America = Whole of Europe?

Remove all ads!

Now, that I do not get.... again. I haven't written anything about North-Korea. Nor did I say that living there would be "better". As for South-Korea, I don't know nothing particularly bad about it. Seems alright to me. Yet if I could move there permantly, Asian cultures and so, nah, but staying some time in Seoul, seems nice enough and certainly interesting. And what with "that you would not compare". I didn't say I would not compare them. Well, I just superficially compared them. And if I say "a far better off country", then I do obviously, again superficially, compare.

 

In reply to
Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ( Armed with his Mallet O' Thinking )

Discrimination is across the board, it applies to any type of status or any type of attribute being used to belittle another.

All people are created equal- thats 'just a fact' so if you were comparing:

Person A - rich family, good country, cute.
to
Person B - poor family, unstable country, ugly.

Is Person A, a 'better' human being than Person B?
'A' simply has opportunities that 'B' doesn't have, so does that mean it is 'A's God given right to belittle 'B'?

I think not.

Well apart from the fact I'm not a man I wasn't presuming that you were.

In times long past if a man was 'better' enough than another, he could quite easily order that man's death for no real reason at all.
eg. Knighthood class over serf class

Hypothetically:
If said man was stronger, smarter, better looking, more charismatic, has more money, is better known or more well-respected the world over than you, does that hand him the right to order your death for some imagined slight or because he dislikes you?

Somehow I dont think so either

You are entitled to your opinion.
And yes, not living in fear is preferable to fearing death.
But 'easier' is not necessarily 'better'.
Living in positively said countries would be easier but that does not mean that it is better it means it is easier for the people living in it as compared to the negatively said present countries.
So you could say it was easier than another country to live there but you could not say without discriminating that any country is 'better' to live in than another.

 

Aldeth & Amatorius, I am under the impression that you are both trying to say the same thing, so please stop splitting hairs!

 

Splitting hairs?
I also fail to see how we are trying to say the same thing.

In my view,
Aldeth's opinion is that all people aren't created equal due to their circumstances at birth.
That people with more attributes are 'better' than (or superior to) others.
Countries with positive environments are 'better' than (or superior to) countries with negative environments.


My opinion,
however, is that all people are created equal no matter their circumstances.
No person is 'better' than (or superior to) another due to their attributes, they are just different.
Countries with positive environments aren't 'better', (or superior), in comparison to countries with negative environments, the positive said countries are merely easier to live in.

 

People aren't created equal on birth in a biological sense. Even if that might sound like a really silly statement to some of you, but it is true, even twins aren't 100% equal (only 50% for monozygotic twins) and will develop differently over the lifespan in interaction with their environment. As human beings we nevertheless are all equal as a species (forgive me if that is an inproper use of that word).

I fully agree with Amatorius in what he says about the use of the word 'better' and especially with his notion about a person's attributes. To say that someone is 'better' off because of his attributes is most often a subjective view and more a personal feeling of being inferior to someone. It is also true that some people feel superior because of al sorts of things (be it driving a ferrari, having scored higher on a test or just finishing their hamburger faster etc.). Another thing is to objectively determine whether one has more money, higher education etc.

Fact is that people aren't created equal in a strict biological sense, will grow up in very heterogenious environments and thus will develop differently. One should not confuse this with how different people growing up in different places of the world perceive their life.

 

I'm not sure what is meant by that comment. The US system as what? or compared to what? If you are saying our system of government is neither unique nor original, then you have made a unique and original statement that really requires much more explaination. But if you are referring to the way in which the country is organized, then it can be debated that those characteristics may apply. This has been a very convoluted thread. Hence, that is the reason I have stayed away from it. I could care less about the organizatinal part of this topic, but the system of government should be a subject for very good debate.

 

@Eaglearrow
That's a very moot point on the biological take.

Give Eaglearrow a Kewpie Doll *hands him a doll*
This has been precisely my point on the 'better' person issue. No matter what attributes one person has compared to another we are all equally human.

Just one other trifling, matter..
For anyone's information I am not a 'him' as in said quote

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that I would be a 'her', which I am.

 

You could easily avoid such confusion by changing your name to the more correct Amatoria then ...

 

Well, my statement was the answer to this:

In combination with this (a post before)

So, that is not true that this is an unique system. And it is not true, that the US-memberstates are something unique. A federal organization (in various shapes and forms and sometiems much more federal then the US, which has traditionally a very strong central goverment) can be found in many countries. And this system wasn't developed only in the US. So "different from any other system in the world currently" is obviously wrong. Even the electoral system isn't unique.

Indeed, I don't know the Indian tribe, (Indian tribes are not my strength). Sioux ? It was one in the north that had a federal structrue with a "territorial second chamber". So, making the second chamber a "territorial chamber", that's unique idea. I think Benjamin Franklin was involved by finding that out and implementing it in the later US-constitution.

Where it went in the 19th century to be adopted by many other countries, which also found, that was a good idea. While two-chamber systems are found already in antiquity and the most popular in later days was the British House-of-Lords and House-of-Commons. Some British lawyers (a.k.a founding fathers) couldn't resist to implement that into their new country.

By the way, again, this all involves comparing a large country with smaller countries.

 

Correct for which language, Ragusa?

 

latin as ius is the male ending and ia is the female ending of names

 

Iago - Well, then let's take a closer look at what is really implied by the statement about "immense state" powers that you were responding to. And congratulations on stumbling into the contradiction that does make the American system of government unique and orginal. And I am not surprised that you share the same "federalist" view of American government that I do.

That Ben Franklin has the most impeccable credentials of the revolutionary generation is undeniable. Only George Washington could bring better ones to the table of our discussion. And it is upon his credentials, along with those of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton that some of us support the sovereignty of federal government over those of the states. On the other side of this argument are some others with very good revolutionary credentials also: Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, etc. These are, as everyone already knows, the "Republicans."

That Thomas Jefferson became the head of the republican wing is no surprise since he was the orginal author of the Declaration. No less than Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration in a hotel room in Philalelphia during the Continental Congress of 1776, commented on how he was "dafting the Declaration while being hundreds of miles away from his own country." Of course his country was Virgina, and in his mind Virginia would certainly be equal to any European country. So it is reasonable that Blackhawk and others can argue that a state is equal to any country in Europe, if one is a disciple of Jefferson, Madison, etc.

While Europe was mostly ruled by monarchies and aristocracies. The revolutionary generation of Americans were engaged in attempting to put into action the rights of men as a system of governemnt. While Voltaire and other philosophers of the enlightenment were preaching the rights of men over those of the select few in Europe, the revolutionary generation of 1776 was trying to create a workable system of government that would embody these rights. The Republicains had their document, it was the Declaration, and it was the touchstone and rallying point of those who denouced the notion of a strong federal government.

By 1790 the Federalists, with a working government under Washington and Adams, had theirs and as you pointed out it was the Constitution. The Constitution is the framework in which the argument over delegated powers can take place. It is hardly surprising that the Republicans accused both Adams and Washington as being traitors to the Declaration and its ideals. The Federalists were dealt three hard blows: The passing of Washington, Adams lost reelection to Jefferson and Aaron Burr murdered Hamilton. All this led to a loss of Federalist power during the early 19th Century.

Again, as you rightly point out, what was latent in this argument was the issue of slavery and the Civil War of 1861. That the Virginians under Jefferson and Madison along with the South could not explain the contradiction in the ideals of the Declaration and the issue of slavery finally established the Federal government as supreme over the states, when Lincoln went to a piece of bloody battleground in Gettysburg, PA., and called the South on the whole argument. When he stated "four score and seven years ago" he was making their argument that the country was founded on the Declaration of 1776 and not on the Constitution of 1787, but that they had betrayed the ideals of the revolution with their institution of slavery. So, while you and I are both in the Federalist camp, it is understandable, given our history, that others such as Blackhawk, still see the states as closer to the Republican principles of self-government. The Amercian system is built on a paradox. The issue is deftly side-stepped by giving "sovereignty to the People." In this way both state and federal governments serve at the pleasure of the People. Welcome to the ongoing, orginal and unique argument of American government, Iago.

 

Hm, ok. I take that you mean, the original part is, that there are two schools of thought. One giving more powers to the state, one giving more power to the federal goverment, in a theoretical way, making the difference between a federal state and a confederation. As for me, that question was resolved definitley in the civil-war. A federal state.

Which then means, not the theoretical vew counts, but the actual existing system. So, a US-state is a member state of the US, which has lost its sovereignity, which can not be set equal to a sovereign entity. But of course, one can say, that the state of California has a 3,4,5,6,... fold population of a normal sized independent nation. But it is not an independent nation.

But my reading of the cited quotes was, claiming that the US was the only nation with a federal structure and strong member-states.

By the way. "Federalist" is the opposite to "centralist" in my language. As opposed to US-American, where "Federalist" is the same as "centralist". Just like "liberal" is right-wing and not left-wing. A clear hint to a unique American culture with an unique dictionary.

Coming back the "sovereignty question" and the status of a member-state, which clearly was before joining a confederation an independent nation. We had and have the same problem. Solved in a paradox-compromise in the federal constitution. A canton is sovereign, if its sovereignity isn't limited. Satisfiying both sides, the sovereign-side and the not-sovereign-side. So, I say, that argument isn't unique to the US. And I think there are many more countries, where the same member-state/federal goverment relation is an issue.

Here

 

Yes, but that is our point of view, which I laid out, I think, how we arrived at that point. But note that Blackhawk's location is the "Republic of California." For some this matter is hardly settled, which is a part of the paradox. Those, such as Blackhawk support a strong US foreign policy that could only be by way of a central government, but whose first loyalty is to still to their states. Yet, those of us who prefer a more muted US approach to foreign policy (note that this was Washington's view in his "Farewell Address") and are Federalists, are seen as unpatriotic. Go figure.

The claim Republic of California is taken to mean much like the "Republic of Texas," which means that Texas is only part of the US as long as it is in its interest to do so - Texas first, America second. But for some of us it is America first, Texas second. We are the unpatriotic ones. So the matter is not nearly as well settled as you would suggest.

I have always understood that the Swiss had this problem of Cantonship (if there is such a word) before the Founders approached the problem of crafting a government for the US. Yet, I know no details, only that the problem was similar. I am disappointed that you did not show how they were similar, since I'm sure you know Swiss history better than I do, and decided to shorthand your answer to the discussion.

Also, if you can think of any other major nations that faced a similar set of problems and decided on the same solutions as the revolutionary generation before 1776 that would be helpful as well to answer the question if America is indeed an "original" solution to the issue of self-government.

[ March 28, 2004, 20:38: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I actually did hear about that "mythos", too. It's not true as far as I know. I think that the seceding-procedure would more or less the same as in Switzerland. It would need the will of the Texans and the consent of the federal goverment, i.e. the rest of the US. A country can become state of the US through US-law, that is consent of Senate and Rep-house, passing a bill and hopefully the will of the people of the country in question. The secession is the same, only turned around. I think Texans who claim the right of Texes to secede alone are argue, that Texas joined the Union through a international law treaty with the condition to secede at own will. I think that is just not true. There had to be bill passed by the US-parliaments, making Texas a US-State.

Well, we use "Kantönligeist", "Cantonal spirit", meaning the canton always comes first, in political matters or when it's about TV shows like "searching the popstar". It's important form what canton the "popstar" is. Well, the "old confederation" started out as defense-alliance, between a growing number of states. The biggest and most powerful state was Schwyz, so it came into use by foreign countries to speak of the "Schwyzer federation" and then "Switzerland" or Svizzera and so forth. The old confederation then started to include also solving quarrels among the members of the alliance and administrating commonly ruled territories, gained in wars. And it came into practice, to use a white cross on a red square as battle flag for the confederation members in wars, put into the corner of the cantonal flag and one big on the clothes, so the people could see on which side one was.

So, this went on, and as the defense allicance was successful (we're a former military power), the cantons rested independent from the countries, slowly forming outside of the defense-alliance borders and a growing sense of "belonging to eachother" mainly compared to the outside came into being, but always tainted by a long-line of inter-cantonal wars. The Cantons had their own foreign and internal policies. The foreign policies where restricted in the sense, that they shouldn't do anything at the expense of other alliance members. Which they of course did anyway and which then led to war.

Then Napoleon came around (looking for some cheap mercaneries) and conquered us and installed the helvetic republic, a central goverment, which lasted 5 troubled civil-war years (Napoleon allied with some cantons against some other cantons), then was overthrown and replaced by Napoleon with a federal goverment which then was overthrown and the old-federation was re-installed after the Russians came and did beat Napoleon.

So, then a strong centralist movement came into being, arguing that it would be smarter and wiser for everyone to join closer together and do things, which the Cantons alone could not do, the main points were making a "Swiss military" and a common foreign policy, concentrated on a federal goverment. This then ended in a civil war (a very funny one, indeed, as the federalists had no canons and nearly no rifles, because they where to poor to afford them.) which the federalists lost and the leading federalists fled. So the 1848-federal-constitution came into being, with a federal goverment making foreign-policies, allowing citiziens of a canton to freely move from canton to canton, a Swiss army (but the Cantons still had to right to have a small own army), a federal law obligating the cantons to build enough public schools, a federal mail office ...

Then the centralist movement gained even more momentum, as they're policies were succesful and 1874 came another constitution into being, granting the federal goverment even to right to make some private law. 1898 then the federal became the right to unify the private law of the cantons.

This is all accompaigned by quarrels among cantons, which have century old traditions. Indeed 1848 the canton of Zürich was in the winning team and finally accomplished to get Zwingli's (presbyterian leader) sword back, which was taken by Schwyz in the 16th century. And we have a quarrel with St. Gall about some things that were robbed in a war with them in the 17th. century. And there are lots and lots of those quarrels.

As for the federal-goverment. One may think that it acutally does not exist, as the Cantons still nearly everything themselves, just the federal goverment is giving broad directions in federal issues (leaving the cantons a broad specturm of choices on how serious they will take the matter) and the cantons then do it. The federal goverment actually nearly only comes visibly into existence in the military, the mail-agency and the train-agency and the social welfare. There is only one federal court in the whole country and all traditional state-matters, like the police, are securly held by the cantons, which won't let go of it

But we are also a concordance-democracy because the cantons have huge influence, people feel very close to their cantons and mixed with the direct-democracy, that is a very complex system. Citizenship for example, is granted by the canton. The federal goverment only acknowlegdes this citiztenship and grants every cantonal citizen Swiss citizenship.

As contrary to the US, the Swiss constitution is easily changed, as we vote about laws and the constitution only needs the consent of 1/2 of the Cantons, not 2/3, and 1/2 of the people to be changed.

As for the word "canton". There are many words used for them, "state" also. So "state" is synomous for "canton", yet canton is the most often used word. Indeed, officially, I live in the Republic of Zürich, state of the federation.

[ March 28, 2004, 21:28: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

DMC - Yes, for all practical matters the Feds have the power. But the difference in perspective is sectional. In the South one hears often about the issue of "state rights." A few years ago if you had told me that the postitions of power were filled with Southern, Republican, Protestant, white males in business suits (we saw them all in front of the media cameras during the impeachment of Bill Clinton). And that they controlled the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, I would have expected that power would be returning to the states. But now having the power, there are obviously some second thoughts going on in halls of government and amongest those who formally thought that the federal government was the enemy of the People.

Now that they are the Federal government there is some new thinking going on. This has its expression in the desire by those same politicans who want a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, afraid that the states are acting too much on their own.

But this is not where I wanted to go with this dialogue. I was struck by Iago's post that the Founding Brothers had not arrived at an original solution to the problems of self-government and that the crafting of a government from the ground up was hardly a unique situation. This despite the notion that it drew its intellectual energy in large part from the Enlightenment. And that new ideas at the time of America's founding were shaping Man's ideas about the rights of the individual. Americans sought to put into real practice what had only been talked about before.


But that they did not even have all the solutions in place when they started is clear. I want to quote Washington, who did see how unique the American situation was because of sectional differences:

The reason Washington was so optimistic about sectional differences being overcome was because he saw it first hand in the Contenital Army. Men came from all parts of the colonies and thought of themselves as fighting for a common cause. They were Americans before there was even an America. Washington and Hamilton had been in the army, fought valiantly and as such saw the larger cause of America. Also, Jefferson and Madison had not fired a shot in the Revolution at all.

My larger point is to demonstrate that America was unique and original. I believe I have chosen very specific and particular instantces in its history and crafting of its government to show why I believe this to be the case.

 

Reply to Ragusa, Soujourner and Equester - been away a while but hey, back now to explain my name.

"Amatorius" is not strictly a Latin 'name' per se.
It is a noun for a word taken out of a (really old) -Collins- Latin : English, English : Latin Dictionary.
Apart from the fact Amatoria sound irreparably 'cute' to me it also has the disadvantage of sounding like a garbled version of "Amour" french for "love"- certainly not an impression I would ever want to put across.

So sorry, to disappoint anyone but, I'm not changing my name to that.( *shudders* yuck)

 

Iago - Thanks for taking time out on the Swiss history. And I agree that TX could never get away with a break with the US. But my point was that it doesn't stop some from dreaming about it, and believing that it would be perfectly legal and within their right. I listen first hand to them rant about it every so often here.

I think America came about in a unique time and place. It had the advantage of a vast continent of resources, and the situation of building a government from the ground, so to speak. And all at a time in history that was ripe with new ideas that were being taken seriously in both Europe and America.

But it is also that a group of extraodinary men who just happened to come together at the right time and place. They crafted a government that in their own minds and hearts was the best they could make. Much of it was really selfless, and they made it their life's project.

By selflessness, I am reminded of the famous story of what England's George III said of his nemesis George Washington. When he heard that Washington was stepping down from command of the Continental Army after the victory of the Revolution, and in effect giving up all claim to power of the new country, King George commented: "He won't really do it, but if he does he will be the greatest man in the world." Well, Washington did, and he was, in the opinion of many of us. Ah, but I am gettng a bit carried away here.

 

I woulnd't argue that you've been lucky there.

Well, they were from different colonies of the same land and the fought against a shared problem. I think that an alliance among them and joining forces was the rational thing to do. Yet, I don't see how that would necessarily mean, that they would form a country. Similarly likely would have been disolvement of the alliance and every country would go its own way, so to say. Going from the war-alliance alone.

The problem at that time the 13 colonies faced, in my view, was that they were in a situation, which had great potential for growth, expansion and acquiring wealth, but also with grave dangers. If those colonies would not have joined, the continent would have been "balkanized" and the countries would have sooner or later fallen prey to eachother. So, they chose wisely to unify. Yet, the US is not the only country that came into being through unification. I think, even it's likely I may err, the Netherlands where a republic founded by various states, that's why they name is plural. So, the US would than be not the first to do so and an inspiration through the Netherlands would have been likely, as a big part of the population was Dutch at that time. So, unification wouldn't be something unique.

As for the form of the federal goverment. There is no doubt, after which country it was shaped. It's a replica of the constitutional situation of 18th UK, with the exception that the House of Lords had become a territorial, not a aristocratic body and the President, replacing the king, was voted into office. And that Washington, as you mentioned, resigned after 8 years, even if the constitution didn't demand that at that time. The US-federal-Goverment seems to me to be the product of homesick British Gentlemen. Well, not homesick maybe, but missing the rights they had at home.

As for the organization of the states, which are in general much more democratic inclined. The Central-European "free"-city, where, as the saying goes, the air made free ? At least, I think Rousseau had a (invisible) hand in there.