USA Bashing

Post Reply New Topic

But it's still their wish, thus they can't blame anyone els. Perfec system. ^^


True, no pain, no gain. You can't have it both ways.


Not all countrys are like the US.


That's because you have a two party system, here we have six partys in parliament and media is untoucheble by politicians.


You really belive that? Someone who has all the power will do anything he can to ensure it stays that way. This does not include freedom.


... Strange, did not the world leaders agreed to start work for cleaner air? Or was I just hallucinating?


Take a random kid from the US and one from Saudi Arabia, who do you think is the most open minded?


Wow... what a huge pile of BS. Where do you find these perfect people to rule us? Incase you didn't know, Sweden has been a monarchy for the last 1000-800 years or so. By large it's not a stable system. At all.


Hmm... I did make it as clear as I first though, your opinion is based upon that some people are better than others, mine is that they're all (in general) equaly bad. That's why it's better to change frequently since power corrupts, the less time they're sitting there and the less power they have, the better.


As stated, no it's not. Check your historybook. Japan was the lastes as far as I know.
Yes it's possible, but not likely tp happen. Why? Because like 99% of the others have, they will try and do things that gains them the most.
To replace it with the search for personal glory and silenced critics, much better.
Yupp, and like the others has done, he'll try to become famous by expanding the borders. And we all know that this as always profited the people...? Right?

But I agree with you, if we can find perfect people, monarchy is better, but untill then...

No kidding. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction either.

The weak point of democracy is that it relys on the citizen to govern the government, and if we don't do our job, this is what happens. Orwell has a point though: there is little one vote can do and there is little one voice can do. People in my state vote for people that they know have no intention of respecting their oaths of office (such as our current Governer), that is just a formality; which makes about as much sense as marrying someone when you know that part about "till death do us part" really means "until I change my mind".

The problem is rooted in human nature and unless there is a God that can do something about that, nothing can be done about it.

Last edited by NobelCynic on 12 Sep 2009, 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not sure nothing can be done about it. At the moment the controls and information range from documents no one can figure out to major policy moves based on information "too sensitive for the public to know". You can't drive a car blindfolded, much more get excited about official policies based on information not available. It is not "beyond human nature" to be thoroughly informed and involved in policies that have great consequences in all the lives of all the citizens. It's just that there are forces in control who have major advantage in keeping people stupid and uninformed. That has the possibility for change.

I don't see how.

Take yesterday morning for example: I went down to the convenience store for a pack of cigaretts and some menthol cough drops. The bill came to $8.32 which I paid with a $10 bill and 32c in coins. I took my change and started to leave when I noticed a $5 bill there in addition to the two singles I was entiled to. I tried to give it back saying I should have only gotten the two ones. The clerk printed the receipt and down at the bottom it said change due = $7.00. I went through the math for her, 10.32 - 8.32 = 2. Well, there was a line growing behind us and I couldn't see the point of arguing any more to get the $5 back in the till so I put it in my pocket.

I took the receipt with me and saw what happened when I got home; cash was entered twice $5.00 then $10.32, she must have hit the enter key instead of the clear. Now, the people who run these places have a vested interest in hiring people who can't make change without a computer so they don't have to pay them any more then minimum wage. The sad thing is they are not going to suffer the consequences, they will just take the five dollars out of her pay.

What hope do you have that that will ever change?

Do you think one incident with someone who cannot handle simple arithmetic proves something about the entire future of the species?

This is sarcasm, right?


OK, but winning elections is still based largely on getting favorable media coverage.


There have been monarchs, even absolute ones, who permitted open criticism of their policies. And some form of limited monarchy (early constitutional monarchy) could require a monarch to respect individual freedoms and the rule of law.


How'd those plans go over the past 8 years in the US? Maybe Obama will make some half-hearted effort at following that agreement, but when he's succeeded by a Republican do you think they will keep all the environmental regulations in place?


This is probably more based on the predominant culture than what is taught in schools. And I've met more than enough close-minded Americans.


Where did I ever say a monarch had to be perfect? And what do you mean monarchy is not a stable system? History disagrees with you.


Well, your original statement just doesn't even make sense. I can't work out what you were trying to say. To answer your later comment, my opinion is not based on the idea that some people are better than others. It's based on the idea that it is inefficient to distribute the task of governing so broadly that no individual stakeholder has adequate incentive to be competent. A monarch has plenty of incentive to devote their entire life and all of their attention to effective governance. An individual voter has absolutely no incentive to have even the slightest clue what they're voting for.


I'm a history major. All of the longest-lasting and most stable governments in human history have been monarchies.


It is unclear to what you are referring.


Silenced critics? Through this whole conversation I have expressed a support for civil liberties, including free expression. Please, no more straw men.

Nope.


Atleast not here, no kissing babys etc. Pure debate between the partys.


Indeed it has, but they have not been any kind of majority in any way.
Yes, when the people was strong enough to overthrow the king if they had to. The power was the people, not the king, when the power is the king on the other hand...
"Svear är fria att Konung taga, men ock att vräka."
(Svear are free to take a King, but allso to evict.)
It was one of our oldest laws, before Sweden was a singular kingdom and consisted be three minor kingdoms, every king of Sweden was titled Svear and Götars Konung, from the three kingdoms Östra (East) Götaland, Västra (West) Götaland, and Svea Land. The king of the Svea was elected at the Stones of Mora by the "people" (The nobles).
At that time, the nobles was the true power in the kingdom, this changed, and so did the kings. (Not to the better.)


Speculations.


Of course... Because we all know that the culture value in schools are exactly zero and all schools teach exacly the same thing in exacly the same way all around the world.


Ok, lets view this from a real world prespectiv for a moment. There's a roughly 75-99% risk that a person is a selfabsorbed, egoistic asshole. If this person happens to be in a position of power, it's a very very bad system if the only way to get rid of him is a revolution or assassination. Everyone suffers untill the person dies and can only hope the next one is better. And that's why a monarch has to be perfect. Unless you are telling me that this is a sacrifice that some people will have to make, which incase all further answers can be ignored.
No, it don't. There has been more wars, revolutions, assassination, rebellions etc in such places than it'll ever bee in a democratic society because everyone have their chance.


In short: Who the hell devotes all their lives to tell people what to do? Simply put: No one. There has been some remarkable exeptions, and we all remeber them because they were exeptions. Then there has been thousands of others who was not.


... *Curling into a ball in disbelif.*
History of monarchy: Enitre world for ~10 000 years.
History of democracy: Entire world for ~100-200 years.
How do you compare that in any relevant way?!
(Did you skip math? )


The projects for the common good.


Yes you have, I'm not talking about your philosophy, I'm talking about human nature in the system you promote.
To keep a people united any longer period of time, you have to ensure they think the same thoughts. This does not happen when you constantly introduce new thoughts. Thus eliminating that = success.

Just to point out.... It's amusing how many of you here can talk about the USA, yet if we were to discuss any little known foreign country, we'd have half (more or less) the amount of posts that USA threads gets o.O .

Let's talk about France

Or somewhere else if you prefer?

Indochine?

Catherine the Great of Russia was known for allowing criticism of her policies even when she had absolute power to be able to silence critics. And I already mentioned the possibility of a limited monarch. It doesn't have to be a pure autocracy.


Do you have a source, or are you pulling this statistic out of your ass? (Aside: There is no need to circumvent the swear filter, it doesn't block "a**hole")


No, a monarch just has to be less bad.


The "democratic peace" is largely a myth. Yes, today's world is less violent than that of, say, 500 years ago, but it's very hard to attribute this to the switch from monarchy to democracy when so many other factors are involved. Your reasoning is unclear- "because everyone have their chance." I understand you are not a native speaker, but could you try to clarify that? I'm not sure what you're saying.



I'm a math major as well, so enough of those snide comments. I know monarchy has been around longer, but democracies still tend to be considerably less stable. The longest-lasting representative government so far is the one in the USA, and it was intended as a republic, not necessarily a democracy. True universal suffrage was not achieved in America until about 40 years ago (blacks in the South were routinely disenfranchised). Democracy tends to be a much more volatile system of government. Some people (like Sand) have upheld this dynamic nature as a good thing. I disagree.


A monarchical system wouldn't undertake such projects? The Russian monarchy worked extremely hard in the late 19th century to pay off its debts (accumulated from several European wars) and get its economy on track. The long-term commitment to fiscal discipline that this required would fail in a democratic system because at the next election, the opposition would be elected and they would have different plans. Just look at the US national debt: at the end of the Clinton administration it was projected that we would be able to entirely pay off the national debt within a decade. Then we elected Bush.


You sound like a fascist here. If your claim is at all true, then you should be opposed to civil liberties and democracy, as by your own reasoning it is impossible to keep a pluralistic, democratic society united.

Maybe there in your statement lies a big part of the problem that the world has with America.

Not doing what America tells you to do is a declaration of war? You seem to have swallowed your educational propaganda and applied the falsehood of divinity and omniscience to your nation.

I was following up on a point Sand made about how this nation is supposed to work. The last time Congress declared war was in 1941, initially only on Japan then on Germany and Italy after they declared war on us; those wars ended in 1945 when peace treaties were signed. Canada was in that war before we were, but in those days you were still a Brittish Dominion so you were just supporting your king; how does it work now? Can your Prime Minister commit your nation to war without an act of Parliament, and if he can't but did it anyway, how would your citizens react? Do you even know or care?

I used to be a federal law enforcement officer and I took one of those oaths, to support and defend our Constituion, and I still hold to it even though I resigned that office quite some time ago, because I don't recall there being anything in it about as long as I hold this office. This is called honor, and it is what is sorely lacking in this nations leadership and citizeny.

What frightens me more than anything else is that an obviously intelligent well informed and highly educated person like Orwell can decide that a monarchy which demonstrably produced irrational self interested idiots as powerful heads of state on a regular basis is preferable to a democracy which depends upon a well informed educated and active populace to keep it going in the right direction. It seems he has lost faith in human potential and this makes me rather sad. Democracy is based on a government which must continually re-establish that it is to be trusted rather than a monarchy where it doesn't matter whether or not it is trusted as it has the power to do as it damned well pleases whatever the consequences.

^Congress did not make a formal declaration of war, but they did authorize the use of military force at Bush's discretion in dealing with Iraq. The congress understood that they were, in effect, voting for or against war and most of them (unfortunately) voted for. Also, the President can send the military anywhere he wants as long as he brings them back after a little bit. (War Powers Act) And strictly speaking, we are not at "war" with Iraq. The current regime over their is nominally our ally. We're fighting against "insurgents."