Yeah, I've done that before.

The US has been a success because it has fulfilled what most people assume to be its goals. But its difficult to call the UK less successful without presuming they had the same goals as the US.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure... It's still a 1st world country, still one of the most comfortable places to live in the entire world.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

We can debate all day what the "goals" of England are, but really, nations don't have goals. People do. To the extent nations do have a goal, it's to maintain dominance in terms of finance, military power and cultural integrity. The UK is doing fine in these categories, but it's not what it once was.

By comparison, the US is as powerful now as its ever been, though, in my estimation, it's probably in decline.

I pity them too they are a product of their parenting but the people that really get my goat are the one's who defend the right to be a racist.

There's a real "race industry" in the US these days. We obsess endlessly over racial conflict. There's nothing worse you can call somebody than "racist." It's really quite ridiculous. Americans are some of the most racially tolerant people on earth, certainly the most obsessed with being right on it. The amount of attention we pay to this issue is far out of balance with the actual problems it presents.

The race industry is just another political club that politicians use to secure power, and fire up their base. The fact that you're so outraged by people defending the right of free speech shows just how much they've ingrained you with their priorities...

But ask yourself, which is more important? That people not be racist, or that people have the right to free speech?

I think it's obvious, the answer is free speech. Free speech is critical to any form of social progress. Without free speech, you don't have Martin Luther King motivating a movement, you can't solve racism, you can't solve anything.

It's not that I like racists. It's that I like free speech even more than I hate them.

And believe me, I don't like racists. I just don't waste my time thinking about them, and I don't pat myself on the back for knowing they're wrong.

Phryxis wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure

That's very nice of you, I'm overwhelmed.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

Which is a lot more fun and much easier.

We can debate all day what the "goals" of England are, but really, nations don't have goals. .

Tell that to Geoff Hurst.

Phryxis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure... It's still a 1st world country, still one of the most comfortable places to live in the entire world.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

Yes, it did.

Phryxis wrote:
We can debate all day what the "goals" of England are, but really, nations don't have goals. People do. To the extent nations do have a goal, it's to maintain dominance in terms of finance, military power and cultural integrity.

No, that's all false, and it suggests to me that you have little experience in international theory.

@Dogma- Instead of the blanket denial of Phryxis's views of national goals, "Why don't you enlighten in detail?".

I ask this because there is a difference between theory and fact. Some basis of substantiation might help for others to understand your statement.

reds8n wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure

That's very nice of you, I'm overwhelmed.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

Which is a lot more fun and much easier.

Also much, much cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- Instead of the blanket denial of Phryxis's views of national goals, "Why don't you elighten in detail?".

I ask this because there is a difference between theory and fact. Some basis of substantiation might help for others to understand your statement.

Take an undergrad BA in history, political studies or even sociology. There are too many way too many nuanced points for an internet discussion. A better idea would be for you to think about what happens to nations without national goals. Coasting along without a goal is as bad for a nation as it is an individual.

Phryxis wrote:

Only because the 'founding fathers' didn't set that out in the US constitution. But they could have. Quite easily.

It's a simple matter of faith, but it's not unfounded.

You can pretend like the FFs were a bunch of slave owning yokel jerks, and their ideas on government were unexceptional and arbitrary, but the fact remains that their system was the basis for what is the most powerful nation in the world today.

Who knows, perhaps it was a matter of abundant natural resources, happy geopolitical coincidences and general good fortune, but the fact is that the FFs set something in motion which was a massive success.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history, given that it starts with us beating you in two wars, and while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

That said, don't worry. We have people in office now who have even less respect for the founding than you appear to, and it won't be long before we join you in the grey, rainy irrelevancy you've spent the last 60 odd years in.

Before I examine what you posted in detail, I have a general question: What the feth are you even talking about? Who said anything about a comparison between the two nations? This is the problem with the biblical attitide towards the US constitution - you defend it like a religion. Hysterically. The Constitution is a piece of paper and the men who drafted it were just that - men.

Right.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history

Um, no - I don't give a gak. Americans have greatly mythologised their history, but it's not something that bothers me greatly.

given that it starts with us beating you in two wars

Um, mythology. The British Empire could have won that war even whilst fighting the French, but it would have meant widespread death and destruction: scorched earth tactics, something the British gov't and people would not have countenanced given the fact that it would have been fellow Brits they where slaughtering. The American War of independence was our Vietnam. The will just wasn't there to keep it going.
Remember, American forces barely won a land battle. But yeah, we lost. Bothered. It's only a big deal in terms of what happened subsequently. At the time the West Indies commercial output was DOUBLE that of the American colonies. You'll notice we kept them. The second war was draw.

while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

Now who's being disrespectful? All I said was that the constitution isn't the Bible. Which it isn't. Grow up.
The past 200 years encompasses the time when The British Empire was the most dominant world power in history. It was more powerful in relative terms at it's zenith than the US is now. The USAs power is mostly implied - 'we COULD crush you'. Funny how it never works out like that for you. The British Empire ruled the world in real terms. But yeah, it's declined dramatically post-WWII.
Again, not bothered. We're doing pretty well - you're the one who seems to have a chip on your shoulder.

No, that's all false, and it suggests to me that you have little experience in international theory.

Let's not just accuse people of being stupid without any supporting logic. It's not really very interesting.

Also much, much cheaper.

For whom, though? The US spent trillions of dollars on the military, preparing to win a European land war against the USSR. I'm sure Europeans will write this off as stupid Americans wasting their time and money on an overblown threat, but the fact is we fought an economic war with Russia, a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt. Europe repaid that service by forming the EU, so it could then compete more effectively against the US in the global market.

So, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to let somebody else handle your national security.

Coasting along without a goal is as bad for a nation as it is an individual.

Clearly true. However, nations, especially 1st world nations which experience frequent changes of leadership, don't have a single goal for very long, unless you reduce that goal down to the vague, obvious terms that I did earlier. Compare the goals of Bush to those of Obama. Totally different mentalities.

And, to be fair, I'm not really even sure if Obama does want to improve American economic, military and social dominance, so he might prove me wrong... But I think he's a special case.

Who said anything about a comparison between the two nations?

I didn't really mean to turn it into that. My post was a genuine comment, but because this is the internet, you took it in the worst possible way.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

But, I can truthfully see how the American fact/mythology would be irritating for a Brit. It's a story in which you're the first badguy, and you get vanquished. That's the facts of what happened, but it's legitimately annoying to be the "bad guy" and then have to watch the "hero" go stomping around, taking over all of whats yours.

I wasn't trying to say "we kicked your ass, SUCK IT." I was trying to say that I think you're being a bit of a flippant hater, but I can certainly see how you'd be annoyed by a history that views your own country as a bad guy.

Phryxis wrote:

Also much, much cheaper.

For whom, though? The US spent trillions of dollars on the military, preparing to win a European land war against the USSR. I'm sure Europeans will write this off as stupid Americans wasting their time and money on an overblown threat, but the fact is we fought an economic war with Russia, a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt. Europe repaid that service by forming the EU, so it could then compete more effectively against the US in the global market.

So, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to let somebody else handle your national security.

Out on a limb here. The war is over. You still spent into the 90s and beyond the % of your gdp preparing for the was that never came, after it was won. You continue to plan and spend at the same rate for a war against now imaginary foes. The current wars could be won at much less expense with more bodies.

Phryxis wrote:

Coasting along without a goal is as bad for a nation as it is an individual.

Clearly true. However, nations, especially 1st world nations which experience frequent changes of leadership, don't have a single goal for very long, unless you reduce that goal down to the vague, obvious terms that I did earlier. Compare the goals of Bush to those of Obama. Totally different mentalities.

And, to be fair, I'm not really even sure if Obama does want to improve American economic, military and social dominance, so he might prove me wrong... But I think he's a special case.

Huh?

Because your improving the health care situation and dealing with the forgotten war in Afghanistan is a bad thing on what level?

Phryxis wrote:

Who said anything about a comparison between the two nations?

I didn't really mean to turn it into that. My post was a genuine comment, but because this is the internet, you took it in the worst possible way.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

Honestly, Yes, they were just that. In particular Richard, whose major lasting work was to die and allow his younger brother to take the throne and get neutered.

Phryxis wrote:

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

But, I can truthfully see how the American fact/mythology would be irritating for a Brit. It's a story in which you're the first badguy, and you get vanquished. That's the facts of what happened, but it's legitimately annoying to be the "bad guy" and then have to watch the "hero" go stomping around, taking over all of whats yours.

I wasn't trying to say "we kicked your ass, SUCK IT." I was trying to say that I think you're being a bit of a flippant hater, but I can certainly see how you'd be annoyed by a history that views your own country as a bad guy.

Something being mythology doesn't make it real.

The improving a health care bit is a very divided issue. Those for it think it's an improvement, the other 70% of the country (approximate) see it as a decline.

It's an improvement if you are a welfare leech but it's going to be made worst for middle class and upper class.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- Instead of the blanket denial of Phryxis's views of national goals, "Why don't you enlighten in detail?".

I ask this because there is a difference between theory and fact. Some basis of substantiation might help for others to understand your statement.

Do you think that Luxembourg aims to be a world power?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Let's not just accuse people of being stupid without any supporting logic. It's not really very interesting.

I didn't say you were stupid. Please don't attempt to twist my words.

dogma wrote:Do you think that Luxembourg aims to be a world power?

I think Luxembourg seeks the same goal as all other nations, that is to survive.

They also seek to grow because stagnation is death.

Now, a small nation surrounded by larger nations with superior military capabilities will keep their desire for expansion in check until the opportunity arises to do so without repercussion or until they are annexed/conquered.

If the physical expansion of borders is an impossibility then the small nation will ingratiate themselves with a powerful ally, will also attempt to expand economically or follow the Swiss's example of a form of both.

If they ever get the chance to expand with out committing national suicide, they will.

Fateweaver wrote:The improving a health care bit is a very divided issue. Those for it think it's an improvement, the other 70% of the country (approximate) see it as a decline.

It's an improvement if you are a welfare leech but it's going to be made worst for middle class and upper class.

So it should be possible for a person with a long term disease to be denied their existing coverage? And said person should be thus considered a welfare leach?

You have an unemployment rate of what 7% nationally maybe 10%, but 25 % have no coverage. There's a problem there, boy. The plan, while weak sauce compared to the rest of the planet, seeks to address that problem.

focusedfire wrote:
I think Luxembourg seeks the same goal as all other nations, that is to survive.

That isn't a universal national goal. Several nations have applied for annexation, or sought to integrate with larger adjacent countries. The EU is an excellent example of this behavior.

Note that attempts to 'survive' often involve the death of nationhood; indicating that the survival instinct individual, not national.

focusedfire wrote:
If they ever get the chance to expand with out committing national suicide, they will.

I doubt it. Their army is minuscule, and they have no navy or air force. There is no evidence in the electorate or political class of any desire for a Luxembourgian empire. All that we have which predicts their expansion is your assumption that states will expand if they have the opportunity; meaning we're at the point of tautology. I expect further discussion will force this to devolve into a consideration of human nature until we reach a similar tautology.

efarrer wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:The improving a health care bit is a very divided issue. Those for it think it's an improvement, the other 70% of the country (approximate) see it as a decline.

It's an improvement if you are a welfare leech but it's going to be made worst for middle class and upper class.

So it should be possible for a person with a long term disease to be denied their existing coverage? And said person should be thus considered a welfare leach?

You have an unemployment rate of what 7% nationally maybe 10%, but 25 % have no coverage. There's a problem there, boy. The plan, while weak sauce compared to the rest of the planet, seeks to address that problem.

This is OT so I'll just not continue this discussion. It might help some but it hurts others more than it helps. Unemployment is 9.9% nationally, some states are as low as 4.5% but some are as high as 17%.

I'm against it and my mind will not be changed. You obviously think it's a good thing, which is the opinion you are entitled too. I'd say it's worst than Canada's HC system and, I'm sorry, but your healthcare system sucks. It covers, in theory, more people than the current privatized system but it also requires people who don't WANT or NEED insurance to have it or pay a penalty (not to mention ludicrously mandatory coverage for such things as pre-natal care). Why does a woman who can never have kids have to make sure she has coverage for infants that she'll never have? Think I'm making it up? It's a clause and it's required coverage when you pay for a policy. If I won the $172M lotto tonight I don't need health care. If I break my arm I'm pretty sure that I can afford $5-6K US dollars to get mended.

This thread is about free speech, not healthcare so let's get this back on topic. K?

If you intended to avoid derailment, you should not have replied.

You still spent into the 90s and beyond the % of your gdp preparing for the was that never came, after it was won.

What did I already say? "a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt."

The debt was not unavoidable, but the economic "solutions" to defeating the USSR in the marketplace are still with us, and are now taking their toll. Although, to be fair, they're taking a toll on Europe as well.

Because your improving the health care situation and dealing with the forgotten war in Afghanistan is a bad thing on what level?

I'm trying to find where I said that, but I just can't. When I say things, you don't notice. When I don't say things, you pretend I did. You want to have a conversation with me, or would you prefer to be left alone?

In particular Richard, whose major lasting work was to die and allow his younger brother to take the throne and get neutered.

I was trying to throw Britain a bone. After I posted, I realized I should have used Winston Churchill, who is, IMO, on a similar level to the founding fathers for vision, resolve and general politcal heroism.

Something being mythology doesn't make it real.

There's an interesting discussion there, but I sense that you'd rather not have it, in favor of trying to take carefully guarded potshots at anything I say.

Regardless, I stand by my point, which is that human beings mythologize their best and brightest, and the only reason to try to undo that mythologizing is haterism and hubris.

Some exception must be made for respectful and scholarly work, but the post I was responding to was nothing of the sort. It was trying to portray the ideas of the FFs as arbitrary and not motivated by any true wisdom or vision.

I didn't say you were stupid. Please don't attempt to twist my words.

I apologize, I know you didn't say I was stupid, but you did suggest I was uneducated, uninformed, or otherwise lacking intellectually, so in keeping with your view of me, I decided to use a simple word.

I think Luxembourg seeks the same goal as all other nations, that is to survive.

I agree. And further, I think all nations in human history have responded to this challenge by attempting to assert themselves economically, militarily, or culturally.

The US and UK happen to have a history of global domination in these areas, but all nations are trying to improve themselves.

The term "survive" is perhaps a better one, simply because the great majority of nations are nowhere near turning a corner into "dominance," but within a certain scope or region, they are.

So it should be possible for a person with a long term disease to be denied their existing coverage?

Well, at least it's not just me that you have imaginary arguments with.

So if government should stay out of social justice, then it should stay out of gay marrige and abortion rights as well right?I almost feel that the country I fought in to wars for is turning into a mocking lie.ll the wars we've fought for a people to be free, our goals of fairness and equality.... and a great deal of Americans would be ok if some people arn't arn't let into stores because of something silly.

Phryxis wrote:
The debt was not unavoidable, but the economic "solutions" to defeating the USSR in the marketplace are still with us, and are now taking their toll. Although, to be fair, they're taking a toll on Europe as well.

To be completely accurate, the current debt was the result of the same self-sustaining paranoia which drove the USSR into the ground.

Phryxis wrote:
Regardless, I stand by my point, which is that human beings mythologize their best and brightest, and the only reason to try to undo that mythologizing is haterism and hubris.

Also, an interest in accuracy and sound decision making. Mythology is easily manipulated. Note how conservative mythology was used to mask Neoconservative policy during the second Bush administration.

Phryxis wrote:
It was trying to portray the ideas of the FFs as arbitrary and not motivated by any true wisdom or vision.

Those qualities would not render their ideas non-arbitrary. An arbitrary statement is one motivated by the individual will; ie. something which does not follow from physical necessity.

Phryxis wrote:
I agree. And further, I think all nations in human history have responded to this challenge by attempting to assert themselves economically, militarily, or culturally.

The US and UK happen to have a history of global domination in these areas, but all nations are trying to improve themselves.

Self-improvement is not tacit to dominance, and again relies on a qualitative assessment of improvement or success.

Phryxis wrote:
The term "survive" is perhaps a better one, simply because the great majority of nations are nowhere near turning a corner into "dominance," but within a certain scope or region, they are.

So you agree that the determination of success is relative to the nation in question, and therefore its goals?

dogma wrote: That isn't a universal national goal. Several nations have applied for annexation, or sought to integrate with larger adjacent countries. The EU is an excellent example of this behavior.

Note that attempts to 'survive' often involve the death of nationhood; indicating that the survival instinct individual, not national.

I believe that I mentioned annexation, but I now see that I was vague. A nation faced with overwhelming issues will seek to be annexed as a means of preserving the existing cultural. When faced with utter annihaltion on one side and an opportunity to survive on the other, nations will usually chose annexation as an attempt to prolong the end of their cultural identity. Now this as with most things is not an absolute.

dogma wrote:I doubt it. Their army is minuscule, and they have no navy or air force. There is no evidence in the electorate or political class of any desire for a Luxembourgian empire. All that we have which predicts their expansion is your assumption that states will expand if they have the opportunity; meaning we're at the point of tautology. I expect further discussion will force this to devolve into a consideration of human nature until we reach a similar tautology.

Think of nations as inflatable swimming pools. The water inside represents the populace and the walls represent the borders that have been established. If something removes (pops) those borders the contents will flow out-ward untill a new border is established or the contents become stretched to thin to recognize as a notable quantuty(don't over-extend).

sexiest_hero wrote:So if government should stay out of social justice, then it should stay out of gay marrige and abortion rights as well right?

I believe the position held by Ron Paul on marriage is that as a religious or cultural institution, the government should leave it alone entirely. Presumably this would mean that the whatever legal abilities are associated with marriage could be entered into by any pair of people, although some would likely be abolished.

If the government stayed out of abortion it wouldn't be able to prohibit it, so I'm not sure what you're saying there.

I almost feel that the country I fought in to wars for is turning into a mocking lie.ll the wars we've fought for a people to be free, our goals of fairness and equality.... and a great deal of Americans would be ok if some people arn't arn't let into stores because of something silly.

The refusal to prohibit something legally isn't tantamount to thinking it's right to do it personally.

Do you want to make it illegal for an unmarried person to cheat on their partner? Do you think it's ethical to do so?

focusedfire wrote:
I believe that I mentioned annexation, but I now see that I was vague. A nation faced with overwhelming issues will seek to be annexed as a means of preserving the existing cultural. When faced with utter annihaltion on one side and an opportunity to survive on the other, nations will usually chose annexation as an attempt to prolong the end of their cultural identity. Now this as with most things is not an absolute.

I would consider that an attempt to biologically survive, not an attempt to preserve a culture. A nation which is annexed is just as surely dead on a cultural level as one which is scattered to the winds. Utter annihilation is not something which occurs.

focusedfire wrote:
Think of nations as inflatable swimming pools. The water inside represents the populace and the walls represent the borders that have been established. If something removes (pops) those borders the contents will flow out-ward untill a new border is established or the contents become stretched to thin to recognize as a notable quantuty(don't over-extend).

I fail to see how that analogy applies to the notion that nations always seek to survive.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Think of nations as inflatable swimming pools. The water inside represents the populace and the walls represent the borders that have been established. If something removes (pops) those borders the contents will flow out-ward untill a new border is established or the contents become stretched to thin to recognize as a notable quantuty(don't over-extend).

I fail to see how that analogy applies to the notion that nations always seek to survive.

I really hope that Iran doesn't figure out the technology to make thumb-tacks... that would be very bad.

dogma wrote:I fail to see how that analogy applies to the notion that nations always seek to survive.

It applies in that there is a natural set of rules in play that affect the nations behavior. Understanding this then you see that a government will be forced to adapt its plans to the natural behavior of its citizenry. The government is still going to follow the path for survival by setting a barrier further out to prevent its people from over extending to the point of national disolution.

Hence the nation expands when the opportunity arises.


And to the other part of the post, I never said the goal was to become a super-power, the goal is to avoid diminishment of the nation and if/when able to expand in an attainable manner.

focusedfire wrote:
It applies in that there is a natural set of rules in play that affect the nations behavior. Understanding this then you see that a government will be forced to adapt its plans to the natural behavior of its citizenry. The government is still going to follow the path for survival by setting a barrier further out to prevent its people from over extending to the point of national disolution.

The government is not equivalent to the nation, and there are many cases in which a nation displaces itself without an accompanying extension of state. The most personal is likely the immigration of Mexican citizens to the US.

focusedfire wrote:
And to the other part of the post, I never said the goal was to become a super-power, the goal is to avoid diminishment of the nation and if/when able to expand in an attainable manner.

No, you said that the goal of the nation is to survive and that, because stagnation if equivalent to death, all nations will seek to expand when presented the opportunity.

So if government should stay out of social justice, then it should stay out of gay marrige and abortion rights as well right?

I'm not a fan of the term "social justice" but regardless, no, government shouldn't stay out of it. It just shouldn't sacrifice free speech in the name of social justice. Instead, it should find ways to protect people's rights in all capacities.

Also, while I feel that an individual citizen has the right to behave in a racist fashion, I don't think the government should do so. I have no problem at all with the government placing restrictions on what it can do, and if it wants to place restrictions on itself acting in a racist fashion, I'm all for it.

I could bring up the obvious hypocrisy of Affirmative Action at this point, but whatever.

To be completely accurate, the current debt was the result of the same self-sustaining paranoia which drove the USSR into the ground.

I think we're saying the same thing... But to be even more explicit, it was the American (and west in general) use of capitalism that allowed us to win this fight. Our manipulation of debt allowed us to "bury" Kruschev and his pals, but it's also left us with major a problem and a slanted outlook on how markets should work.

Note how conservative mythology was used to mask Neoconservative policy during the second Bush administration.

Too loaded of a statement, and too much off topic to discuss here.

An arbitrary statement is one motivated by the individual will; ie. something which does not follow from physical necessity.

Rather than arguing semantics, instead try to understand what is being said.

The word "arbitrary" in this case is used to mean "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported," an accepted definition of the word.

The post I was responding to was implying that the FFs might have included a right to not be offended. This suggests that there was no particular awareness on their part as to what matters in a free society and what doesn't, and that Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted in a "capricious" fashion with no real thought or wisdom guiding it.

So you agree that the determination of success is relative to the nation in question, and therefore its goals?

It depends how you mean it's relative... I feel that all nations are seeking economic, military and/or cultural strength. If by "relative" you mean that one nation might be seeking that relative to their equally small neighbor, while another might be seeking it relative to the entire world, then I agree.

Your example of Luxembourg... They're trying to maintain/expand their strength in those three areas. They have no aspiration of world dominance, but they do still seek to improve.

Your earlier point, that in some cases nations request annexation is also valid. I would counter that "nation" is perhaps better said "collection of people." Whena collection of people seek annexation, they're still attempting to strengthen themselves economically, militarily or culturally. They've simply decided that details of their official boundaries are less important than the three goals of all "groups of people."

I really hope that Iran doesn't figure out the technology to make thumb-tacks... that would be very bad.

I'm sure the IAEA is ALL OVER that. Cause they're so friggin efficient. You know.

Phryxis wrote:
I think we're saying the same thing... But to be even more explicit, it was the American (and west in general) use of capitalism that allowed us to win this fight. Our manipulation of debt allowed us to "bury" Kruschev and his pals, but it's also left us with major a problem and a slanted outlook on how markets should work.

Sort of, I agree with the initial premise, but not the conclusion.

Phryxis wrote:
Rather than arguing semantics, instead try to understand what is being said.

The word "arbitrary" in this case is used to mean "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported," an accepted definition of the word.

Given that this is a text based medium, semantics are very important.

Phryxis wrote:
The post I was responding to was implying that the FFs might have included a right to not be offended.

This suggests that there was no particular awareness on their part as to what matters in a free society and what doesn't, and that Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted in a "capricious" fashion with no real thought or wisdom guiding it.

It also suggests that a 'right to not be offended' may have been a wise addition. You've assumed that it suggests an absence of wisdom because you yourself do not consider such a right to be wise.

Phryxis wrote:
It depends how you mean it's relative... I feel that all nations are seeking economic, military and/or cultural strength. If by "relative" you mean that one nation might be seeking that relative to their equally small neighbor, while another might be seeking it relative to the entire world, then I agree.

Its relative to the value system imposed by either the body politic or the state which governs it. Even if we individualize the matter we are left with a set which can be consolidated into a less definite, or range-based, set.

Phryxis wrote:
Your earlier point, that in some cases nations request annexation is also valid. I would counter that "nation" is perhaps better said "collection of people." Whena collection of people seek annexation, they're still attempting to strengthen themselves economically, militarily or culturally. They've simply decided that details of their official boundaries are less important than the three goals of all "groups of people."

If we're going to consider this hypothetical object as only a group of people, then its better that we use individual terms to reference their desires. Individuals do not seek to strengthen themselves culturally, economically, or militarily in the same sense that nations (as groups of people with a common heritage) do. The break between an individual and his nation is the crux of my commentary here. The individual seeks security (short for the three goals you outlined) but the nation seeks many different things which may be at odds with security as defined by the individual. That level of abstraction creates a disconnect which can lead to positive, or negative action (from the perspective of an individual).

Phryxis wrote:I didn't really mean to turn it into that. My post was a genuine comment, but because this is the internet, you took it in the worst possible way.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

You've completely missed my point, haven't you? Dogma gets it. You just seem to revert to ATTACK ANY PERCIEVED THREAT OR CRITICISM! ATTACK ANY PERCIEVED THREAT OR CRITICISM!! by way of insulting my nation and diminishing British achievements. Nothing I posted was a value judgement of the USA, merely a statement of fact - none of the rights set out in the US constitution are inherent or immutable. They were agreed upon by a group of men, who drafted a document and used it as the basis for your nation. That is how it should be treated, IMO. I believe that pragmatism is more useful than fundamentalism when attemping to govern a free nation. To my mind that stands to reason.
My over-arcing point was that a nation could come together to decide that racism has no place in society, and decide not to tolerate it - regardless of provisions for free speech. There are several forms of speech which are curtailed anyway. It's my belief that the Founding Fathers desired freedom and peace for all - the problem is, that document was written many years ago when the world was a different place. At that time, 'Racism' didn't really exist as a concept the way that it does today - it was taken as self-evident that white men were superior. To my mind the pursuit of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness' means that a person should be able to walk down the street without seeing businesses which would refuse to serve them on the basis of skin-colour. After all, isn't the idea of 'liberte!, egalite! fraternite!' a direct progenitor of American Libertarianism?
I think that if the Founding Fathers lived today they would make liberty, equality and brotherhood the basis of the constitution, and include the proviso that speech should be free as long as it isn't used to victimise, denigrate or insult people on the basis of their skin-colour.

Take that however you want.

But, I can truthfully see how the American fact/mythology would be irritating for a Brit. It's a story in which you're the first badguy, and you get vanquished. That's the facts of what happened, but it's legitimately annoying to be the "bad guy" and then have to watch the "hero" go stomping around, taking over all of whats yours.

I wasn't trying to say "we kicked your ass, SUCK IT." I was trying to say that I think you're being a bit of a flippant hater, but I can certainly see how you'd be annoyed by a history that views your own country as a bad guy.

You're backtracking here, but regardless - I am NOT irritated by America. At all. I never lived under the British Empire, so I don't miss it. Life in Britain is very comfortable, so I have no reason to be jealous. I just think you have no other way to answer my points than to say 'pfft! You're just jealous!'. I'm really , really not.
But you shouldn't expect everyone to hold your country in the same level of reverence as you do. That way madness lies.

Regards to holding America in "reverence" when i was living in America i genuinelly liked it over there as i liked 80% of the people.

The issue is that there is an irritating 20% that seem to genuinely think that Europeans are "jelous" of them, and they just have no idea what they are talking about.

One of them i was arguing with in a bar (typical redneck ie. Global warming is a lie, guns are awesome, gays are disgusting, im not really racist BUT... i love God etc) actually said to me "your just jelous because here in America we are free to be any religion we want!"

What do they think its like in Europe?!

The land of the free is no "freer" than Western Europe, and in my opinion, a little less so thanks to my hobbies being what they are. You cant cross the road where you want (why do i have to walk 100 yards to a crossing when the pub is right there!?), you have to be 21 to drink and there was no bookies anywhere!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to add this as well... why are British and American people so obsessed with being "strong"?

The best places to live according to the UN

Top 10 on Human Development Index Ranking


1.Norway
2.Australia
3.Iceland
4.Canada
5.Ireland
6.Netherlands
7.Sweden
8.France
9.Switzerland
10.Japan

See, so Iceland is way better than both the US and UK, and they are not a major power, whats so awesome about being in charge anyway?

mattyrm wrote: "your just jelous because here in America we are free to be any religion we want, as long as you're Christian!"

Fixed that bit

Phryxis wrote:

In particular Richard, whose major lasting work was to die and allow his younger brother to take the throne and get neutered.

I was trying to throw Britain a bone. After I posted, I realized I should have used Winston Churchill, who is, IMO, on a similar level to the founding fathers for vision, resolve and general politcal heroism.

Sloppy, but to further my point. Just a man, not a god. If not for WWII Churchill would be best remembered for resigning in disgrace following a massive screwup and writing a really long history book.

Something being mythology doesn't make it real.

There's an interesting discussion there, but I sense that you'd rather not have it, in favor of trying to take carefully guarded potshots at anything I say.

Regardless, I stand by my point, which is that human beings mythologize their best and brightest, and the only reason to try to undo that mythologizing is haterism and hubris.

No. It must be done to insure that people understand
a. Why the people did what they did and how they really accomplished it.
b. To avoid the cult of personality that whitewashes everything and creates jingoistic idiots. For example your founding fathers are to my family and cultural groups mythology traitorous buggers who took the opportunity to seize power in a coupe during a war. A touch different from your mythology, isn't it. I'm well enough educated to see both sides of the coin but that's the UEL mythology around the revolution.

Some exception must be made for respectful and scholarly work, but the post I was responding to was nothing of the sort. It was trying to portray the ideas of the FFs as arbitrary and not motivated by any true wisdom or vision.

I would say that outside of your mythology, they can appear to be so. As noted the problem of mythology is perspective.

Albatross wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I didn't really mean to turn it into that. My post was a genuine comment, but because this is the internet, you took it in the worst possible way.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

You've completely missed my point, haven't you? Dogma gets it. You just seem to revert to ATTACK ANY PERCIEVED THREAT OR CRITICISM! ATTACK ANY PERCIEVED THREAT OR CRITICISM!! by way of insulting my nation and diminishing British achievements. Nothing I posted was a value judgement of the USA, merely a statement of fact - none of the rights set out in the US constitution are inherent or immutable. They were agreed upon by a group of men, who drafted a document and used it as the basis for your nation. That is how it should be treated, IMO. I believe that pragmatism is more useful than fundamentalism when attemping to govern a free nation. To my mind that stands to reason.
My over-arcing point was that a nation could come together to decide that racism has no place in society, and decide not to tolerate it - regardless of provisions for free speech. There are several forms of speech which are curtailed anyway. It's my belief that the Founding Fathers desired freedom and peace for all - the problem is, that document was written many years ago when the world was a different place. At that time, 'Racism' didn't really exist as a concept the way that it does today - it was taken as self-evident that white men were superior. To my mind the pursuit of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness' means that a person should be able to walk down the street without seeing businesses which would refuse to serve them on the basis of skin-colour. After all, isn't the idea of 'liberte!, egalite! fraternite!' a direct progenitor of American Libertarianism?
I think that if the Founding Fathers lived today they would make liberty, equality and brotherhood the basis of the constitution, and include the proviso that speech should be free as long as it isn't used to victimise, denigrate or insult people on the basis of their skin-colour.

Take that however you want.

But, I can truthfully see how the American fact/mythology would be irritating for a Brit. It's a story in which you're the first badguy, and you get vanquished. That's the facts of what happened, but it's legitimately annoying to be the "bad guy" and then have to watch the "hero" go stomping around, taking over all of whats yours.

I wasn't trying to say "we kicked your ass, SUCK IT." I was trying to say that I think you're being a bit of a flippant hater, but I can certainly see how you'd be annoyed by a history that views your own country as a bad guy.

You're backtracking here, but regardless - I am NOT irritated by America. At all. I never lived under the British Empire, so I don't miss it. Life in Britain is very comfortable, so I have no reason to be jealous. I just think you have no other way to answer my points than to say 'pfft! You're just jealous!'. I'm really , really not.
But you shouldn't expect everyone to hold your country in the same level of reverence as you do. That way madness lies.

I think you have misinterpreted the point of the Constitution, it's not what you can't do, but what the Government can't do.

As for the rallying cry of the French Revolution, Jefferson was a huge critic of how the deposing of the French aristocracy went about. It was anarchy and democracy in it's purest form. Mob rule and no rule of law. We were never set up as a Democracy.

Albatross wrote:Nothing I posted was a value judgement of the USA, merely a statement of fact - none of the rights set out in the US constitution are inherent or immutable.

How did you come about knowledge of what rights are immutable or inherent as a matter of fact? It seems pretty impressive, as I don't know that anyone's done so in the last 10,000 years.

They were agreed upon by a group of men, who drafted a document and used it as the basis for your nation. That is how it should be treated, IMO. I believe that pragmatism is more useful than fundamentalism when attemping to govern a free nation. To my mind that stands to reason.
My over-arcing point was that a nation could come together to decide that racism has no place in society, and decide not to tolerate it - regardless of provisions for free speech.

This is treating the curtailment of expressing racist opinions as a goal, but not reducing censorship. If the absence of censorship is considered valuable in itself, then to censor things for another goal may be far from pragmatic.

And you can have the sort of destructive fundamentalism anchored to the belief that society must fight against racism as much as you can to the concept of freedom of speech. In fact, I tend to see people doing this quite a bit.

To my mind the pursuit of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness' means that a person should be able to walk down the street without seeing businesses which would refuse to serve them on the basis of skin-colour.

As I said earlier, there's a difference between saying that things should be a certain way and advocating a specific policy to try and make things that way. I think that, ideally, people should be able to engage in romantic relationships without racial prejudice as well; I don't think that this means the government should try to enforce this, and I wouldn't even if it was actually semi-practical to do so. The "should" of the racist is superseded by the "should not" of the government, in a sense.

I think that if the Founding Fathers lived today they would make liberty, equality and brotherhood the basis of the constitution, and include the proviso that speech should be free as long as it isn't used to victimise, denigrate or insult people on the basis of their skin-colour.

Take that however you want.

You yourself said: "At that time, 'Racism' didn't really exist as a concept the way that it does today - it was taken as self-evident that white men were superior." So do you mean "if the founding fathers grew up in 2010"? I disagree with this line of thought; if a person with a certain set of genetics grows up in completely different world from another person with the same set of genetics, they will become a very different person. The founding fathers would cease to be themselves if they had grown up over 200 years in the future. Being named "Alexander Hamilton" doesn't make you the Alexander Hamilton, nor does being his identical twin.

Also, your whole statement seems rather unfounded. A socialist might say that if the founding fathers existed today they would have prohibited people from forming large corporations, a fascist might say they would taken out the first amendment alltogether once they realized how weak it made their country, an anarchist might say they would have never gotten rid of the articles of confederation, and so forth; however, this is getting back to a mythological view of them, as champions of whatever the clearly self-evident truthtm is, not a historical view.

Given that this is a text based medium, semantics are very important.

Oi... Sure, they're important. But words have variant meanings. My intended meaning of "arbitrary" was clear in context, but you acted as if there was only one meaning to the word.

I don't want to get into a whole meta "you have to debate this way" sort of discussion, but I think it's fair to say that you're not really trying to further a conversation so much as find ways to say that other people are wrong and sound smart in the process.

It doesn't take intelligence to fail to understand what somebody else is saying. It does take intelligence to understand them and then challenge their ideas in a way they will find thought provoking.

You've assumed that it suggests an absence of wisdom because you yourself do not consider such a right to be wise.

It's hard to have a good discussion when your goal seems to be to portray everything that's being said as oversimplified and unsupported, but never actually say very much yourself.

I absolutely do think the "right to not be offended" would have been a ridiculous inclusion. We can have a discussion about why I think that, but I would also expect that somebody of your presumed intellect would be well aware of numerous valid arguments as to why.

If you DO want to have that discussion, why not say so, instead of implying that I have made an assumption for which I have no basis?

AGAIN, I hate the whole meta conversation of debate styles, but your posts give me so little to build on, that's all I'm left with. All you're doing is basically posting faux intellectual eye rolls. Make some substative comments that we can actually discuss.

If we're going to consider this hypothetical object as only a group of people, then its better that we use individual terms to reference their desires.

When I dismiss use of the word "nation" I don't mean to change it as fundamentally as that. A "nation" has a certain meaning in the geopolitical context. It's something the UN recognizes, it has a flag, a system of government, etc. etc.

When a "nation" seeks to be annexed, it is destroying it's nationhood, and so it's reasonable to say (as you have) that the nation had no goal of self preservation at all.

However, that's purely organizational. The "group of people" including their economic markets, their military capability and their cultural history, are still a "nation-like entity." If they choose to give up the title "nation" they're still a group of people functioning largely identically to a nation. Perhaps they become a "state" or "province" in a larger nation, but they still have the general properties of a nation, and the same goals of survival.

So I don't want to lose the concepts of government, collective consciousness, etc. that the term "nation" implies. I just want to be clear that the organizational concept, the international legal definition of "nation" is not critical.

That level of abstraction creates a disconnect which can lead to positive, or negative action (from the perspective of an individual).

Absolutely the case. Nations have, in the past, killed off their citizenry for the benefit (in the leadership's opinion at least) of national security. Mao's "Great Leap Forward" for example.

But I don't speak of a "national goal" because I'm unaware of the individual, I speak of it because with any group of people of sufficient size, control minded types will take leadership positions, and begin trying to create "security" for the whole, whether the whole is recognized officially as a nation or not.

by way of insulting my nation and diminishing British achievements.

I perceived what you said as a deliberate diminishment of the founding fathers, and I responded in kind.

You appear to have felt otherwise, and so saw my response as a deliberate diminishment of your country.

While I still don't necessarily agree that your comments on the Bill of Rights were "merely a statement of fact," I accept that you view them that way, and don't intend for them to be insulting. I took them as a deliberate diminishment, one that you intended to be taken that way. I thought you were TRYING to be insulting.

Apparently I was mistaken, and we can now stop taking everything so personally.

I believe that pragmatism is more useful than fundamentalism when attemping to govern a free nation.

I agree with the sentiment, I don't agree with your conclusion.

We know that the founding fathers were "Great Men" in the same way we know Winston Churchill was a "Great Man." There was a way that things were done, a common view of how things operated, these men challenged it and were proven right.

It's not simple fundamentalism to stand by the ideals of the founding fathers. We know their ideology WORKED. In order to change or overturn it, you don't just have plead practicality. On some level you have to assume that you too are a Great Man, and that you too have the wisdom to know when a a proven ideology has outlived its usefulness, and iterative change is no longer enough.

Maybe you are smarter than the founding fathers. I certainly doubt it. But even so, the burden lies on you to prove that your change is "practical," rather than on me to defend my "fundamentalism."

We are always standing on the shoulders of giants. Economically, socially and technologically. To reinvent anything is not pragmatic, it's actually the opposite. It may be the right course of action, but it's certainly not pragmatic.

There are several forms of speech which are curtailed anyway.

This comment gives me an excuse to segue into a point I wish I'd made earlier, but forgot to...

It's exactly this attitude that the fascists and authoritarians use to exert their control. They frame a false question: "Would you rather we suffer racism, or that we lose a tiny bit of our freedom to speak?"

Having already conditioned the populace to froth at the mouth with rage when the word "racism" is spoken, the conclusion is obvious. "Racism has no place in society!"

I choose option 3. I want racism to go away, and I don't want to lose any of my freedom of speech. I am tired of government telling me that I get to choose one of its two, crappy options. If that's the best they can do, I want different people. I certainly don't want my fellow citizens expecting so little.

a person should be able to walk down the street without seeing businesses which would refuse to serve them on the basis of skin-colour.

And then should I, as a generally conservative minded American, be free to turn on my TV, or watch a movie, without being deluged by left-wing ideologies which I find offensive?

That's quite literally what it's like in America for a conservative. It's the mainstream media prattling about how smart and hunky Obama is. It's movie after movie that laments warmongering, evil Dick Cheney, horrible oil-barons, and environment destroying Republicans...

Shouldn't I be free from experiencing views that are hostile ot my own?

NO! NO NO NO NO. NOOOOOOO!

I should be a big boy, and understand that people don't always agree with me.

That's what the left (worldwide) needs to get a little bit more used to. Just because you control 80% of all media, and all of Hollywood, and you're used to not having to hear other people's views, that doesn't mean it's right or even possible for us all to live that way.

I just think you have no other way to answer my points than to say 'pfft! You're just jealous!'

I have never said I think you're jealous, mainly because I don't.

What I DO think, is that you're overly sensitive to American pride, and feel that we should be brought down a notch. Honestly, I'm not sure you're wrong. I've seen lots of Americans accuse Europeans of being jealous. It's certainly a real phenomenon. I also think Americans are more generally jingoistic and proud than Europeans are.

That's why I responded negatively to your comments on the founding fathers. I feel you think it's appropriate to bring them down a notch, and I don't agree.

Does the random American citizen, who has probably accomplished very little personally, need to be brought down a notch? Probably. I wouldn't blame you for wanting to do that.

But the founding fathers? I'm sorry, I think they're Great Men, they've earned that title, and trying to bring them down is just hubris.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Albatross wrote:Nothing I posted was a value judgement of the USA, merely a statement of fact - none of the rights set out in the US constitution are inherent or immutable.

How did you come about knowledge of what rights are immutable or inherent as a matter of fact? It seems pretty impressive, as I don't know that anyone's done so in the last 10,000 years.

While I agree with the rest of your commentary, I believe that Alba is correct here. The rights outlined in the Constitution deal in freedom from the state, not freedom in general. Were the state to cease its existence, the rights outlined in the Constitution would cease to have meaning. And, given the existence of an amendment process, the rights therein described cannot be immutable.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Albatross wrote:Nothing I posted was a value judgement of the USA, merely a statement of fact - none of the rights set out in the US constitution are inherent or immutable.

How did you come about knowledge of what rights are immutable or inherent as a matter of fact? It seems pretty impressive, as I don't know that anyone's done so in the last 10,000 years.

While I agree with the rest of your commentary, I believe that Alba is correct here. The rights outlined in the Constitution deal in freedom from the state, not freedom in general. Were the state to cease its existence, the rights outlined in the Constitution would cease to have meaning. And, given the existence of an amendment process, the rights therein described cannot be immutable.

Oops, I was thinking of them in a moral, rather than legal, context. Yeah, from a legal standpoint (which is probably the more relevant one) Albatross is correct.

But then again, some people do see the rights given in the constitution as being more important in a moral sense than in a legal sense (I haven't seen people so eager to defend other parts of the constitution, and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are part of the Declaration of Independence, which isn't law, but is still highly regarded). So I guess it's worth making a distinction, there.

Phryxis wrote:
AGAIN, I hate the whole meta conversation of debate styles, but your posts give me so little to build on, that's all I'm left with. All you're doing is basically posting faux intellectual eye rolls. Make some substative comments that we can actually discuss.

I tried that, and we arrived here because we seem to be having some fundamental disagreements with respect to terminology.

Phryxis wrote:
When I dismiss use of the word "nation" I don't mean to change it as fundamentally as that. A "nation" has a certain meaning in the geopolitical context. It's something the UN recognizes, it has a flag, a system of government, etc. etc.

So nation in the sense of nation-state?

Phryxis wrote:
However, that's purely organizational. The "group of people" including their economic markets, their military capability and their cultural history, are still a "nation-like entity." If they choose to give up the title "nation" they're still a group of people functioning largely identically to a nation.

Not in the sense of a nation-state as it seems you're referring to. Unless you're indicating that all groups of people are governed?

Phryxis wrote:
Perhaps they become a "state" or "province" in a larger nation, but they still have the general properties of a nation, and the same goals of survival.

So I don't want to lose the concepts of government, collective consciousness, etc. that the term "nation" implies. I just want to be clear that the organizational concept, the international legal definition of "nation" is not critical.

I think it is. If we're discussing the international behavior of a nation, then what is considered to be a nation in international parlance is of central importance. If we're just discussing groups of people, then we're moving into entirely different territory.

Phryxis wrote:
But I don't speak of a "national goal" because I'm unaware of the individual, I speak of it because with any group of people of sufficient size, control minded types will take leadership positions, and begin trying to create "security" for the whole, whether the whole is recognized officially as a nation or not.

Isn't that, by default, governance? I mean, if a control-minded individual is afforded de facto authority is he not governing his people?

If he's simply seeking the 'security' of his people he need not have authority over them.

Phryxis wrote:I have never said I think you're jealous, mainly because I don't.

What I DO think, is that you're overly sensitive to American pride, and feel that we should be brought down a notch. Honestly, I'm not sure you're wrong. I've seen lots of Americans accuse Europeans of being jealous. It's certainly a real phenomenon. I also think Americans are more generally jingoistic and proud than Europeans are.

That's why I responded negatively to your comments on the founding fathers. I feel you think it's appropriate to bring them down a notch, and I don't agree.

Does the random American citizen, who has probably accomplished very little personally, need to be brought down a notch? Probably. I wouldn't blame you for wanting to do that.

But the founding fathers? I'm sorry, I think they're Great Men, they've earned that title, and trying to bring them down is just hubris.

I never said anything negative about American pride, did I? This is a thread about the US constitution isn't it? Weren't we talking about rights? What year is it? Who am I?


Seriously though, you have completely missed the point of what I was saying: most, if not ALL of the rights set out in the US Constitution are arbitrary, just like any political document. The concept of 'rights' is in itself an ideological construction, something 'negotiated' (NOT in the most literal sense) and agreed upon (which encompasses tacit agreement by inaction or an absence of opposition) by human beings. It is my feeling that in light of this, it's problematic to treat the contents of the document as sacred, or natural law - immutable, unchangeable and not subject to the vicissitudes of time or the vagaries of human psychology. But this goes for ANY political document, agreement, treaty... that you chose to take offence is a little hypersensitive. You said some flatly insulting things about my country (interesting given that you're a patriot, and that Britain is America's closest ally... ) in response, which only served to make you look a tad childish, whereas I feel that I have carried myself with dignity.
Can you say the same? That's for your conscience to decide...

And I find it HILARIOUS that you seem to think I'm left-wing. Seriously, adorable.

Nevertheless, I have stated my position in the clearest possible terms. I don't expect you to agree with it, but it is what it is, and what it is has nothing at all to do with taking the 'founding fathers' down a notch.

So nation in the sense of nation-state?

As I understand it, a "nation-state" is still autonomous, so seeking annexation would still be the "death" of that autonomy, and thus the nation-state.

Unless you're indicating that all groups of people are governed?

Above a certain size, yes, and definitely yes when confronted with an external threat.

I think it is. If we're discussing the international behavior of a nation, then what is considered to be a nation in international parlance is of central importance.

Sure, you're correct, but I'm trying to distance myself from the details of the term "nation" and instead focus on what I was actually meaning in the context of this discussion.

Everyone was saying "nation" and so was I. Then you pointed out that nations, by the strict definition, have historically "destroyed" themselves via requested annexation. Puerto Rico, for example, is always on the verge of this.

The point wasn't to say "no, dogma doesn't know what a nation is," because you're being accurate in that respect. The point was to say, "ok, you're right, but nation isn't the right word." I'm actually not aware of the correct word, otherwise I'd be using it.

Isn't that, by default, governance? I mean, if a control-minded individual is afforded de facto authority is he not governing his people?

Yes? I'm not sure why you ask... I would call it governance. Have I been implying that I wouldn't?

most, if not ALL of the rights set out in the US Constitution are arbitrary, just like any political document.

Ok, it's not that you're WRONG about this, it's just that this sort of talk suggests to me that you're trying to make a point I can't agree with.

Clearly, when men write a new set of guiding documents, this process can accurately be termed "arbitrary."

However...

It's my belief that there are certain immutable truths to human society. No matter when and where, all humans interact in a somewhat consistent fashion. All governments and legal/political documents are an attempt at addressing the successful conduct of that interaction...

When I look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, flawed though they are, I see the best attempt in history at capturing the essence of successful human interaction.

To some extent that's simply "faith" as was discussed earlier. To some extent it's emperical fact, given the great success of the US since the drafting of those documents...

But ultimately it's a set of documents that I think should be held in great respect. To suggest that another right could have been added, suggests that there was no special wisdom guiding the formation of the document.

it's problematic to treat the contents of the document as sacred, or natural law - immutable, unchangeable

Sure. But in this case, were talking about documents that were foundational to the formation of modern Democracy, which saw the birth of the most powerful nation in today's world. It's not like there's no precedent for revering these documents.

I'm not saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights can't or shouldn't be changed. Clearly they can, and for many of the new Amendments, they should have. I'm simply stating that they should not be changed lightly. They shouldn't be changed without very, very compelling proof that they must be changed...

To suggest that the FFs "might just as well have said xyz" is flippant and presumes that they might just as well have been stupid. They weren't. So what they said must be taken very seriously.

served to make you look a tad childish, whereas I feel that I have carried myself with dignity.

And, obviously, I feel the opposite is true, and nobody cares what we think, so why dwell on it?

And I find it HILARIOUS that you seem to think I'm left-wing. Seriously, adorable.

I actually don't know. In some cases I'm speaking to you, in some cases I'm speaking to the world. For example, when I talk about how "the left" dominates the media, I'm talking about the US. From what I've seen, it's actually less like that in the UK.

All that said, if your Location is to believed, you're from the UK. And, really, basically anyone who can even remain sane in the UK is left of center in the US. So, I could be wrong, but if you're not left of American center, I'd be very, VERY surprised. Not sure how you rate yourself in the UK, but in my world, you're "to the left."

Phyrxis wrote:Sure. But in this case, were talking about documents that were foundational to the formation of modern Democracy

It wasn't a 'Genesis' moment though. Many countries use some form of Parliamentary Democracy to this day - something that was in place before the the US constitution was drafted. It's worth mentioning that I'm just shooting the breeze at this point, not looking to get involved in any slanging matches.

Phyrxis wrote:To suggest that the FFs "might just as well have said xyz" is flippant and presumes that they might just as well have been stupid. They weren't. So what they said must be taken very seriously.

That's cool - All I'm asking for is a little wider historical perspective.

Phryxis wrote:I'm not saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights can't or shouldn't be changed.

Fine, in that case we're pretty much done.

All that said, if your Location is to believed, you're from the UK. And, really, basically anyone who can even remain sane in the UK is left of center in the US.

Kindly explain this please.

Kindly explain this please.

Ok...

First part: "All that said, if your Location is to believed, you're from the UK."

When I sense that somebody has switched into "bemused, you-don't-get-it mode" which is where I think I'm at when I see something I said called "adorable" I like to revert to "pretend nothing is a known fact mode." So, I don't treat your Location of "Manchester UK" as obvious fact, because in "bemused you-don't-get-it mode" it's ok to act like the other guy is a total idiot for saying anything concrete.

If you've heard of e-Prime, it's like that. Not strictly, because I used a form of the verb "to be," but the same general idea of ridiculous, poncey, experiential relativisim that "bemused, you-don't-get-it mode" demands.

But, all that prattle aside, the first part was meant to say "You're from the UK."

The second part: "And, really, basically anyone who can even remain sane in the UK is left of center in the US."

This part is saying that the UK is pretty significantly left of the US. What a Brit calls a "conservative" is still to the left of most American Democrats. So, if you can live in the UK and be at all involved in its politcal dialogue without losing your mind, then you're to the left of the American center.

For example, I'm a conservative, and I'm very protective of individuality and personal freedom. I'm not sure I could even stay sane in the UK, and if I did, it would only be through distancing myself from the political process. If the UK was suddenly "my country" I'd feel so marginalized and out of sync, it'd literally be taxing to my sanity.

Europe in general has such a tolerance for social control, video cameras on every corner, restriction of rights for the "betterment of society," I don't think I could ever consider it my home.

Of course, the US will soon be in the same place, so I should probably start developing some coping mechanisms now.

Phryxis wrote:

Kindly explain this please.

Ok...

First part: "All that said, if your Location is to believed, you're from the UK."

When I sense that somebody has switched into "bemused, you-don't-get-it mode" which is where I think I'm at when I see something I said called "adorable" I like to revert to "pretend nothing is a known fact mode." So, I don't treat your Location of "Manchester UK" as obvious fact, because in "bemused you-don't-get-it mode" it's ok to act like the other guy is a total idiot for saying anything concrete.

If you've heard of e-Prime, it's like that. Not strictly, because I used a form of the verb "to be," but the same general idea of ridiculous, poncey, experiential relativisim that "bemused, you-don't-get-it mode" demands.

But, all that prattle aside, the first part was meant to say "You're from the UK."

Yeah, I got that!

The second part: "And, really, basically anyone who can even remain sane in the UK is left of center in the US."

This part is saying that the UK is pretty significantly left of the US. What a Brit calls a "conservative" is still to the left of most American Democrats. So, if you can live in the UK and be at all involved in its politcal dialogue without losing your mind, then you're to the left of the American center.

For example, I'm a conservative, and I'm very protective of individuality and personal freedom. I'm not sure I could even stay sane in the UK, and if I did, it would only be through distancing myself from the political process. If the UK was suddenly "my country" I'd feel so marginalized and out of sync, it'd literally be taxing to my sanity.

Europe in general has such a tolerance for social control, video cameras on every corner, restriction of rights for the "betterment of society," I don't think I could ever consider it my home.

Of course, the US will soon be in the same place, so I should probably start developing some coping mechanisms now.

Ok, the part in bold is a little patronising. I had a feeling this is what you meant. Are you saying that there's no pressure to conform in America? With a straight face? What do you imagine life to be like here? From what I've heard (from American expatriates, and British expats in America) it's not all that different from living in the US, really. The whole 'video cameras on every street corner' thing is a massive overstatement, and in terms of restrictions on personal freedoms and social control... well, enlighten me, because I personally think you've swallowed the propaganda.

Phryxis wrote:
As I understand it, a "nation-state" is still autonomous, so seeking annexation would still be the "death" of that autonomy, and thus the nation-state.

Yes, I agree with that.

Phryxis wrote:
Above a certain size, yes, and definitely yes when confronted with an external threat.

Are we talking only about groups which self-identify; ie. groups whose members emotionally connect to the collective identity?

Phryxis wrote:
The point wasn't to say "no, dogma doesn't know what a nation is," because you're being accurate in that respect. The point was to say, "ok, you're right, but nation isn't the right word." I'm actually not aware of the correct word, otherwise I'd be using it.

I don't think there is one. If we're speaking only of groups which have a semblance of institutional backbone, then perhaps polity could work? It seems odd to think of cultures as things which work to defend themselves, but that may also be an appropriate word.

Phryxis wrote:
Yes? I'm not sure why you ask... I would call it governance. Have I been implying that I wouldn't?

Not at all. I'm just trying to figure out how you're differentiating between a generic group of people and a nation or nation-state. At least beyond international recognition.

Are you saying that there's no pressure to conform in America?

Oh, GOD no. I mean, I don't know what it's like in other first world contries, but in the US, the left spends pretty much every nanosecond of every day trying to browbeat everyone into line with their worldview. If you get even a moments' pause from it, it's probably because a conservative has briefly managed to grab the microphone and start his browbeating.

Honestly, I doubt it's possible for the UK to be victim to such a constant thought control effort, you can't get any more than "all the way."

And, of course, on a less politically charged level, all countries are rife with social pressure. Wear what everyone else wears, watch the same TV shows so you can talk about them at work the next day, etc. etc. etc.

So, no, this isn't about that...

What I'm talking about is just a general attitude of government, and the role government should play in daily life. It's all a balance between government taking care of you and government controlling you. The more they take care of you, the more they control you as well.

Europeans are much MUCH more tolerant than Americans when it comes to being controlled for the sake of their own safety.

I fear to use the word, for all the baggage it carries, but that's really what "socialism" is all about. You sacrifice freedom in favor of a more controlled, safe society.

Now, I realize that the uK isn't purely "socialist." But it's more socialist than the US, and the uS is already far, FAR too socialist for my liking.

The old concept of "rugged individualism" is still around in the US. It may be impossible to see it across the pond, thanks to the blathering white noise of the American left, but there are still a LOT of Americans who just want to be left alone, and have the government be as invisible as possible from their lives.

Honestly, I don't mean to be patronizing. A big part of being a REAL libertarian is actually accepting that other people want different things. If you're cool with how things run in the UK, that's cool, I'm literally not judging you. I just have a different set of priorities, and I couldn't deal with how things are over there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Are we talking only about groups which self-identify; ie. groups whose members emotionally connect to the collective identity?

Probably. I mean, there doesn't have to be 100% emotional connection from all members, but there does have to be a critical mass to constitute a "movement" or somesuch. When you've got a "bunch of people" and enough of them are emotionally or pragmatically connected to the collective identity, then you've got this "body" that I'm speaking of, which I don't know the name for.

That "body" is the thing that I believe will attempt to "survive" 100% of the time.

It seems odd to think of cultures as things which work to defend themselves, but that may also be an appropriate word.

It doesn't seem that odd to me, but I guess you're unhappy with the fact that a culture isn't, strictly speaking, the people, but instead the traditions/history/outlook of the people. I know how you like to be precise in language...

Honestly, it's not a bad word for it. A "culture" of people. Sorta like bacteria, only probably not as smart.

Government control is okay. It is what the government does with that power and what context they are using it in is what defines how "good" or "bad" you may see it to be.

For instance:

In a crisis, the United States government often becomes more socialist to deal with the problem. Take World War II. What did we do in order to enter the war? We organized our economy and turned millions of people into soldiers and workers in order to fight and help win the war. After World War II, we spun out of the system some of those socialist controls and handed much of the economy back to the private sector. However, things changed. Some elements of government control remained in effect and some were removed. The relationship between the government and the people changed as well.

People tend to see the government in running our economy during WWII as a good thing. It was not perfect, but it helped us win the war.

Now tskip that timeframe back about ten years, and people have begun to second and third guess the governmental role in the Great Depression. Depending on your political spectrum, you are of several opinions ranging from FDR being a tyrant to the government helped avert the USA from becoming like Weimar Germany turning into Nazi Germany.

In the UK's context, I do see them as being more socialist than the United States, but I do not see it as a bad thing. A bad thing would be the command economy of the Soviet Union, or maybe 1950's socialist UK. Today's UK I am fine with.

And as for the nation-state- nation deals with the culture, and state is the government. Calling a culture a nation is probably the most appropriate term you can use, but there is probably a better word out there for it.

The reason why Europeans are more tolerant of government intervention/control, call it what you will, is because they are more socially minded and less individualistic than Americans.

Japanese are even more socially minded then Europeans, and British are between continental Europeans and Americans.

I like what I've seen of socially minded cultures. Where they do accept that people have certain rights, they also understand that the individuals rights end where another persons begin. Having been born and raised in the states I do have a defensive nature since it is the only way to survive the areas and conditions I grew up in. I have contemplated moving to Canada but due to a slacker nature I havn't done the proper research into Canadian government. How socially minded are the people and the governemnt?

How socially minded are the people and the governemnt?

If we're accepting that "socially minded" generally means "more socialist" then Canada is more socially minded than the US, just slightly less than the UK.

Honestly, you won't find a less "socially minded" country than the US in the first world. At least I can't think of one immediately.

Phryxis wrote:
Probably. I mean, there doesn't have to be 100% emotional connection from all members, but there does have to be a critical mass to constitute a "movement" or somesuch. When you've got a "bunch of people" and enough of them are emotionally or pragmatically connected to the collective identity, then you've got this "body" that I'm speaking of, which I don't know the name for.

That "body" is the thing that I believe will attempt to "survive" 100% of the time.

Ok, that's what I thought you were talking about. I don't agree, but at least we're on the same page. I think that, in most instances, the 'body' will seek to survive, but that there are instances in which adherence to a group identity is not predicated on survival. I'm thinking of groups like suicide cults, religions which make no attempt to expand, that sort of thing. I would also note that a focus on survival does not necessitate improvement of position. Note how Judaism has made no real attempt to proselytize.

Phryxis wrote:
It doesn't seem that odd to me, but I guess you're unhappy with the fact that a culture isn't, strictly speaking, the people, but instead the traditions/history/outlook of the people. I know how you like to be precise in language...

Honestly, it's not a bad word for it. A "culture" of people. Sorta like bacteria, only probably not as smart.

Actually, I'm more chagrined by the distinction you pointed out above. I'm certainly a member of the culture known as American, but I'm not emotionally attached to the idea of being American, and care little about the perpetuation of American ideas. I think this may simply be a case in which my own leanings make the motivations of others difficult to process on an instinctual level. About the only thing I'm willing to defend on a behavioral level is rationality.

Socially minded means collectivist in mental outlook rather than individualistic.

I'm speaking very generally, of course. All humans can be placed on a continuum of collectivism to individualism. All Americans aren't on the same point, nearer the Individualism end than all Europeans.

These factors have wide ramifications on social cognition, so it is reasonable to suppose they would affect the way people form governments and allow themselves to be governed, thus a socially minded population should lead to socialistic government.

Note how Judaism has made no real attempt to proselytize.

True, but Israel has the right of return. They don't proselytize, but they do attempt to increase their numbers in ways that they view as being realistic and acceptable.

And, honestly, can you think of a nation that's more aggressive than Israel when it comes to assuring their security?

I'm certainly a member of the culture known as American, but I'm not emotionally attached to the idea of being American, and care little about the perpetuation of American ideas.

Sure, but that's exactly why I said it doesn't have to be 100%, and I also extended it to be "emotionally and pragmatically."

For example, you may not feel that American American economic dominance as a point of pride, but if losing that dominance would make it materially harder for you to provide for your family, you might ultimately be willing to work in support of American economic dominance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Socially minded means collectivist in mental outlook rather than individualistic.

Valid definition, but I'd add that increasing collectivism is largely synonymous with "becoming more socialist."

The exception would be when you've actually gone left of socialism into communism.

Phryxis wrote:
True, but Israel has the right of return. They don't proselytize, but they do attempt to increase their numbers in ways that they view as being realistic and acceptable.

And, honestly, can you think of a nation that's more aggressive than Israel when it comes to assuring their security?

No, but Israel is not Judaism. Its not even universally described as the Jewish state by its citizens. This is evident in that the right of return applies not only Jews, but people with Jewish ancestors and their spouses.

There isn't a single agreed definition of socialist/socialism. however I think we all know the outline.

In very broad terms, this whole issue is about how people view themselves as autonomous units or members of a social system.

I'm not sure I entirely believe in a clear difference between "collectivism" and "individualism", honestly.

There isn't a clear difference. It's a spectrum.

You might be at 73 and I might be at 69 and we would think the same way on a lot of topics.

However when scores are aggregated across entire nations, clear differences appear.

What I mean to say is I don't even believe there to be a clear difference between the concepts themselves, even taken to their most extreme. Although maybe I should have said "one clear difference". It seems like the distinction between the concepts changes a lot depending on who is defining it.

It doesn't seem that bad, just complicated.

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

Me vs. Us. That is about as good a definition I can think of.

"Me vs Us" is one definition given. However, it seems to declare an individualist to be solely concerned with oneself. If that definition were to be used, it seems hard to argue that a person arguing for individual rights that they themselves do not desire is an individualist, especially if they must make some sort of personal sacrifice to do so. However, I frequently see this cited as an individualist stance.

Also, an interesting quote from the page:

Ayn Rand wrote:Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. [...] When men began to be indoctrinated once more with the notion that the individual possesses no rights, that supremacy, moral authority and unlimited power belong to the group, and that a man has no significance outside his group -- the inevitable consequence was that men began to gravitate toward some group or another, in self-protection, in bewilderment and in subconscious terror. The simplest collective to join, the easiest one to identify -- particularly for people of limited intelligence -- the least demanding form of "belonging" and of "togetherness" is: race. [...] It is thus that the theoreticians of collectivism, the 'humanitarian' advocates of a 'benevolent' absolute state ... led to the rebirth and the new, virulent growth of racism in the 20th century.

Related to the thread in at least three different ways!

No, but Israel is not Judaism.

Heh, I'm not sure Israel would agree with you. Certainly, as you say, not all its citizens are on the same page, but the Zionists who founded it believe it's the center of Jewish religion and culture.

This is evident in that the right of return applies not only Jews, but people with Jewish ancestors and their spouses.

The term "Jew" is an odd one. It's a religion, a race and a culture, all at once. So, in the context of the right of return, Israel views it as a race. Specifically, as a matrilineal race.

What I mean to say is I don't even believe there to be a clear difference between the concepts themselves, even taken to their most extreme.

Why not? I view them as being relatively opposite.

I think an interesting component of all of this is internal vs. external validation. That is to say, does an individual judge his success based on his own perceptions (internal validation), or based on the input of others (external validation)?

The individualist is internally validated. The collectivist is externally validated.

Phryxis wrote:
Heh, I'm not sure Israel would agree with you. Certainly, as you say, not all its citizens are on the same page, but the Zionists who founded it believe it's the center of Jewish religion and culture.

Well yeah, though there a few anti-Israel movements in the American Jewish community that would take issue with the sentiment. I actually find the whole situation pretty amusing.

Phryxis wrote:
The term "Jew" is an odd one. It's a religion, a race and a culture, all at once. So, in the context of the right of return, Israel views it as a race. Specifically, as a matrilineal race.

I'm not up on the specific jurisprudence surrounding the right, but its definitely something which has become very technical over time.

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Me vs Us" is one definition given. However, it seems to declare an individualist to be solely concerned with oneself.

Concerned with interests that effect them directly. Invested in a way that benefits them as an individual, or a small group that they are a part of.

If that definition were to be used, it seems hard to argue that a person arguing for individual rights that they themselves do not desire is an individualist, especially if they must make some sort of personal sacrifice to do so. However, I frequently see this cited as an individualist stance.

Wut.

Can you clear that up a bit? I am not sure how to respond.

Phryxis wrote:Why not? I view them as being relatively opposite.

Well, I think they're sort of defined as being opposite from one another. Maybe too heavily defined by it.

I think an interesting component of all of this is internal vs. external validation. That is to say, does an individual judge his success based on his own perceptions (internal validation), or based on the input of others (external validation)?

The individualist is internally validated. The collectivist is externally validated.

That's an interesting take. But what about the archetypal unsung hero, who dedicates his life to the service of others while never receiving credit for it? Or the (at least!) equally common archetype of the narcissist who tramples others on his quest for social status? Both would embody a significant aspect of collectivism and a significant aspect of individualism, but there doesn't seem to be any disconnect caused by it, to me.

I suppose I see individualism and collectivism as being a set of traits that aren't actually connected to each other strongly enough to be associated in that manner. Sort of like Law and Chaos in Dungeons and Dragons, where planning skills, ability to think spontaneously, individuality, respect for (all?) authority, predictability, personal honor, and aversion to risk are all considered to be rooted in the same concept, but not necessarily with warrant (which then leads to an over-reliance on examples and imagery to describe just exactly what Law and Chaos are).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Concerned with interests that effect them directly. Invested in a way that benefits them as an individual, or a small group that they are a part of.

Okay, that's workable as a definition.

Wut.

Can you clear that up a bit? I am not sure how to respond.

Hmm, let me try for an example:

Say that in a certain region, homosexuality is thought to be an abomination by most of the population, and sodomy is prohibited by law. Now say someone living in this region considers this to be wrong, and starts trying to get the law overturned in court. Let's also say this person doesn't have any close friends or family that he knows to be gay (and isn't gay himself, of course), and so is not particularly concerned about the law's effect on him personally life. Let's also say he spends a fair amount of time and money in making his case.

According to the "Me vs Us" definition, it would seem that this person is a collectivist, or is at least being collectivistic in this instance. He's sacrificing the time and money of "me" to help strangers, which would only do if he considered part of "us". However, many would instead call this man an individualist, for supporting the rights of a few individuals to do something that most of society doesn't want them to do.

Phryxis wrote:I happen to agree with Rand Paul. I think that an individual should have the right to say and do what they wish on their property, so long as their words and deeds don't contradict other laws.

There's two main reasons that I feel that way:

1) Governments need constant practice with protecting/respecting their citizens' freedom. When they start thinking it's ok to take away one "minor" freedom to protect the "greater good" it sets them on a path of thinking that they should not be on. The preservation of personal freedom is the single most important function of government. While I'm no fan of racism, I'd rather be free among racists, than a slave amongst loving hippies.

2) You can't force people to think right. If somebody is a racist, they're a racist. You can't just say "NO" at them loudly and make it stop. There's no point to forcing them to do something they don't want to do, it just builds resentment and perpetuates the problem. The solution to somebody not wanting to let black people into their store isn't to force them to allow it, it's to foster a thoughtful, intelligent society that no longer produces racists.

Sure, but you’re missing the distinction between public and private property. If you want to put a sign outside your house that says ‘no black people’ you can, and if you then enforce that by refusing black people entry, the law will even come down to support you through trespassing laws.

That’s a totally different thing to public space though. A store that opens its doors to the general public is supported by society at large, economically and legally. As such it isn’t the same thing as one’s own personal house, and so society is able to have more of a say in how you control access to that space.

So while you’re personally able to control who comes into your house, when you set up a business generally accessible to society, society in turn says you have to make it accessible to all of society.

efarrer wrote:For most of the last 200 years the Uk had the largest Empire the Earth had ever seen. That only ended after the British held out in the worst war the world had ever seen while the Americans sold to both sides and dithered about whether or not to do the right thing. A status that only ended when the Americans were bombed out of their indecision.

That’s not really what happened to the British empire. If the British were still a global power at the outbreak of WWII, then it wouldn’t have been possible for the Germans to force you into retreating onto your own island where you narrowly won a defensive air battle. Given those events, you need to consider the idea that the British Empire had already faded.

When you look at the economics of holding overseas colonies, this idea has a lot of value. Simply put, overseas colonies were a great source of national wealth during the mercantile age, exotic resources fetched a great price and the cost of administering colonies was comparatively low. This changed though, the profits drawn from colonies stagnated and even fell, while the cost of administering them increased. At the same time ever increasing wealth was found in having a strong industrial base. This is why the US became the dominant world wide economy in the inter-war period, and why Germany was able to overwhelm the British Empire.

Phryxis wrote:And how's that going these days? The point I make is that the US has been ascendant for its entire history (so far), while the UK has been in decline for at least 75 years.

You’re falling into a trap of looking at the success and failings of nations as if their global strength were the only important consideration. The British people have high living standards, so I’m not too sure they care about having lost their empire. That’s a measure of their success.

Phryxis wrote:For whom, though? The US spent trillions of dollars on the military, preparing to win a European land war against the USSR. I'm sure Europeans will write this off as stupid Americans wasting their time and money on an overblown threat, but the fact is we fought an economic war with Russia, a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt. Europe repaid that service by forming the EU, so it could then compete more effectively against the US in the global market.

So, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to let somebody else handle your national security.

In the 60s and 70s US military spending was a very important part of the response to the USSR. By the 80s, when US military budgets continued to skyrocket, it was well known that the USSR couldn't compete with Europe. Germany alone was probably capable of defeating the Soviets.

You know how people say that the Soviet system was bad because it was a crap system that stunted economic growth? Well, yeah, it was a crap system that stunted economic growth, and the result is that in the decades following the war Europe recovered and the US bounded even further ahead. The Soviets were beaten because state controlled industry is a poor long term system. It had nothing to do with inflated US military budgets.

Note that you're still expanding the military budget. With no conventional enemy to fight, with the US representing almost half of all military spending, you continue to spend more each year. It has absolutely nothing to do with enemies, and everything to do with the political structure and culture of the US.

focusedfire wrote:Now, a small nation surrounded by larger nations with superior military capabilities will keep their desire for expansion in check until the opportunity arises to do so without repercussion or until they are annexed/conquered.

It's a stretch to apply expansion to all but a handful of countries around the world, attempting to apply it to all of them is ridiculous.

Look at what dominates the political dialogue of every country – improving living standard. In general, countries desire improving living standards for its citizens. There are exceptions, and there are other goals that specific countries desire, but it is a pretty solid general rule. Believing that every country's have expansive territorial ambitions that are only kept in check by the military strength of their neighbours is not a remotely plausible worldview. It completely fails to explain the actions of almost all nations for almost all of modern history, and foreign affairs represents only the smallest portion of the political dialogue, of which expansion is almost a non-existent point of discussion.

Phryxis wrote:I was trying to throw Britain a bone. After I posted, I realized I should have used Winston Churchill, who is, IMO, on a similar level to the founding fathers for vision, resolve and general politcal heroism.

It’s an odd thing, how Churchill is loved in the US so much more than he is in the UK. Probably because the US only looks at his leadership during WWII, while the British study him in greater detail, at which point things get a lot uglier.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

Leonardo designed a tank. It was quite a clever idea at the time, considering no-one had really done much work in the field before then. Since Leonardo though, but there’s been many generations of thought and experience in tank design, and now we have tanks that, dare I say it, are better than Leonardo’s design.

The constitution was written by some clever men, but it was one of the first attempts at truly representational government. Since then, there’s been many generations of thought and experience in representational government, and now we have some ideas that, dare I say it, might be better than the designs of the founding fathers’.

And yes, we are all just men. Some men are cleverer than others, some more insightful, some more brave, but we are all just men. It does no service to history, or to those men, to treat them in any way other than by the truth of their actions. Mythologising serves only to make things easier for people who want a simple history that explains away their unquestioned personal beliefs.

Kilkrazy wrote:There isn't a clear difference. It's a spectrum.

You might be at 73 and I might be at 69 and we would think the same way on a lot of topics.

However when scores are aggregated across entire nations, clear differences appear.

I’m not sure it’s as simple as a spectrum, even. Different countries accept different elements of traditional left/right reform – the US has much stronger unions than many countries in Europe, for instance.

But I’m not certain collectivism vs individualism really explains that much of the Europe vs US. I think American exceptionalism and the thought processes a population assumes when it becomes a dominant world power explain more of the differences. The US sitting on the right fringe of politics is not that old, many social reforms particularly in regards to worker’s rights, were first initiated in the US.

Just a point of interest: I assume those people who would agree with Rand Paul (stupid fething name, by the way...) support private healthcare. Does this mean that private hospitals should be able to turn away African-Americans?

Just curious.

sebster wrote:...while the British study him in greater detail, at which point things get a lot uglier.

Shall we gas some Kurds, old chap?

sebster wrote:
The constitution was written by some clever men, but it was one of the first attempts at truly representational government. Since then, there’s been many generations of thought and experience in representational government, and now we have some ideas that, dare I say it, might be better than the designs of the founding fathers’.

I have more experience in representative government than Thomas Jefferson, so does every other US citizen.

sebster wrote:Sure, but you’re missing the distinction between public and private property. If you want to put a sign outside your house that says ‘no black people’ you can, and if you then enforce that by refusing black people entry, the law will even come down to support you through trespassing laws.

That’s a totally different thing to public space though. A store that opens its doors to the general public is supported by society at large, economically and legally. As such it isn’t the same thing as one’s own personal house, and so society is able to have more of a say in how you control access to that space.

So while you’re personally able to control who comes into your house, when you set up a business generally accessible to society, society in turn says you have to make it accessible to all of society.

I think I must be missing the distinction here too, because I'm not really following your logic.

A store requires patrons to stay in business, that makes sense enough. However, the group of people who patronize the store is not identical to the group of people making the laws in question. In fact, either group may not have a person in the other group at all. So this isn't a matter of "what they gave they can take away" economically, and it seems that if it was then the store would go out of business very quickly if it ever tried to ban black people from entering anyways.

Legally, I'm not seeing the distinction between the store and the house. The house requires the protection of police and the provision of utilities and so forth (and in some ways residences are more protected than places of business) just as the store does.

And I'm sorry, but the last sentence doesn't make any sense to me at all. Why would allowing people access to your property be giving them the right to dictate what you can do with your property as well? Guests in your house don't gain the ability to invite further guests that you don't want present. Allowing someone to enter your property doesn't detract from them in any way, so there's no need for mutual agreement on whether or not it can be done. If I said "sebster is allowed in my house from this day forward!", there would be nothing you can do to force me to make you unwelcome, as I'm forcing anything upon you, only changing the traits of my own property.

Albatross wrote:Just a point of interest: I assume those people who would agree with Rand Paul (stupid fething name, by the way...) support private healthcare. Does this mean that private hospitals should be able to turn away African-Americans?

Just curious.

Hmm. While I don't see this happening in particular, I do think there is a problem with attempting to leave government regulation out of emergency room procedure. It's just too time-sensitive (and location sensitive) for the government to make sure that contracts are being honored and competition by private individuals is present without a fair amount of intervention. A requirement of non-discrimination (based on arbitrary factors) would probably be among the necessary regulations.

The same general concept would probably need to hold for regulated utilities and such too. Of course, I doubt Rand would agree with me on either of these points.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm, let me try for an example:

Say that in a certain region, homosexuality is thought to be an abomination by most of the population, and sodomy is prohibited by law. Now say someone living in this region considers this to be wrong, and starts trying to get the law overturned in court. Let's also say this person doesn't have any close friends or family that he knows to be gay (and isn't gay himself, of course), and so is not particularly concerned about the law's effect on him personally life. Let's also say he spends a fair amount of time and money in making his case.

According to the "Me vs Us" definition, it would seem that this person is a collectivist, or is at least being collectivistic in this instance. He's sacrificing the time and money of "me" to help strangers, which would only do if he considered part of "us". However, many would instead call this man an individualist, for supporting the rights of a few individuals to do something that most of society doesn't want them to do.

I follow your meaning, and I agree that people can be both for themselves, and the whole at the same time.

In the least complicated example I can think of, it is pretty obvious. There are people that live in the woods, outside of civilization for most of their lives. There are also people that live in cities, maintaining constant contact with civilization for most of their lives. Abstractly, I can consider the individuals in this example to be individualist in the case of being a mountain man, and collectivist in the case of being a city boy. Neither fit any precise definition.

In terms of what both would sacrifice for their lifestyles, mountain dwelling would lack the benefit of being invested in a system designed to protect many, and the city dwelling would lack the benefit of being independent of that system. The CEO in the city, may be very similar in mindset to the hardcore mountain man, but their actual methods of achieving their goals, rely on different factors. The mountain man relies on the land, the business man relies on the invisible hand.

WarOne wrote:Government control is okay.

Thats not what the basis of our form of governemnt is based on. Government has checks and balances at every level, adn the power itself was limited before it was allowed to be expanded.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats not what the basis of our form of governemnt is based on. Government has checks and balances at every level, adn the power itself was limited before it was allowed to be expanded.

The Constitution provides for federal control over several areas of interest. Our system of government is indeed based on the notion that government control is acceptable, as are all systems of government; even those based on self-governance.

But what about the archetypal unsung hero, who dedicates his life to the service of others while never receiving credit for it? Or the (at least!) equally common archetype of the narcissist who tramples others on his quest for social status?

The source of one's validation isn't all there is... You correctly identify the unsung hero as being internally validated, and the narcissist as externally validated. But that's not all that positions someone relative to individualism vs collectivism, as you point out. However, in some ways, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Also, I'd point out that the narcissist is still a collectivist, he's very focused on the collective, he just has a negative focus. He sounds like pretty much all politicians.

Sure, but you’re missing the distinction between public and private property.

I disagree. A business is private property, at least ethically speaking. There may be legal statutes I'm not aware of, but since we're talking opinions here, and not legal interpretation, my opinion is that a business is the property of the owner.

True public property, something like a public park, a courthouse, some other facility owned by state or federal government, that should NOT have any sort of racist, or otherwise discriminatory policy.

Does this mean that private hospitals should be able to turn away African-Americans?

Actually yes, they should. Unless they take federal funds, in which case they should pick one or the other.

This is not as much of a thought experiment as it seems, either, as this actual issue comes up with abortion. Catholic hospitals want to be exempt from having to provide abortion services, but they often take federal funds. In the past, they've been afforded an exemption, but Obama, being the "open minded" guy he is, woudld like to close that loophole and force them to violate their own religious beliefs.

By the 80s, when US military budgets continued to skyrocket, it was well known that the USSR couldn't compete with Europe.

While this may have proven true in the early 90s as the wall came down, I don't think anybody at all had any idea just how overtaxed the USSR really was. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the perception changed in about 1990, as the USSR began to collapse, no sooner.

The Soviets were beaten because state controlled industry is a poor long term system. It had nothing to do with inflated US military budgets.

Sure it did. It wasn't just poor in a vaccuum, it was poor in competition with the West's economic systems. If not for the arms race of the Cold War, the Soviet system could have plugged along just fine.

Probably because the US only looks at his leadership during WWII, while the British study him in greater detail, at which point things get a lot uglier.

I'm aware that immediately after the war there were financial/market supply issues that he didn't address quickly enough, and he was voted out. I accept this because I view him as a great war leader in a time when his nation needed him. He doesn't need to be great at everything, just great at a critical thing at a critical time.

I'm sure George Washington (for example), would not have been anything special as a peacetime beaureaucratic functionary.

Phryxis wrote:
While this may have proven true in the early 90s as the wall came down, I don't think anybody at all had any idea just how overtaxed the USSR really was. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the perception changed in about 1990, as the USSR began to collapse, no sooner.

Just as an aside, there was serious discussion as to whether or not Perestroika was a Soviet ploy to lull American defense strategists into complacency. A sort of desperation tactic to bring about relief from our pressure. By the time the Soviet Union began to come apart the logic of an imperial clash had been so deeply ingrained in both the population, and the political class that data which could only indicate that the Soviets had lost was being interpreted as a signal to throw more logs on the fire. Reagan's entire push for increased military spending was predicated on the idea that we could devastate a beaten enemy by inciting conservative Soviets; thereby undermining Perestroika.

So, yeah, we knew how badly the Soviets were doing. We just decided to bury them, instead of leaving them to rot on the vine.

The Americans WON the war of 1812 eh? I like the way you guys make up your own history!

Someone forgot to mention it to these guys though...

mattyrm wrote:The Americans WON the war of 1812 eh? I like the way you guys make up your own history!

Someone forgot to mention it to these guys though...

Sure we won it... in 1814.

Classic Country, Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton Lyrics
Looking for Classic Country tabs and chords? Browse alphabet (above).

Artist: Classic Country
Song: Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton
Album: Classic Country: 1950-1964 Classic Country Sheet Music
Classic Country CDs


Send “Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton” Ringtone to Cell Phone

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

[Chorus]

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

To be fair ill bow to your wisdom Frazz, you were a bugle boy at New Orleans werent you?

So, yeah, we knew how badly the Soviets were doing. We just decided to bury them, instead of leaving them to rot on the vine.

I dunno, there's knowing, and there's KNOWING. I think you're right, there was all sorts of suspicion, but I don't think we were 100% certain of anything. I've certainly see a lot of commentary from the intelligence community about just how amazed they were by what a paper tiger the Soviet military really was.

The Americans WON the war of 1812 eh? I like the way you guys make up your own history!

Yes, the US won the war of 1812, and lost the Vietnam war, in much the same way.

That's to say the British mostly beat up on the Americans, but didn't really have any interest in doing it anymore, and gave up on it.

The Americans think they won it, the Canadians think they won it...

...and the Brits don't care.

I never read one reliable article on history that said the Americans won it. Im not saying the British did either, but everyone i read basically said the British inflicted the most casualties but nobody gained anything so it was basically a tie.

Not that im even remotely interested however, considering i lived and served alongside so many good Americans for so long, ive no interest in slating the USA's miltary achievements, im just saying its rare you hear a historian say that the Americans "won" the war of 1812.

but everyone i read basically said the British inflicted the most casualties but nobody gained anything so it was basically a tie.

I have to be honest, I just read up on it, and your version of things seems to be more in line with what I'm reading.

I was taught a different take: British were fighting the French, so they kept harassing America not to trade with them, plus press-ganging Americans into their naval vessels, so the US attacked. That went pretty poorly, lots of important American buildings were burned down, but then eventually the British got worn down with the situation and agreed to stop with the kidnapping, and the US felt victorious.

That's not WRONG, but it seems to be slantedtoward the whole kidnapping bit, and then the end was portrayed as more of an American victory than the odd American/Canadia/British "we all win!" that Wikipedia describes.

Also, I watched a show on Andrew Jackson the other day, which covered the Battle of New Orleans, and I was given the impression that this was the decisive battle of the War of 1812, as opposed to an accident that occurred only because we didn't have any form of useful long distance communication in 1812.

So, I guess it depends on the extent to which one thinks the British were respecting American sovereignty. I was previously under the impression that they were rampantly disrespecting it, then the war, then they were respecting it, which sounds like "victory." If that's not the case, then I can see why it'd be more of a tie.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think I must be missing the distinction here too, because I'm not really following your logic.

It isn't my distinction or my logic. There is a a legal principle that seperates private from public space. When it's a commercial space open to the general public then only commercial considerations can be used to refuse entry.

If you want to benefit from all the laws that allow public trade possible, then you make your business open to all of the public. If you don't want that, then you trade privately.

Phryxis wrote:I disagree. A business is private property, at least ethically speaking. There may be legal statutes I'm not aware of, but since we're talking opinions here, and not legal interpretation, my opinion is that a business is the property of the owner.

Yeah, there is a legal principle. It basically says that if you open up your business to the public, then you open your business up to all of the public. Like I said to Orkeo, the logic behind this is pretty sound. If a person wants to open a store to the general public and benefit from all the general regulations and laws enforced by society that allow him to operate his business, then he needs to

While this may have proven true in the early 90s as the wall came down, I don't think anybody at all had any idea just how overtaxed the USSR really was. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the perception changed in about 1990, as the USSR began to collapse, no sooner.

Oh, there was certainly a perception that the USSR was much stronger than it was. Some people claim this is because the USSR was very clever in pretending it was stronger than it was, but I doubt that. I think it suited a lot of people, ideologically and politically, for the USSR to be strong, so they believed it despite evidence to the contrary.

Sure it did. It wasn't just poor in a vaccuum, it was poor in competition with the West's economic systems. If not for the arms race of the Cold War, the Soviet system could have plugged along just fine.

Except that isn't true. The collapse came as it became screamingly obvious to the Soviets that a tightly controlled market system was not a sensible policy for Russia. There's a lot of resources out there on Glasnost and Perestroika. The Soviet system could have pulgged along just fine, except for the liberalisation movement decided upon by the Soviets.

For the record, in the 70s the USSR's military budget was around 18 billion rubles a year, less than 4% of GDP. It was not a crushing figure. Current spending in the Russian Federation is higher.

I'm aware that immediately after the war there were financial/market supply issues that he didn't address quickly enough, and he was voted out. I accept this because I view him as a great war leader in a time when his nation needed him. He doesn't need to be great at everything, just great at a critical thing at a critical time.

Look before the war as well. Look at the Gallipoli and Dardenelles campaign - they were Churchill's grand plan. He was a strong proponent of maintaining English control of India. He was on the wrong side of history a lot.

There were reasons he had been basically consigned to political obscurity before the war broke out.

sebster wrote:
Except that isn't true. The collapse came as it became screamingly obvious to the Soviets that a tightly controlled market system was not a sensible policy for Russia. There's a lot of resources out there on Glasnost and Perestroika. The Soviet system could have pulgged along just fine, except for the liberalisation movement decided upon by the Soviets.

Yep. They tried to change too much too fast, partially because many powerful people in the USSR were still set on 'beating' the US, and the resultant political infighting and economic disruption cost a lot of people their lives or livelihoods. In fact, the fallout from Perestroika is one the main reasons that my stomach turns into a sinking pit when people seriously discuss cutting the US federal budget by ~60% in the course of 4-5 years.

Wrexasaur wrote:I follow your meaning, and I agree that people can be both for themselves, and the whole at the same time.

In the least complicated example I can think of, it is pretty obvious. There are people that live in the woods, outside of civilization for most of their lives. There are also people that live in cities, maintaining constant contact with civilization for most of their lives. Abstractly, I can consider the individuals in this example to be individualist in the case of being a mountain man, and collectivist in the case of being a city boy. Neither fit any precise definition.

In terms of what both would sacrifice for their lifestyles, mountain dwelling would lack the benefit of being invested in a system designed to protect many, and the city dwelling would lack the benefit of being independent of that system. The CEO in the city, may be very similar in mindset to the hardcore mountain man, but their actual methods of achieving their goals, rely on different factors. The mountain man relies on the land, the business man relies on the invisible hand.

Your examples are good at combining the different traits associated with individualism and collectivism. I suppose my main issue with the words is that the traits being combined into the definition of the words aren't really that closely related to each other. It doesn't seem like a word is all that useful when it is either used to describe a very specific type of personality (one that encompasses all individualist or collectivist traits) or to describe a huge number of possible personalities, which may be diametrically opposed to one another in most ways (personalities that only have some individualist or collectivist traits).

mattyrm wrote:I never read one reliable article on history that said the Americans won it. Im not saying the British did either, but everyone i read basically said the British inflicted the most casualties but nobody gained anything so it was basically a tie.

We got an island out of the whole thing, I think. Not really enough to make the war a "win" though.

Phryxis wrote:The source of one's validation isn't all there is... You correctly identify the unsung hero as being internally validated, and the narcissist as externally validated. But that's not all that positions someone relative to individualism vs collectivism, as you point out. However, in some ways, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Also, I'd point out that the narcissist is still a collectivist, he's very focused on the collective, he just has a negative focus. He sounds like pretty much all politicians.

The problem arises, to me, when the exceptions to the rule are actually quite common, and I think much of the time the pairing of individualist/collectivist traits is very loose, or even arbitrary.

Also, I think there are some who would disagree with the possibility of a person being a collectivist with a negative focus on the collective; they would define collectivism as putting a positive focus on the collective and negative focus on the individual, and vice versa for individualism.

sebster wrote:It isn't my distinction or my logic. There is a a legal principle that seperates private from public space.

I'm aware of that much, it's the justification you gave for the distinction that I disagree with.

When it's a commercial space open to the general public then only commercial considerations can be used to refuse entry.

This isn't true, at least not in the United States. Most stores reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who isn't of a protected group, regardless of the commercial merit of doing so.

If you want to benefit from all the laws that allow public trade possible, then you make your business open to all of the public. If you don't want that, then you trade privately.

You can trade privately using money, and use the civil court to resolve disputes regarding it. What further burden are you putting on the government by allowing most people to enter your building, and what does anti-discrimination law do to help relieve it? After all, the store owner probably pays taxes, which makes the government indebted to him as well.

mattyrm wrote:To be fair ill bow to your wisdom Frazz, you were a bugle boy at New Orleans werent you?

Well it looked like fun. I forgot about the mosquitos.

Yeah, there is a legal principle. It basically says that if you open up your business to the public, then you open your business up to all of the public.

Ok, but says who? You and I are from different countries. I'd imagine that within my own country there are different standards on this from state to state. Not that this is totally critical, as I said, I don't really care what the law says, given that we're talking morality and opinion. After all Rand Paul was saying how he felt things "aught to be" as opposed to how the law is.

The Soviet system could have pulgged along just fine, except for the liberalisation movement decided upon by the Soviets.

Right, but would there have been a movement of that sort if the government wasn't struggling to compete in the arms race, and was instead using its limited economic capacity to provide for the citizens?

Basically I'm arguing that their system wouldn't have imploded without external pressure, or at least not as quickly.

In fact, the fallout from Perestroika is one the main reasons that my stomach turns into a sinking pit when people seriously discuss cutting the US federal budget by ~60% in the course of 4-5 years.

I agree. I'm a conservative, but I also realize that all this "lower taxes, less spending" stuff isn't actually correct.

It's not about spending less. It's about getting more for our money, and not allowing so much of it to leave the US.

As long as the money is moving, all is well. Government pays for goods and services, it pays that money to Americans, they pay other Americans for other goods and services, everyone has a job.

When you start shuttling $300 billion a year off to China to service the debt, it doesn't come back.

Also, as long as we're spending the money, we should get something for it. I work with the Feds. I know just how little they get done. If we're going to pay for stuff, we should at least get some return on it. Social programs should fix social problems instead of band-aiding them. Infrastructure programs should build more infrastructure. Etc.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm aware of that much, it's the justification you gave for the distinction that I disagree with.

Fair enough, it's just my reason for accepting it, likely quite different from the legal arguments that led to the principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Ok, but says who? You and I are from different countries. I'd imagine that within my own country there are different standards on this from state to state. Not that this is totally critical, as I said, I don't really care what the law says, given that we're talking morality and opinion. After all Rand Paul was saying how he felt things "aught to be" as opposed to how the law is.

It's in your country too.

Rand Paul is entitled to believe things ought to be different, as are the rest of us. If that's the case, then they should understand the distinction between private and public space, so that when they make their argument for discrimination on one's private property, they don't use the example of a private house to explain why it should be acceptable to ban people from a general store. Because they're fundamentally different things in terms of the law.

Right, but would there have been a movement of that sort if the government wasn't struggling to compete in the arms race, and was instead using its limited economic capacity to provide for the citizens?

Basically I'm arguing that their system wouldn't have imploded without external pressure, or at least not as quickly.

Yes, but as I pointed out in the same post, the USSR spent about 4% of budget on their military, which is nowhere near unsustainable levels. They spend more now as Russia than they ever did back then.

It's strange that people who believe it was right to oppose the Soviet Union because communism was bad would be so unwilling to consider that the Soviet Union collapsed because communism is unsustainable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Also, I think there are some who would disagree with the possibility of a person being a collectivist with a negative focus on the collective; they would define collectivism as putting a positive focus on the collective and negative focus on the individual, and vice versa for individualism.

I am one of those people. However, I also believe, as you seem to, that the concept of collectivist v. individualist as a descriptive continuum of general scope is just about useless. I mean, we could develop a complex hierarchy of personality traits, which could then be classified as either collectivist or individualist (in my view most could be classified as either), but even that gets us to the point where differentiating between the traits that make up collectivism and individualism becomes difficult. Well, difficult without trend analysis over a very large sample, over a very long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Yes, but as I pointed out in the same post, the USSR spent about 4% of budget on their military, which is nowhere near unsustainable levels. They spend more now as Russia than they ever did back then.

It's strange that people who believe it was right to oppose the Soviet Union because communism was bad would be so unwilling to consider that the Soviet Union collapsed because communism is unsustainable.

There is something to be said for the role external pressure had in disrupting the internal politics of the USSR. After Stalin's death the notion of a unified Communist Party pretty much went out the window, and the infighting caused by the perceived enemy of USA certainly did little permit any adaptation that may have taken place along the way. I think its fair to say that Glasnost and Perestroika would have been less disastrous in the absence of US pressure.

That said, you're right, the ridiculous idea that Reagan stared down the bear really needs to die.

Social science recognises a wide variety of character traits, such as individualism/collectivism, introversion/extroversion, none of which is fundamentally proven to be 'real' or have any significant measurable connection to results in the real world.

One of the issues in social cognitive psychology is that a lot of it has been done in the USA, where the emphasis is much more on studying the individual as a standalone unit rather than as a social construct.

The European perspective is rather different and sees individuals more as an assemblage derived from the society they grew up in.

Since the 90s, social scientists have been trying to accommodate or integrate both perspectives.