|
On April 19 2013 06:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:02 Djzapz wrote:We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples That's funny for so many reasons  ... but "equality for all peoples" is just hilarious. It BECAME that... but it wasn't founded on it, not in practice at least. That said, I don't know why so many people consider themselves "monarchist"... It confuses me a great deal. Please, if you're going to be snarky about things, at least acknowledge the context and everything that happened, not just the part of what happened that you want to be snarky about.
After everything you said I still maintain that the US was not actually founded on principles of equality. I do acknowledge what you said, but yeah, it doesn't change the facts. Many of the things that make the US so "great" cannot be attributed to the origins, but are the results of changes that were made. It's no less honorable, but still not about the origins.
Edit: The poll results suggest to me that people are confused with the terminology.
|
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
|
On April 19 2013 07:12 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:59 Chocolate wrote:
illegal drugs which cause heavier crime what are you talking about?
In the 1920's with prohibition and now with the "war on drugs" there is a large part of the underground world that is funded by illegal drugs. Illegal drugs encourage gangs which cause violence over turf or the threat of a deal gone wrong. Illegal ownership of guns, illegal conduct with money, and general law-breaking thugs are all products of a lucrative drug trade.
The thread is titled Republicanism and Monarchism. Not R and M and Technocracy or whatever other form of government we want to talk about.
You're right, I'll stop bringing it up.
|
On April 19 2013 07:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Djzapz wrote:We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples That's funny for so many reasons ... but "equality for all peoples" is just hilarious. It BECAME that... but it wasn't founded on it, not in practice at least. That said, I don't know why so many people consider themselves "monarchist"... It confuses me a great deal. Please, if you're going to be snarky about things, at least acknowledge the context and everything that happened, not just the part of what happened that you want to be snarky about. After everything you said I still maintain that the US was not actually founded on principles of equality. I do acknowledge what you said, but yeah, it doesn't change the facts. Many of the things that make the US so great cannot be attributed to the origins.
I'm saying it was, and the tension between those ideals and the way the country was living up to them became a great source of debate and conflict starting only a generation after the Constitution was written. And that there was one of the most destructive civil wars in a "European" (USA was considered basically a European country over the sea, a bit rough around the edges, but obviously civilized back then) country in the modern era over it, and the side fighting for those founding ideals won. Abraham Lincoln was a great one for quoting the Declaration of Independence as being more than simply a statement of ideals and a document of political revolution.
As part of his argument for secession being illegal, he argued that the Union had been created by the Articles of Association in 1774, declared itself independent in 1776, drew its members closer together with the articles of Confederation, and finally declared their mission and union to be perpetual in the Constitution with it's phrase about "a more perfect union." By this logic, the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal was given not just a moral force, but also Constitutional imperative. I agree with that logic. Millions in the North did, before, during, and after the war. Lincoln's politics were greatly inspired by one of the greatest statesmen, patriots, citizens, and men America has ever had, and who is shamefully not given more attention in our history education, Daniel Webster:
United States Senator Daniel Webster, who should be on a coin or a bill or at least have a big ass monument in Washington, speaking in the Senate, January 26, 1830:
I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might he hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs in this government whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil.
God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart-Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!
So as you can see, talking about slavery in the simplistic way you guys are doing it is inaccurate and not helping anything. America did and does have an aristocracy. Just not the kind you think.
|
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote:
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
|
On April 19 2013 07:48 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote:
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-) Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
|
I don't really support monarchy. However, on the list of potential improvements to government, getting rid of the royal family is fairly unimportant. Like drone said earlier, monarchy has worked here so far because the people who have been monarchs have been charismatic, hard-working people. My impression is that the country as a whole is in favour of keeping a royal family, and the general concensus amongst the elected officials is the same.
For me, it seems unreasonable to have children born with the burden of becoming the future monarch, even if they choose to deny their claim to the throne. The public attention and pressures it brings with it seem too much for a child to bear. Regular people get to live regular lives, but the royal family will always in one way or another be trapped to live the life we force them to live. Eventually we're going to get monarchs who are not able to perform up to standard. That time might be the better time to have the national debate about republicanism. That is, unless the royal family as a whole abdicates and forces it upon us before then.
|
On April 19 2013 07:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:
As part of his argument for secession being illegal, he argued that the Union had been created by the Articles of Association in 1774, declared itself independent in 1776, drew its members closer together with the articles of Confederation, and finally declared their mission and union to be perpetual in the Constitution with it's phrase about "a more perfect union." By this logic, the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal was given not just a moral force, but also Constitutional imperative. I agree with that logic. Millions in the North did, before, during, and after the war. Lincoln's politics were greatly inspired by one of the greatest statesmen, patriots, citizens, and men America has ever had, and who is shamefully not given more attention in our history education, Daniel Webster:
I fail to see how your interpretation of it changes the practical way of doing things in the decades following the declaration of independence.
|
On April 19 2013 07:48 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote:
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-) Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Individuals in the US have more freedom in terms of literally their freedom to do things. Sweden has more stability, which is a kind of freedom. Freedom usually involves a fair bit of instability as your choices have more of an impact on your own life. Many Americans still prefer 'more' freedom even if that means a lower standard of living overall. Somalians have the greatest freedom in the world by that definition - their is literally no functioning government and therefore no pesky regulations.
The US is supposed to be meritocracy, but today has one of the lowest potential for people of one class to move to another class, in the entire developed world. This has been documented and studied by a group who tracks the % of people who move from one income quintile to another. In other words what are you chances from moving from the bottom 20% to the 20-40% range, etc. The US has the absolutely lowest mobility score of all the countries tested.
The reasons for that can be widely debated. However, it's clear at least to me however, that the degree which cost me about $60,000 to achieve here in Canada would cost probably 3 - 4 times that much down south. That fact alone may have meant I would not move up.
Edit: And as a Canadian I don't care about the queen either. She costs us nothing but a few deluxe hotel rooms for whatever family member is visiting every few years, and at a far lower cost that many other visiting diplomats.
|
On April 19 2013 07:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:48 Prog455 wrote:On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote:
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-) Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD. This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
There is next to no speech restrictions in Denmark. In terms to EU i can't argue against that. It is true that we have regulations such as smoking restrictions and such, but on the flip side things such as abortion and gay marrige is much more accessible. Also we don't have a legal system that is incomprehensible for your average joe.
|
On April 19 2013 07:56 stenole wrote:
Eventually we're going to get monarchs who are not able to perform up to standard. That time might be the better time to have the national debate about republicanism. That is, unless the royal family as a whole abdicates and forces it upon us before then.
Look no further than your friendly, if somewhat rustic neighbour to the east if you wish to see the exact situation you described. It's like a having a barely trained chimp in your house, think the drunk ape with Crusty the Clown.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:
In Canada throughout 18th and 19th centuries there were strong movements to have Upper and Lower Canada join the United States and republican states. A series of revolutions and civil wars were even fought by the Canadian people (and sympathetic Americans) to overthrow the British imperialists in the Canadian colonies. Yet after the British imperialists violently put down the revolution and executed political dissidents, the movement seemed to slow down a bit. Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?
Well you didn't exactly endear yourself to us between your Manifest Destiny and your raiding Fenians in US military uniforms...
Also revolutions and civil wars is a little dramatic. French-Canada had a full on rebellion certainly. But William Lyon Mackenzie's Yonge Street march was an upgraded barroom brawl. Alright. I'm down-playing it a bit, but it really was pretty small and got snuffed out pretty quick.
The thing is after the US's revolution, Britain was rather accommodating to its colonies and so there never was a reason to throw it off entirely. Britain was as likely to push Canada into having more autonomy as Canada was to demand it. The Royal Navy was still on the west coast until WWI and it took us until the 80's to patriate our constitution. And so as it stands now, why bother throwing off the 'yoke' of monarchy? The impact on Canada is pretty negligible. We have the queen on our coin, her Governor General rubber stamps our bills into laws and owns a few houses and the royalty pops by for a visit every now and then. And we get to play in the Commonwealth Games unlike you rebels 
I would not support opening up a constitutional debate to turn us into a republic because the material benefit is microscopic compared to all the old provincial and Eng vs Fr wound that it would open up. If we're going to change the constitution I would want it to be over something that is more tangible.
|
On April 19 2013 07:56 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:
As part of his argument for secession being illegal, he argued that the Union had been created by the Articles of Association in 1774, declared itself independent in 1776, drew its members closer together with the articles of Confederation, and finally declared their mission and union to be perpetual in the Constitution with it's phrase about "a more perfect union." By this logic, the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal was given not just a moral force, but also Constitutional imperative. I agree with that logic. Millions in the North did, before, during, and after the war. Lincoln's politics were greatly inspired by one of the greatest statesmen, patriots, citizens, and men America has ever had, and who is shamefully not given more attention in our history education, Daniel Webster: I fail to see how your interpretation of it changes the practical way of doing things in the decades following the declaration of independence.
You're just focusing on the part of the picture that supports your condemnation. Both the condemnation and the method to support it are simplistic. Let me say it again: After 30 years of not living up to its ideals in the area of slavery, this nation embarked on a 35-year ideological struggle resulting in a very destructive war, and the side fighting for the ideals won.
What you're saying gives no credit and no honor to the abolitionists and Unionists who struggled and fought and died for equality and unity. That is atrocious.
|
On April 19 2013 07:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:48 Prog455 wrote:On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote:
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-) Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD. This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
I'm not sure about that. Studies have been done which rank nations based on the potential for an individual to have meaningful political involvement or have your voice reflected in public polices, and the US ranked near the last. I'm a fan of many things in the US so don't take that as US bashing.
|
OP is funny considering that who are your parents is more important in US than in basically all European countries.
Anyway monarchies in Europe are about the same thing as elections being not over weekends in US. Kind of useless tradition that does not have that big of an impact on anything. Actually I would say elections not being over the weekend is bigger problem for representative democracy than constitutional monrachies, where the head of state has more symbolic than real power.
|
On April 19 2013 08:01 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 07:48 Prog455 wrote:On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote:
And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-) Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD. This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was! I'm not sure about that. Studies have been done which rank nations based on the potential for an individual to have meaningful political involvement or have your voice reflected in public polices, and the US ranked near the last. I'm a fan of many things in the US so don't take that as US bashing.
I really find those kinds of things hard to believe considering 1: The Tea Party 2: Obama's OFA organization 3: you can set up just about any kind of PAC you want these days and raise money for it without limit 4: referendums are used very frequently in the US at the state level 5: I'd have to look at how these things were measured by these studies, but quite frankly I think the facts of political participation in the US contradict them.
|
I'll just throw it out there : the Founding Fathers had a platonician view of the state and rejected the idea of direct democracy. I don't think their ideas are that close to the popular currents of the American public opinion and our contemporary definition of equality or freedom.
The only strong idea that I feel has remained somewhat intact in the American spirit is federalism.
|
"In Canada throughout 18th and 19th centuries there were strong movements to have Upper and Lower Canada join the United States and republican states. A series of revolutions and civil wars were even fought by the Canadian people (and sympathetic Americans) to overthrow the British imperialists in the Canadian colonies. Yet after the British imperialists violently put down the revolution and executed political dissidents, the movement seemed to slow down a bit. Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
|
On April 19 2013 08:06 Shai wrote:
"In Canada throughout 18th and 19th centuries there were strong movements to have Upper and Lower Canada join the United States and republican states. A series of revolutions and civil wars were even fought by the Canadian people (and sympathetic Americans) to overthrow the British imperialists in the Canadian colonies. Yet after the British imperialists violently put down the revolution and executed political dissidents, the movement seemed to slow down a bit. Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
You're totally right, there never were strong Canadian sentiments for Canada joining the US.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2013 08:06 Shai wrote:
"In Canada throughout 18th and 19th centuries there were strong movements to have Upper and Lower Canada join the United States and republican states. A series of revolutions and civil wars were even fought by the Canadian people (and sympathetic Americans) to overthrow the British imperialists in the Canadian colonies. Yet after the British imperialists violently put down the revolution and executed political dissidents, the movement seemed to slow down a bit. Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
texas can have alberta. i want BC and the rest of the tree loving folk
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
