse comment, 'Anything good about America is a gift from its European founders', he would be accused of anti-Americanism. Why aren't we discussing anti-Europeanism in America - arguably that's just as big a problem? How many American commentators have turned the fact that many European countries opposed the Iraq war into an excuse to insult and denigrate the people of an entire continent?"

 

1. I'm not Amerikan.

 

2. There's lots of good thing about Europe. Slavery, racial hatred, and conquering other nations and enslaving its people are not three of them.

 

3.My family - like almost every family in NA - hails from other continents. Usually either Europe or Asia. In fact, my family is 90% French.

 

4. It's not my fault the arrogance of Europe thinks their poo doesn't smell as they fling it across the ocean towards my AWESOME southern neighbours.

 

5. If Europeans cna't handle the heat don't start the fire.

[Lucius]

Why? I'm only typing the truth. Let's look at Amerika's sins:

 

Slavery - a gift from Europe.

 

Attacking & conquering other countries - a giftf rom Europe, and even then nowhere near as horribly unmericful as European warmongers.

 

Racial Hatred - a gift from Europe. Afterall, it was the Europeans who decided to slaughter the Natives wholesale. Amerikans (and Kanadians) have gone a long ways to work with the Natives for a better live for everyone.

 

The list goes on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but in case you've been living in a sea shell, you'd know that European nations have moved on, they are now a lot more peaceful (some even pacifists), and many of these nations also offers better living conditions for the average citizen than the US due to social democracies.

[Volourn]

"Yes, but in case you've been living in a sea shell, you'd know that European nations have moved on, they are now a lot more peaceful (some even pacifists), and many of these nations also offers better living conditions for the average citizen than the US due to social democracies."

 

No. France can't even afford proper air conditioners. And, no country is pacifistic. None. Zilch. Zero.

[213374U]

No. France can't even afford proper air conditioners. And, no country is pacifistic. None. Zilch. Zero.

It's hard to be belligerant when you don't even have an army... "

[Walsingham]

Er... I don't want to egt on a high horse, because the British Empire cheerfully participated in slavery. But it has been a part of human 'civilisation' around the world. I might also point out that it was Britain that not only banned slavery, but authorised the use of HM ships to seize and repatriate slaves being traded by others. Long before the US outlawed slavery.

 

Yeah, we Euros can be weenies, but you're not helping by spouting absolute rot.

 

Steve: We have no constitution yet are now, and have been for some time one of the more free democracies in the world. I can list you any number of constituted democracies that have succumbed to degrees of dictatorship. A constitution is no substitute for a vigorous and lively sense of our rights. And if we have that, then we need no constitution.

 

EDIT: 233374U, I thought you claimed to be associated with the US Army. Yet you discount the French armed forces?

[213374U]

EDIT: 233374U, I thought you claimed to be associated with the US Army. Yet you discount the French armed forces?

I'm Spanish, so no. I'm not associated in any way with the US military. And I wasn't discounting the French military. It was a general comment about some European countries that have disbanded their armies, not France specifically.

[metadigital]

...

If Commisar is concerned that ignorant flag waving yahoos give a bad impression of his country he may wnat to looka round and realise we've all got 'em. in fact in the Uk they've almost been adopted as the uniform of the twit. I personally object to this, and think all use of the flag should have to be sanctioned by the queen since people are essentially claiming the endorsement of the state when they have no right to.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The country is as much the individuals that make it up, as it is any authority in it. I don't think you'll be very successful trying to limit the ability of people to declaim their belonging to a group, no matter how hard you try. (And I don't relly want to live in that society, anyway.)

[Walsingham]

EDIT: 233374U, I thought you claimed to be associated with the US Army. Yet you discount the French armed forces?

I'm Spanish, so no. I'm not associated in any way with the US military. And I wasn't discounting the French military. It was a general comment about some European countries that have disbanded their armies, not France specifically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough! We in Europe have long been depending on US military backing to guarantee our sovreignty through NATO. Something we'd do well to remember the next time we accuse the US of trying to loom large over us.

 

I was going to stad up for the French because they take their armed forces much more seriously than us Brits, and arguably with more success. They're certainly on a par.

[Lucius]

"Yes, but in case you've been living in a sea shell, you'd know that European nations have moved on, they are now a lot more peaceful (some even pacifists), and many of these nations also offers better living conditions for the average citizen than the US due to social democracies."

 

No. France can't even afford proper air conditioners. And, no country is pacifistic. None. Zilch. Zero.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again you know nothing of what you speak, look at nations like Switzerland and Sweden, these nations have not been involved in wars for centuries. Germany wants no part of wars either, they've had their fair share.

As for air conditioning, it's funny that a Canadian should feel the need to complain about that, but as far as actual living conditions, you might want to read up on that.

[SteveThaiBinh]

We have no constitution yet are now, and have been for some time one of the more free democracies in the world. I can list you any number of constituted democracies that have succumbed to degrees of dictatorship. A constitution is no substitute for a vigorous and lively sense of our rights. And if we have that, then we need no constitution.

We have survived reasonably well without a written constitution, but we need one precisely now because our rights, and our sense of them, are under threat. We could argue elsewhere about the rights and wrongs of any individual measure the government is introducing to combat terrorism - the problem is that the measures are incoherent, badly written and rushed through without proper debate.

 

I can list as many dictatorships for whom the approval of a written constitution has been the crowning moment in a process of transition to democracy. Consitutions don't solve everything, but they help, and our democracy is in trouble and needs help.

 

1. I'm not Amerikan.

I know, I can read your location fine. It wasn't meant to be taken personally.

2. There's lots of good thing about Europe. Slavery, racial hatred, and conquering other nations and enslaving its people are not three of them.

There are many good things about America, too. Both sides of this debate have people who are slinging mud without thinking and people who recognise the virtues and vices of both sides.

4. It's not my fault the arrogance of Europe thinks their poo doesn't smell as they fling it across the ocean towards my AWESOME southern neighbours.

[Cantousent]

Wow, this thread has survived and continues to thrive. Great job, all.

 

Of all the great posts, and there have been several, I only have time to make a quick comment while I finish reading the threads.

 

I disagree with pacifism. I like the idea of a world without violence, and I'm rather a wimp at heart, but there comes a time to make a decision. Whether it's on the playground, street, or battlefield, there may be a time where you have to decide to fight or not. Sometimes, you've got to fight.

 

That probably makes me sound like a warmonger, but I'm not. I hate violence. Since I've been witness to and involved in it, I probably hate it more than some folks that hate it on principle. Still, while I fear the day that I might be forced to fight, there are some thing that are worth it.

 

I wish the entire world were pacifistic. I wish humans weren't violent by nature. ...But we are. It is my fervent hope that I can live in my little corner of the world without violence or mayhem. I've had folks shooting at me. The next time they might be a better shot. I just can't get away from the fact that there are some things worth taking the risk.

[Lucius]

Eldar Eldar Eldar, the reason I even mention pacifism is due to Volos absurd (as usual) claim that made Europe sound like what it was 60-100 years ago. It wasn't an attempt to glorify it.

[Ellester]

If someone made the reverse comment, 'Anything good about America is a gift from its European founders', he would be accused of anti-Americanism.  Why aren't we discussing anti-Europeanism in America - arguably that's just as big a problem?  How many American commentators have turned the fact that many European countries opposed the Iraq war into an excuse to insult and denigrate the people of an entire continent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there was just hatred towards France. Germany we understood the reason why they wanted to be non-aggressive because of their past. And Russia, not sure why, but no one was really too angry at them either. A little anger I'll admit, but not a lot. But France everyone hated. Probably has to do with the US liberating France in the World Wars and then they piss on and deface our cemeteries of dead US soldiers who fought for France. Unfortunetly, I still think most people in the US still do not like the French. Anyway, it was never a European thing, nor did anyone from the US blame the entire continent. Heck Poland, Britain, Spain, etc

[Walsingham]

Steve, when the anti-democrats get down to business they always side-step written constitutions. Constitutions are the static 'maginot line' of political conflict; because they can be planned around, and out-manoeuvred. The only credible defence against anti-democrats is a people who come out in support of representatives seized of the spirit of democratic freedom.

 

I happen to agree our rights have already been abrogated. In fact the only written part of the British constitutional structure - the Magna Carta - has been grossly abrogated by long-term detention without trial. Both written and unwritten have been undermined. And I don't believe writing the whole thing out would have made a difference.

 

Another case in point - the United States, which has about the most robust constitution out there, and the deepest foundations, has had its constitution ignored many times over.

 

In fact, I'd go even farther and say constitutions offer merely a dangerous and seductive illusion of safety.

[Lucius]

If someone made the reverse comment, 'Anything good about America is a gift from its European founders', he would be accused of anti-Americanism.  Why aren't we discussing anti-Europeanism in America - arguably that's just as big a problem?  How many American commentators have turned the fact that many European countries opposed the Iraq war into an excuse to insult and denigrate the people of an entire continent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there was just hatred towards France. Germany we understood the reason why they wanted to be non-aggressive because of their past. And Russia, not sure why, but no one was really too angry at them either. A little anger I'll admit, but not a lot. But France everyone hated. Probably has to do with the US liberating France in the World Wars and then they piss on and deface our cemeteries of dead US soldiers who fought for France. Unfortunetly, I still think most people in the US still do not like the French. Anyway, it was never a European thing, nor did anyone from the US blame the entire continent. Heck Poland, Britain, Spain, etc

[FFSOMGLOLOLOL]

Wow, this thread has survived and continues to thrive.  Great job, all.

 

Of all the great posts, and there have been several, I only have time to make a quick comment while I finish reading the threads.

 

I disagree with pacifism.  I like the idea of a world without violence, and I'm rather a wimp at heart, but there comes a time to make a decision.  Whether it's on the playground, street, or battlefield, there may be a time where you have to decide to fight or not.  Sometimes, you've got to fight.

 

That probably makes me sound like a warmonger, but I'm not.  I hate violence.  Since I've been witness to and involved in it, I probably hate it more than some folks that hate it on principle.  Still, while I fear the day that I might be forced to fight, there are some thing that are worth it.

 

I wish the entire world were pacifistic.  I wish humans weren't violent by nature.  ...But we are.  It is my fervent hope that I can live in my little corner of the world without violence or mayhem.  I've had folks shooting at me.  The next time they might be a better shot.  I just can't get away from the fact that there are some things worth taking the risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great post chief.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I disagree with pacifism. (...)  Sometimes, you've got to fight.

It may surprise some, but I actually agree with you. Willingness to fight does not make anyone a warmonger. Warmongers seek the fight and enjoy it.

I wish humans weren't violent by nature.  ...But we are.

Violent is one of the things that we are. Peaceful is another. We are complex, and different aspects of our nature are constantly in tension. There are usually things you can do to reduce the likelihood of violence. If we accept that violence is inevitable, then we are letting the people who create it off the hook.

[metadigital]

So?  How the government runs the economy will affect everyone, no matter how much they know about economics, so the people should always be the ones who decide how the economy is run.[1] In any case, one would hope that one would elect an Economist to be the Finance Minister, or at least someone who could learn about economics in a hurry.  As to Manifestos, well, that may be how they are supposed to work, but it isn't how they really work.  You're always left voting for something you are vehemently opposed to.[2] Yes, a pick 'n' mix government wouldn't run as efficiently, but helping the government to run more smoothly would be the job of the Chief Execitive of the Government, who would report back to the people just what is causing problems in the government. 

 

And an inefficient goverment might not be such a bad thing, anyway.  If the government just stopped doing anything every once in a while, we might be a bit better off.  I mean, things never seem to get worse when parliament isn't in session, do they? [3]

 

I don't think that things are really as interconnected as people like to think, anyway.  Obviously, if the executive is full of right-wing privatisers while the lower legislature is a socialist dominated-one, then obviously that government is going to collapse, but I don't think that's very likely to happen.  What I see this is being is a lower chamber that effectively runs the government, an upper chamber acting as a check against it on behalf of the individual voters, with the Executive presenting variations on a theme.  If the electorate elects a social democratic lower chamber, then the chances are that they are going to elect primarily social democrats to the executive positions.  But what the electorate can then do is fine tune the lower chamber's party manifesto to suit their needs.  So if the social democratic party promises to increase funding to education while keeping funding for the NHS about the same, the electorate could elect someone in favour of increasing NHS funding to the position of Health Minister, telling the lower chamber that they want to increase health funding, and that they should structure the budget accordingly.[4]

 

Manifestos won't go away under this system, they'll just have their individual parts subject to small changes by the electorate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. This goes back to my previous question, which was bourne out in a recent council election in the midlands. The electorate was asked, in a referrendum, if they would approve of tax increases specifically to be put into education. The vote was the highest turnout for any referrendum (ever in history, probably ), and they all said NO!

 

The point is that, although it is feasible to get broad directional input from the electorate, they certainly shouldn't have micro-management powers for the government, let alone something like the economy. (I suspect the economy has become such a touchstone recently, because of the high taxes, high waste and high demands; people just want to make sure that the money they give is being used efficiently, that the best use is made of it, and that there are efforts to maximise the efficiency even more over time. No-one really wants to talk about macro-economic policy: they just don't want to pay high taxes for some idiot to waste on something that nobody wanted.)

 

After all, what you seem to be proposing is a micro-managed totalitarianism of the majority!

 

2. What we need is some method to let people get on with what they do best (governing for bureaucrats, decision making for politicians) and IMPROVE THE SYSTEM they work in. Make it more transparent (how many quangos are there in Britain?) and make the participants more accountable. And attract the best people for the job.

 

3. I don't like this argument. (I know you were joking, but there is a serious point underneath, about limiting totalitarian power of institutions.) I think if the organisations are auditable and accountable, then they should have MORE power.

 

4. The three pillar government construction is good because:

• there is one body (legislature) that just MAKES the laws,
  
• there is one body (executive) that APPROVES the laws, and can edit / reject laws tht are unfair,
  
• there is one body (judiciary) that INTERPRETS the approved laws, and can apply them in a fair way, to be balanced by
  
• the new laws that are created (by the legislature, and tempered by the executive) to assist this process further, if the government wants to change thefocus or direction of the interpretation of the laws; and
  
• there are three bodies, which is the minimum for a democratic decision.
  

I think this long process is mandatory to preserve the underlying freedoms of the society, whereby the assumption is that we can all do whatever we like, as long as we don't hurt anyone else (and then cue the lawyers to interpret "hurt").

 

Perhaps the election of these bodies needs attention (surely the judiciary needs to be made more transparent: both their appointments and their mistakes are steeped in secrecy.)

 

You can make a more efficient government: fascism is very efficient. You can make attempts to redistribute wealth, power and privilege: communism, but it isn't very efficient. (Net produce of grain fell under communism, as compared to the Tzarist serf-produced crops.)

 

Our society starts with libertarian ideals and works out from there. (China doesn't, for example: the State is more important than the individual there.)

 

I like some of your ideas, but I think your focus is in the wrong area. We need to make the system so good that it doesn't allow anyone to cheat. Then have three bodies sharing a rock-paper-scissors power relationship over each other and the society, and free ingres and egres into these bodies based on merit, and we have a winner.

 

Now, if only we could get that to work in practice ...

[Ellester]

Canadas military is only a tad larger than the Danish, despite them being six times our population, I know this due to the Canada-Denmark "border" disbute in the artic, in which someone compared military strenght between the two. So no, they don't have a large military. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough, I

[Lucius]

Canadas military is only a tad larger than the Danish, despite them being six times our population, I know this due to the Canada-Denmark "border" disbute in the artic, in which someone compared military strenght between the two. So no, they don't have a large military. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough, I

[Walsingham]

I don't want to bad-mouth the Danes, but the Canadian military produce not only extremely competent warfighters, but their record in peace-keeping is also superb. So I'd suggest tehir military packs a higher punch.

 

Meta: You mention fascism being efficient and effective. My understanding was that it was actually not terribly efficient or effective. The Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese all made a dreadful hash of things. A German old-timer once told me it was also nonsense about the trains running on time. They were still late under the Nazis. This may not be true, but it amuses me.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think there was just hatred towards France. Germany we understood the reason why they wanted to be non-aggressive because of their past. And Russia, not sure why, but no one was really too angry at them either. A little anger I'll admit, but not a lot. But France everyone hated. Probably has to do with the US liberating France in the World Wars and then they piss on and deface our cemeteries of dead US soldiers who fought for France. Unfortunetly, I still think most people in the US still do not like the French. Anyway, it was never a European thing, nor did anyone from the US blame the entire continent. Heck Poland, Britain, Spain, etc

[metadigital]

I don't want to bad-mouth the Danes, but the Canadian military produce not only extremely competent warfighters, but their record in peace-keeping is also superb. So I'd suggest tehir military packs a higher punch.

 

Meta: You mention fascism being efficient and effective. My understanding was that it was actually not terribly efficient or effective. The Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese all made a dreadful hash of things. A German old-timer once told me it was also nonsense about the trains running on time. They were still late under the Nazis.  This may not be true, but it amuses me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it is certainly the most likely to be efficient, especially utilising the current Info Tech available. I guess every system is susceptible to corruption.

 

(I think that reference to the trains running on time, which you correctly read between my lines, was actually a reference to the German World War strategy of shipping their troops about on their shiny new rail system, built with that purpose in mind. Certainly made a big difference in WW1, and I think WW2, as well.)

[SteveThaiBinh]

Well, it is certainly the most likely to be efficient, especially utilising the current Info Tech available. I guess every system is suseptible to corruption.

Dictatorships of all kinds are usually more efficient, in the short term. Franco and Pinochet had tremendous economic success. They fall down in the longer term because they aren't able to adapt or release tensions within society the way democracies with elections can.