What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say - Page 14

Willem · February 7, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I'm considering the people who have some property and are content with that to be the "haves." The "have nots" are the people who are living pay check to pay check, have to work two or three jobs, and depend on "payday loans" to survive. There are actually alot in my country.

Well then maybe you should emigrate to Canada, you don't see quite as much of that here. Though there's more of it than there used to be, especially in the larger cities.

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
And you live in a Democratic country. Are you sure? Where is this?

Where did democracy get into the picture? I defined 'the enemy' as the capitalist that used the political process to put their needs above others. The exact form over government wasn't the issue.

FYI I live in Sweden, a constitutional monarchy with a democraticly elected parliament.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 15:58

Thanx Willem, I would move to Canada if I could get a good job there.

Both Canada and Sweden are more Democratic than the US. I think it is possible to use the political process to achieve your personal needs though. It doesn't seem to happen to such a degree as in the US, from what I know.

I think that both Sweden and Canada need less police and a smaller, less active military than the US.

Kramerman · February 7, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

OK I'm a little off base there, but the concept's the same.

A lot of the ideas for the early American government came from the French. Benjamin Franklin in particular was very fond of the concepts proposed by the French intellectuals of the time, with Paris being the European hotbed for democratic ideals. In many ways, it was the birthplace of democracy.

And it was the French that gave the US the Statue of Liberty.

It was actually intellectuals from all over Europe, not just France. And not only from inteelectuals of that period, either, the framers of the American gov got many ideas from the Greeks and Romans as well. The US, in this sense, just furthers itself as a melting pot, not only of people, but also of ideas.

Kman

Willem · February 7, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Thanx Willem, I would move to Canada if I could get a good job there.

Both Canada and Sweden are more Democratic than the US. I think it is possible to use the political process to achieve your personal needs though. It doesn't seem to happen to such a degree as in the US, from what I know.

I think that both Sweden and Canada need less police and a smaller, less active military than the US.

No you're wrong, Canada with a majority government isn't really very democratic. The party on top at the time can do pretty much what it wants to since there's no checks or balances to prevent them. Frankly, I'd like to see us move a little closer to the American model in that area. I would especially like to see us get rid of the queen and elect our own head of state.

As for police, Canadians tend to be more law abiding than Americans overall anyway. And we can get away with having a smaller military since we live right next door to the US. No one will dare invade us. So instead we focus on peacekeeping duties and helping the UN.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 19:18

Willem,

It depends on what you call democratic. I said Canada is more democratic because your government seems to work for all the people more than the US government. The government here in the US seems to work mostly for business and those with the money to gain full access to it.

You are saying that Canada is less democratic because they don't have checks and balances like we do in the US. Checks and balances can be very undemocratic. Say that a president is elected by the people on the basis of his views on a single issue. He takes office, but the Senate and the Supreme Court oppose him on this issue. He is then unable to change the law maybe until some judges retire.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

It was actually intellectuals from all over Europe, not just France. And not only from inteelectuals of that period, either, the framers of the American gov got many ideas from the Greeks and Romans as well. The US, in this sense, just furthers itself as a melting pot, not only of people, but also of ideas.

Kman

Here I am trying to save face after making a colossal blunder, but no, you just wouldn't let me worm out of it gracefully!

What can I say, it's been awhile since I've looked at the history books, and I was never much interested in that period anyway. My bad!

At any rate, the French at that time did play an important role in the formation of the US, especially the intellectual elite that Vel is so fond of bashing. They were the cultural flower of Europe during The Age of Enlightenment when many of these ideas started circulating; they helped set the climate for something new.

Ned · February 7, 2003, 19:38

Earlier in this thread, Vel was arguing for Europe to spend more on defense to bring Europe up to superpower status in order that it help the United States "police" the world for democracy. But he also observed that Europe has spent much of the post-World War II era building up a gigantic welfare state that takes, in some countries, as much as 50 percent of the total GNP to support. I would think that expansion of military budgets for such welfare state countries would be literally impossible without wholly choking off the private economy and causing a rapid and severe decline in their GNP.

I don't think Europe will turn away from its welfare state to become a military superpower anytime soon, if ever. The reason I say this is that even in the darkness days the late empire, the Romans did not give their bloated bureaucracy and their its entitlement programs. The empire slowly died as a result.

I think Europe is today a defenseless, helpless giant. I don't think it will change.

Kramerman · February 7, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Here I am trying to save face after making a colossal blunder, but no, you just wouldn't let me worm out of it gracefully!

What can I say, it's been awhile since I've looked at the history books, and I was never much interested in that period anyway. My bad!

At any rate, the French at that time did play an important role in the formation of the US, especially the intellectual elite that Vel is so fond of bashing. They were the cultural flower of Europe during The Age of Enlightenment when many of these ideas started circulating; they helped set the climate for something new.

no sry, couldnt let anyone worm outa that one

.

ill agree with this final point

Willem · February 7, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
It depends on what you call democratic. I said Canada is more democratic because your government seems to work for all the people more than the US government. The government here in the US seems to work mostly for business and those with the money to gain full access to it.

But that's more a question of attitude rather one of mechanics. We have politicians that work only for business as well, but overall we have a mindset that doesn't let them gain to much of an upper hand overall. It has very little to do with our system though.

Quote:

Checks and balances can be very undemocratic.

But they also require compromise and concessions. That forces more of a dialogue.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 19:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I think Europe is today a defenseless, helpless giant. I don't think it will change.

It's changing as we speak. You make it sound as if a united Europe has been the norm throughout history, but it's hasn't been. It was a fractured and volatile region for a long, long time. What we're experiencing now, and have been since WWII, is a huge experiment, the outcome of which we can't predict.

Ned · February 7, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

It's changing as we speak. You make it sound as if a united Europe has been the norm throughout history, but it's hasn't been. It was a fractured and volatile region for a long, long time. What we're experiencing now, and have been since WWII, is a huge experiment, the outcome of which we can't predict.

As the European "government" evolves, it will reflect the character of it members states. Except for Britain, the whole of Europe seems remarkably pacifist. But more than this, as I said, the vast spending on their welfare states prevents them from spending significant sums on defense. So, even if a 9/11 type attack in Europe would change public attitudes concerning defense, I don't think the Europeans have the resources to be a significant player.

Russia may be different. I think they have the potential to resume their former superpower status.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Russia may be different. I think they have the potential to resume their former superpower status.

And having Russia regain it's superpower status might provide an incentive for Europe to arm itself again. Or things might get so out of hand in Africa that they'll have no choice. The potential is there for alot of things to happen.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 21:06

Willem,

Compromise is where special interest gets their cut of the pie.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Compromise is where special interest gets their cut of the pie.

Only because they're working behind the scenes. If they were forced to engage in a true dialogue of their positions, the people in general would be much more informed and involved.

I see nothing wrong with special interests groups, in fact they're inevitable IMO. Just as long they aren't engaging in cloak and dagger tactics.