Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Have you actually read the Magna Carta?

It basically boils down to tax relief for the (then) ruling class. The Declarations of Oxford (1248) were a much bolder statement of rights but led to the Baron's War and the eventual death of Simon de Montfort - the first true civil rights advocate in English legal history.

But no, our rights are not guaranteed by international treaty - rather by the body of work that is English Law (and also Scottish and Northern Irish Law for those citizens).

Whilst we do not have a written constitution to provide an absolute benchmark, we are also not constrained by such a document either.


I know the idea is anathema to our American friends, but the UK is, after all, the founder of modern democracy and we've managed OK without a written constitution since King Henry II established the primacy of the rule of Judicial Law at the Assize of Clarendon in 1166.

842 years says we do OK

I think they disappeared down the hole created by the GWoT.

I disagree. I am a big fan of the US Constitution and believe we should have a written constitution for the UK. The problem is it would probably end up as an indigestible load of crap like the EU constitution/treaty.

The US Constitution is formed in such a way as to allow it to be modified when needed.

I don't disagree with a written constitution in principle. I'm just not convinced about what we'd need to change to write one in the first place (after all, you couldn't write down what we do now - no-one understands it! )

I agree with Chimera Calvin.

The problem the UK has is an uneducated electorate. John Locke, Magna Carta, let alone Declarations of Oxford, the vast majority here dont know of them havent heard of them and dont care.

The government likes it that way. The USA is more sure of its social history while our government makes good copy out of trying to make our nation ashamed of ours.

The advantages of Common Law system is largely misunderstood, so when the government says we will make Britian 'fairer ' people take the BS at face value and dont see the deepset time tested wisdom behind the British parlaimentary and legal system.

No its not perfect, but it works and was stable. Emphasis on was.

Between New Britain and the recent spate of EU laws the rug has been pulled under us. The UK does not require a Constitution, and any that is written will likely highlight the wrong principles.

Laws neded to be written with empathy and wisdom, and many of the old laws looked wrong because they did right. not everything is a black white issue, or works behind the scenes as it does in face value. The Uk was, note emphasis on the past again, fairly financially scure because the financial regulations were based on the real financial world, not that as beleived by the man in the steet. When such laws were streamlined many of the safeguards were lost.

One good example, the wisdom learned in the late middle ages that you do not profit from the legal system stood by us for centuries. Ignorami think, why not offset costs by setting financial penalites for misdemeanours. Sounds wise yes, traffic wardens cost money, let us recoup some of their wages by fines....

A few years later we have privatised traffic agencies who bill who theyu can get away with billing and completely ignore legislation through various loopholes.

The avantage in a stable system going back centuries is that it long ironed out its problems. Then along comes Tony Blair who wants to make Britain 'fair' and fix the country. People have no idea howe badly this has cost us and now the Tories are on the same bandwagon.
The irony, well it isnt irony because it is inseperable part of the human poltical animal, is that all societies are unfair, and so there werer points of unfairness to point out. But in so called fixing them new far harsher unfairnesses were created, abnd the old ones werenot dealt with, just hijacked by others.
Britain is far more elitist than it was in 97, the demographic of the elite has changed. Also you could join the old elite, that form of meritocracy has been with us since the Victorian era, also the liner to toe was by and large in line with the nations interests. The new elite has a different agenda, and little loyality to the nation as a whole. Of course you get good and bad anywhere, but more importantly you get trends in a society and the trend here has changed dramatically.

I wish I could say more, some of what I have heard is very disturbing. Frankly I doubt we are actually in a democracy anymore and still the average man on the street doesn't know, wouldn't understand and likely doesn't care.

No, he's trying to say America is nominally perceived as center-right relative to the rest of the world, and that this is changing.

I can't agree.

First off, he doesn't mention a single other country by name in the article. He doesn't say Europe either. What he does say, is this: "In January 2000, the poll asked participants to describe their views of politics and government." He's basing his article on what Americans think they are. Being Americans, I think they're thinking in the context of American politics.

This is somewhat illuminating. In theory, if we assume the context is American politics, and the center is defined by the aggregation of all political views, then if 13% of all Americans are moderate, than 43.5% should be liberal, and 43.5% should be conservative. Instead, 59% think they're some sort of conservative.

To me, this argues for the notion of a left leaning popular media. When everying you see in the news and TV strikes you as more left leaning than yourself, you'll tend to think you're a conservative. I'm sure there are a million other explanations, but that's the one I believe to be accurate.

I wouldn't call the Europeans socialists, not by a long shot.

Which countries are we talking aboot? France, England, Germany, Scandanavia... None are self-declared as socialist, but all are considerably more socialist than the US, even as the US itself has elements of socialism to it.

Really this is a continuum. It's somewhat arbitrary what one calls "socialist," or "communist," or whatever. To some degree self-declaration is valid, but then again North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Clearly it's not.

So as far as Europe goes, yes, none call themselves socialist, and while I'd respect your refusal to label them socialist states, I wouldn't say they're a "long shot" away from that. Socializing your healthcare system is a major chunk of the economy. You don't have to socialize every single industry in your country to be socialist in your overall principles.

Actually, he's talking about how the nation is moving towards the left.

I didn't say he wasn't, and I happen to agree with him. At varying paces, and with occasional incongruities, the US has been moving left pretty much as long as it has existed, but certainly over the last 60 years.

Moreover, the last 8 years have been to the left of 'real' America?

I would view the last 8 years as a slowing/stalling of the overall leftward slide of the US, but still a leftward move. For all the shreiking that goes on, George W Bush is not a particularly conservative President. He spends far too much for that label.

Low relative to what? The US has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world. Small relative to what? US tax revenue is only 25.7% of GDP, again one of the lowest in the developed world. Personal freedom though, we've got that in spades.

Low relative to the things you compared it to. I don't get what you're asking. I say Americans don't like high taxes or big government and then you say that America has comparitively low taxes and a comparitively small government. Isn't that what I just said?

So, America naturally centers on the extreme right wing, yet appears to be on the left?

No? Unless you consider libertarianism the "extreme right wing." I've heard that twice today, and not once before that. Do people really think libertarians are the far right?

Personally I consider libertarianism to be on a different axis altogether. If it has to be mapped to the classic Democrat-Republican continuum, then it's more like the Republicans claim to be than anything. But Republicans no longer deliver on promises of small government and lower taxes.

What we have now is government spending and intrusion in a red tie, or government spending and intrusion in a blue tie. Libertarianism isn't to the right of that, it's to the "get the hell away from me" of that.

Can you explain this a bit more? Examples would help.

Examples won't help. Either you buy it or you don't. I've heard people complain aboot the "right-wing corporate media" in the US. I think these people are lunatics. Certainly there is FOX news, AM radio and a tiny selection of print media. These are right leaning sources. Everything else, all the major news networks, all the major print media, Hollywood, etc. etc. All of these outlets have a left leaning bias relative to the American population.

We can certainly discuss this, but in my experience it's not worth the effort. If you don't see it that way now, you probably never will. I think it's enough to understand that my position is that the American mainstream media are left of the American political center, and if you don't agree, it's not going to kill either of us.

How exactly does that work? Because I'm not seeing it.

For simplicity, let's assume that everyone has a "score" from left to right, with 1 being the far left, 50 being the center, and 100 being the far right.

I'm saying that people believe what they believe, but they really can't know what each and every other American believes. Instead, they get their general perception of what's going on in America from what the see on TV, read in the paper, etc. etc. If those things constantly give left of center views, the person will feel that the nation is really to the left of them, and since humans are social animals, they'll generally try to conform to or otherwise incorporate that viewpoint.

So let's say a person is a "50" on the scale, a perfect centrist. I'd say that the American mainstream media is around a 40 (and very loudly so). When that person looks at the stuff the media are saying, they tend to assume that it's a 50, and that must make them a 60.

That's how we "live to the left of where we actually are."

The mainstream media have a massive amount of control over the national discourse. We all live every day bombarded with their views and messages. Even if you don't watch the news, they're still putting it in movies, TV shows, etc. etc. etc. When they're at a 40 (center-left), we're essentially all living in a center-left country. If we recalibrate ourselves to that perspective and make 40 our "center," then 60 oot of 100 of us are right of it. Thus making us a "center-right country."

I'm sure this is not the case.

It's not the case at all. What it is, is a symptom of the left leaning perspective of the American media, combined with the fact that most European nations are centered to the left of the US to begin with. These sorts of people are very scared of the Christian right, because it's distant from them on the political spectrum (just like they were all scared of Communists before they became a complete joke).

The fact is, the Christian Right has (with a very few exceptions) been losing their fights. Abortion remains legal, and will never be overturned. Gun rights, at best, are preserved, and generally are slowly whittled away. Gay marriage will also eventually be legal. Stem cell research is proceeding. Prayer is schools is generally banned. The Christian right isn't actually doing much. They're just scarier and scarier the further left you go, whether they accomplish anything or not.

The fact is, the left is doing more to force their will on the Chritian Right than vice versa.

Not that the Christian Right wouldn't gladly reverse that... I'm not saying they're nicer, more tolerant people... I'm just saying they haven't been as successful as claimed.

people that by and large don't think its right to arbitrarily impose their will on others.

This is a false dichotomy. Everyone in political office wants to impose their will on everyone else. People don't generally get into office if they're not that sort of personality. It's simply a matter of which tyrant you choose.

People tend to confuse "not imposing your will" with "imposing your will in ways I support."

Take abortion. If you're pro-choice, you're imposing your will on fetuses. If you're pro-life, you're imposing your will on pregnant women. Whatever you choose, somebody is imposing their will.

The trick is to find good compromises and to not be vindictive in victory. I think Obama is a good guy, but I think the rest of the Democrats in DC are vindictive in the extreme, and they'll spend the next 2 years (at least) punishing the American right any way they can.

Phryxis wrote:I can't agree.

First off, he doesn't mention a single other country by name in the article. He doesn't say Europe either. What he does say, is this: "In January 2000, the poll asked participants to describe their views of politics and government." He's basing his article on what Americans think they are. Being Americans, I think they're thinking in the context of American politics.

This is somewhat illuminating. In theory, if we assume the context is American politics, and the center is defined by the aggregation of all political views, then if 13% of all Americans are moderate, than 43.5% should be liberal, and 43.5% should be conservative. Instead, 59% think they're some sort of conservative.

To me, this argues for the notion of a left leaning popular media. When everying you see in the news and TV strikes you as more left leaning than yourself, you'll tend to think you're a conservative. I'm sure there are a million other explanations, but that's the one I believe to be accurate.

That's a really long bow to draw. I think it has a lot more to do with branding and self-identification. 2000 was about the height of the branding of the term 'conservatism', and the low point for 'liberal'. This was largely a product of right leaning news and politics media really hammering those terms. This doesn’t have the impact it once did, though, and you could see that in the McCain campaign, as 'Obama the liberal' wasn't winning the votes it got for Bush, and so they started cycling through socialist, marxist and all that other rubbish.

So as far as Europe goes, yes, none call themselves socialist, and while I'd respect your refusal to label them socialist states, I wouldn't say they're a "long shot" away from that. Socializing your healthcare system is a major chunk of the economy. You don't have to socialize every single industry in your country to be socialist in your overall principles.

I snipped a bit of what you said, but it was a good point well made. I'd like to add that terms mean different things to different people, and in different contexts. In some contexts it’s reasonable to call much of Europe socialist, but at other times not so much. For example, at the end of conversation about the evolution of the market economy and it's restrictions in a democratic society, I'd have no problem calling much of Europe socialist. At the end of a conversation about the influence of Marx after the collapse of the USSR, I'd be very hesitant to call Europe socialist.

I would view the last 8 years as a slowing/stalling of the overall leftward slide of the US, but still a leftward move. For all the shreiking that goes on, George W Bush is not a particularly conservative President. He spends far too much for that label.

I think the shrieking had a lot to do with the fact that Bush was not conservative. Normally the best thing about being a progressive is that if you lose and have to put up with a conservative for a term, you can at least rest assured that while he won't progress any important issues, he won't set about screwing things up.

The fact is, the Christian Right has (with a very few exceptions) been losing their fights. Abortion remains legal, and will never be overturned. Gun rights, at best, are preserved, and generally are slowly whittled away. Gay marriage will also eventually be legal. Stem cell research is proceeding. Prayer is schools is generally banned. The Christian right isn't actually doing much. They're just scarier and scarier the further left you go, whether they accomplish anything or not.

The fact is, the left is doing more to force their will on the Chritian Right than vice versa.

The Christian right has been losing, despite representing a pretty large number of people. They've been losing because they're very bad at politics. They've attached themselves to the Republican party, and in exchange all the Republicans have had to do is spout some rhetoric every four years. Meanwhile the Republican party has set about serving its other bases, through the 90s it was the classic conservative agenda, through the 00s it was the neo-con agenda, counting on those religious right votes every election. Looking at the recent election, it seems the religious right hasn't learned.

This is a false dichotomy. Everyone in political office wants to impose their will on everyone else. People don't generally get into office if they're not that sort of personality. It's simply a matter of which tyrant you choose.

People tend to confuse "not imposing your will" with "imposing your will in ways I support."

Take abortion. If you're pro-choice, you're imposing your will on fetuses. If you're pro-life, you're imposing your will on pregnant women. Whatever you choose, somebody is imposing their will.

The trick is to find good compromises and to not be vindictive in victory. I think Obama is a good guy, but I think the rest of the Democrats in DC are vindictive in the extreme, and they'll spend the next 2 years (at least) punishing the American right any way they can.

Yeah, this was another point really well made. It really is about choosing which of two rights is paramount, not about imposing will. That said, I don’t really hold your belief in the vindictiveness of the Democrats. In fact, I’d argue they’ve exhibited a lack of venom, to the point where I think they’ve failed to do their duty in prosecuting political malfeasance. They’ve held congress for two years now, and done next to nothing to investigate the Bush administration.

I’m not saying you ought to lay into the opposition, but when he’s actually done something wrong, you need to keep him accountable. Ford should not have pardoned Nixon, for instance.

Phryxis wrote:
First off, he doesn't mention a single other country by name in the article. He doesn't say Europe either. What he does say, is this: "In January 2000, the poll asked participants to describe their views of politics and government." He's basing his article on what Americans think they are. Being Americans, I think they're thinking in the context of American politics.

With respect to the global political continuum.

Phryxis wrote:
This is somewhat illuminating. In theory, if we assume the context is American politics, and the center is defined by the aggregation of all political views, then if 13% of all Americans are moderate, than 43.5% should be liberal, and 43.5% should be conservative. Instead, 59% think they're some sort of conservative.

To me, this argues for the notion of a left leaning popular media. When everying you see in the news and TV strikes you as more left leaning than yourself, you'll tend to think you're a conservative. I'm sure there are a million other explanations, but that's the one I believe to be accurate.

Self-identification does not mean concurrence with an intellectual project. Many Americans may identify as conservatives, but that does not make them followers of Conservatism; the intellectual project of the Libertarians, and contemporary Republicans.

You may think you're a conservative, but a lot of that has to do with Partisan tradition and the definition of conservative. If conservative is defined with regard to Conservatism, then a conservative will tend toward the right. If conservative is defined with regard to a political center, then conservatism will tend away from the greater extreme. Krugman is arguing for the latter interpretation by juxtaposing Obama's number and intellectual support against trends of self-identification.

Phryxis wrote:
Really this is a continuum. It's somewhat arbitrary what one calls "socialist," or "communist," or whatever. To some degree self-declaration is valid, but then again North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Clearly it's not.

Point taken. Being caught up in the Presidential race seems to have gotten to my senses a bit.

Phryxis wrote:
I didn't say he wasn't, and I happen to agree with him. At varying paces, and with occasional incongruities, the US has been moving left pretty much as long as it has existed, but certainly over the last 60 years.

Then it seems I misinterpreted you.

Phryxis wrote:
Low relative to the things you compared it to. I don't get what you're asking. I say Americans don't like high taxes or big government and then you say that America has comparitively low taxes and a comparitively small government. Isn't that what I just said?

What they have, and what they desire are two different matters. In general I would say Americans want a balanced budget, and a predictable economy. There has been very little call in recent years to lower taxes, at least until about 2 months ago. They might not favor high taxes, but I suspect a lot of that has to do with a veiled deference to the state. There is a very real way in which a lot of people feel that there is no intrinsic incentive to make more money if the government is going to take a larger percentage away.

Phryxis wrote:
No? Unless you consider libertarianism the "extreme right wing." I've heard that twice today, and not once before that. Do people really think libertarians are the far right?

Personally I consider libertarianism to be on a different axis altogether. If it has to be mapped to the classic Democrat-Republican continuum, then it's more like the Republicans claim to be than anything. But Republicans no longer deliver on promises of small government and lower taxes.

What we have now is government spending and intrusion in a red tie, or government spending and intrusion in a blue tie. Libertarianism isn't to the right of that, it's to the "get the hell away from me" of that.

Ah, I see. I tend to judge political projects by their economic policies, not their social ones. That explains the discrepancy. I also tend to associate states rights advocates with the right end of the spectrum as it has often been a tactic employed by social conservatives.

Phryxis wrote:
Examples won't help. Either you buy it or you don't. I've heard people complain aboot the "right-wing corporate media" in the US. I think these people are lunatics. Certainly there is FOX news, AM radio and a tiny selection of print media. These are right leaning sources. Everything else, all the major news networks, all the major print media, Hollywood, etc. etc. All of these outlets have a left leaning bias relative to the American population.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the idea that media has pushed people to the right.

Phryxis wrote:
For simplicity, let's assume that everyone has a "score" from left to right, with 1 being the far left, 50 being the center, and 100 being the far right.

I'm saying that people believe what they believe, but they really can't know what each and every other American believes. Instead, they get their general perception of what's going on in America from what the see on TV, read in the paper, etc. etc. If those things constantly give left of center views, the person will feel that the nation is really to the left of them, and since humans are social animals, they'll generally try to conform to or otherwise incorporate that viewpoint.

Except we frequently see people stating that they believe themselves to be a part of the majority. This was especially true of Republicans in this election cycle.

Phryxis wrote:
So let's say a person is a "50" on the scale, a perfect centrist. I'd say that the American mainstream media is around a 40 (and very loudly so). When that person looks at the stuff the media are saying, they tend to assume that it's a 50, and that must make them a 60.

That's how we "live to the left of where we actually are."

I don't think I've ever heard someone call the media a centrist organization. People have a little more political knowledge than that.

Phryxis wrote:
The mainstream media have a massive amount of control over the national discourse. We all live every day bombarded with their views and messages. Even if you don't watch the news, they're still putting it in movies, TV shows, etc. etc. etc. When they're at a 40 (center-left), we're essentially all living in a center-left country. If we recalibrate ourselves to that perspective and make 40 our "center," then 60 oot of 100 of us are right of it. Thus making us a "center-right country."

Again, I can't imagine that most people have re-calibrated themselves to the media. If anything we're living in one of the most significant eras of public skepticism in history. American or otherwise.

Phryxis wrote:
This is a false dichotomy. Everyone in political office wants to impose their will on everyone else. People don't generally get into office if they're not that sort of personality. It's simply a matter of which tyrant you choose.

People tend to confuse "not imposing your will" with "imposing your will in ways I support."

Take abortion. If you're pro-choice, you're imposing your will on fetuses. If you're pro-life, you're imposing your will on pregnant women. Whatever you choose, somebody is imposing their will.

That's an incredibly broad way to look at things. There is a huge difference between permitting an individual choice, and mandating an individual choice when legislation is being discussed.

Phryxis wrote:
The trick is to find good compromises and to not be vindictive in victory. I think Obama is a good guy, but I think the rest of the Democrats in DC are vindictive in the extreme, and they'll spend the next 2 years (at least) punishing the American right any way they can.

Probably, but only in the sense that the American right takes the freedom of others as personal punishment.

This was largely a product of right leaning news and politics media really hammering those terms.

Sure. I don't disagree that there is a sizeable right wing media in the US, or that they've had their successes. The demonization of "liberal" is a classic one, probably their biggest.

That said, I think that the US is highly polarized, and while there is an established right wing media, there is an even larger left wing component. They're pretty much "everything else," and they're so prevalent in Americans' lives that we tend to not even realize they're at work. People know when the right wing media is trying to influence them. They less often know when the left wing is.

I think the shrieking had a lot to do with the fact that Bush was not conservative.

I think there was some of that, but most of it was from the left. There's a whole raft of crap they've been yelling aboot for the last 8 years, and virtually none of it is valid. He didn't steal any elections, he didn't steal all our personal freedoms, he didn't put the evangelical right in charge of anything, and he really hasn't done anything particularly amazing. He's just a mediocre leader with very poor verbal skills and very bad luck.

In fact, I’d argue they’ve exhibited a lack of venom, to the point where I think they’ve failed to do their duty in prosecuting political malfeasance. They’ve held congress for two years now, and done next to nothing to investigate the Bush administration.

That's because they know there's really nothing there. They know that anything that is there is the same sort of stuff they plan to do when they have power. As I said above, there's really nothing exceptional aboot Bush. He's not some lunatic tyrant, breaking laws left and right. The Dems love to say that to hurt his approval, and shake trust in the Republicans, but they know he's really done nothing especially wrong.

The best example of this is the "warrantless wiretapping" issue. After a long period of media ootrage over Bush's program, of accusing him of violating civil rights, of calling him big brother, the Democrat controlled Congress signed his surveillance bill by a fairly wide margin. The media didn't cover that nearly as loudly as the lead up where he was called a criminal.

Hence the perception that he's a criminal, but none of the reality.

So, we'll see how magnanimous the Dems are in their victory. For me it comes down to the Fairness Doctrine. If they try to pass that travesty, that will be a clear signal that they're looking to permanently crush all opposition. That should also put the lie to the idea that the dem don't want to "impose their will on others."

In general I would say Americans want a balanced budget, and a predictable economy.

I think they do too, but I think everyone wants that for their country. Ultimately I think Americans, as compared to other first world countries, are most identifiable by a desire for libertarian concepts, low taxes, small government, personal freedom.

I disagree with the idea that media has pushed people to the right.

I'm not trying to suggest they are. I'm trying to say the media, by being left of center, and totally dominating the conversation, have effectively created a nation of people who see themselves as right leaning, even when they're actually true centrists.

If anything we're living in one of the most significant eras of public skepticism in history.

I agree. But I don't think that skepticism can combat the sheer volume and breadth of the message. People might be skeptical of the news, but they're not skeptical of movies and TV. And when every TV show you see has a gay couple being happy and wishing they were married, or a program aboot how we need to thank Al Gore for his work on the environment, or another sports movie where the brave black kid makes it in the racist town, you start to think in terms of the left's agenda.

Not that I have any particular problem with the issues being pushed there, I just think it's important to notice the way the stuff that's being pushed, and the stuff that's not.

Noam Chomsky loves to talk aboot "framing the debate" which is humorous because he loves to do it himself. This is why I find it so ironic that you so often see people demonizing Fox News... They're angry that Fox news is always representing a conservative view on an issue. They never stop to notice that the topic at hand is a left driven issue.

For example, you'll always see Fox defending Bush. If they were controlling the media, do you think the conversation would be aboot if Bush is bad or not? It'd instead be if he's awesome or not. Or, alternatively, if Harry Reid is bad or not.

We hear an awful lot that Bush's approval ratings are around 25%. You hear a lot less than Congress, which has been Democrat controlled for 2 years now, is at around 10%.

So, people can be skeptical all they want. That's like shopping for the best deal on a car, not knowing that the same guy owns ever dealership in town.

There is a huge difference between permitting an individual choice, and mandating an individual choice when legislation is being discussed.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

In some cases, it's possible to make a pretty clear decision what affords the most personal choice at the least cost. I'd say that gay marriage is a good example. While it might generally upset some people that gays can marry, it's not as much of an imposition on them as it is to deny gays the right to marry.

Abortion is entirely different. No matter which way you go with it, somebody is getting "imposed upon."

And to be clear, I'm pro-choice. But I also saw my 20 week old son on an ultrasound less than a week ago, and let me tell you: when you abort a baby, somebody is definitely getting imposed upon.

My point about 'not imposing will'.

Take gay marriage as an example. If it is allowed, then people who are gay already will have a choice to get married or not. If it is forbidden then that choice is taken away.

At no point do people who are not gay have their freedoms impinged upon. Allowing people to do something does not force those who think differently to do it.

Abortion is a more complex issue (congrats on the baby by the way, Phryxis. I've got a 7-month old - stand by for the sleepless nights ) but even the most ardent pro-choice supporter accepts the need for limits on it.
The point again would be that if you are pro-life you would not go through with an abortion. Having laws that allow abortion do not force abortion. Whereas laws that ban abortion force women to carry a baby to full term irrespective of potential physical and psychological damage to mother and/or child.



I accept that politics is about framing ideas into laws - but if freedom is a paramount virtue, then such laws should be guided by the freedom of choice they allow citizens.

In effect, each law should subscribe to the axiom that you shall not impinge on the freedom of anyone else. Murder is illegal because it takes the freedom to live from someone. Robbery is illegal because it takes the freedom to own possessions from someone and so on.

Tax should be the only law that breaks this rule, because as Republican Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "Its the price you pay to live in a civilsed society."

Phryxis wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here.

In some cases, it's possible to make a pretty clear decision what affords the most personal choice at the least cost. I'd say that gay marriage is a good example. While it might generally upset some people that gays can marry, it's not as much of an imposition on them as it is to deny gays the right to marry.

My comment was mostly driven by gay marriage. Likely because I've recently been in some extended debates on the topic. Either way, gay marriage is something of an odd-man-out social issue in that compromise isn't really an option.

Phryxis wrote:
Abortion is entirely different. No matter which way you go with it, somebody is getting "imposed upon."

And to be clear, I'm pro-choice. But I also saw my 20 week old son on an ultrasound less than a week ago, and let me tell you: when you abort a baby, somebody is definitely getting imposed upon.

Yeah, abortion is a good deal more complex. Though, as Chimera_Calvin said, it still boils down to a matter of personal choice versus social force. Legalizing abortion, which should admittedly be limited, does not prevent people from choosing to carry a child to term. To my mind, laws should be as permissive as current evidence allows. If the matter of a fetus' personage is undetermined, then it should not factor into legislation.

It might be added that when abortion was illegal, it still went on and the consequences were often bad.

Abortion is still effectively illegal in Ireland, causing pregnant women to travel to mainland Britain to get abortions.

Interesting discussion. I appauld everyone invovled for having a fairly polite conversation about it.

Is the media generally left leaning? On the whole I'd say yes. The internet and satilite radio offset this. And this is a big deal. The majority of gen Y (and and very large percentage of gen X) get the majority of their news from the net - not print and not tv. You can easily pick and choose where you get your news from on the net and what leaning you prefer to hear.

I'd argue that the majority of American voters are conservative on fical policy and liberal on social policies. However, the political parties are conflicted on what they want.

The republican party since Reagan took office have paid lip service to being fiscally conservative. Reagan talked about it a lot, but his actual policies while in office were not fiscally conservative. He oversaw one of the biggest increases in government since the New Deal and the biggest expenditures up to that time. With the "republican revolution" of the mid 90's we saw the rise of Theocons in the Republican base. This is partly responsible for the latest implosion for the Republican candidates. Very similiar to the problems of the Democratic party - too many distinct blocs within the same party. The Theocons want to see the government run in a fundamentialist christian way, while the neo-cons want no invovlement of the government in business (except bailing themselves out) and the fiscal conservatives are getting hosed by the huge expeditures of the rest of the republican party.

The Democrats on the other hand found out during the Reagan years and then again under Clinton that you can't cater to the far left and expect the rest of America to go along with you (even with Clinton being fairly moderate, the rest of the party in Congress was not). Too many diseperate elements wanting different things. The "Blue-dog" congressmen from the Southern states are a good example of this - they espouse fiscal conservatism while being more moderate on social issues (i.e. if it's private, then keep government the hell out of it). Which is funny from the standpoint that this used to be one of the pillars of the Repubican movement (until Reaganomics and the rise of the "moral majority" - see previous parapragh).

I'm hopeful that the Democratic leaders of Congress and Obama can reign in the more radical democrates. If they don't, in two years we'll see a return to grid-lock. For those of you from the rest of the world what I mean by grid-lock is a congress that is either at odds with the president and/or the majority is so slim in congress that they can easily keep either party from passing effective legislation and spending bills.

I'm pessimistic enough that I won't be suprised if this doesn't happen. I'm afraid that there will be a sense of "we need to get our licks in while we can" and retribution.

It would be interesting to see some proper analysis of US media.

When done on the BBC it turned out they were slightly more supportive of the Iraq War than against, despite the constant accusations by the Government of bias.

The term "media" needs definition for a start. Ted Turner is quite liberal, but CNN is counterbalanced by Fox News which is notorious for its right leaning.

Hollywood seems to be left leaning but it's not media in the sense of news media.

Talk radio is totally right dominated.

budro wrote:Interesting discussion. I appauld everyone invovled for having a fairly polite conversation about it.

Give us more time.

Phryxis wrote:
I agree. But I don't think that skepticism can combat the sheer volume and breadth of the message. People might be skeptical of the news, but they're not skeptical of movies and TV. And when every TV show you see has a gay couple being happy and wishing they were married, or a program aboot how we need to thank Al Gore for his work on the environment, or another sports movie where the brave black kid makes it in the racist town, you start to think in terms of the left's agenda.

Which makes sense considering conservatives nominally define themselves by what they're against. The idea of Conservatism as a project with a discreet agenda is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Phryxis wrote:
Noam Chomsky loves to talk aboot "framing the debate" which is humorous because he loves to do it himself. This is why I find it so ironic that you so often see people demonizing Fox News... They're angry that Fox news is always representing a conservative view on an issue. They never stop to notice that the topic at hand is a left driven issue.

I agree that the media leans to the left, but I'm not sure the general distaste for Fox News is rooted entirely in its right-wing bias. Rather, I would say that much of the anger comes from that organizations clear misrepresentation of facts. As an example, every major news organization reported an essentially dead heat in the Presidential debate. Even the decidedly Democratically (as distinct from Liberally) biased MSNBC. Fox News reported a nearly 70 point margin of victory for McCain. This isn't to say that other news organizations don't misrepresent certain facts by distorting their context, but such instances are hardly quite so demonstrable.

dogma wrote: As an example, every major news organization reported an essentially dead heat in the Presidential debate. Even the decidedly Democratically (as distinct from Liberally) biased MSNBC. Fox News reported a nearly 70 point margin of victory for McCain. This isn't to say that other news organizations don't misrepresent certain facts by distorting their context, but such instances are hardly quite so demonstrable.

A screenshot or something of this would be neat.

If it is forbidden then that choice is taken away.

Sure, and if it's legalized then peace of mind is "taken away" from those who oppose it. Might seem a bit ridiculous to some, but it's still a reality to others.

Giving people a choice is not a universal good. What if government decided that the age of consent was denying younger people the choice to enter into sexual relationships with older people? We don't really care aboot their choice then. We decide when a person is too young to make their own choices, and even then don't even allow their parents to waive that decision (you can't decide it's ok for your minor child to have sex with an adult).

So, there are some choices we simply don't allow people, and for good reason.

This should also give you some insight as to how anti-gay marriage folks feel. Imagine if you had to know that people in your neighborhood were, perfectly legally, having sex with 10 year olds. It's seriously compromise your peace of mind (I'd think). We all want to live and let live, but there's some stuff we just won't tolerate.

Not to say that gay marriage is the same thing as pedophelia, but to some people, it's comparable.

Either way, gay marriage is something of an odd-man-out social issue in that compromise isn't really an option.

I have to disagree. One thing that's really pissed me off aboot the gay marriage debate, is that it's actually very simple to find a compromise. Create a legal category called, say "legal partnership" and then say that it's legislatively interchangeable with the term "marriage" but is not actually marriage.

Might piss off some people on either side, but honest, screw them.

Which makes sense considering conservatives nominally define themselves by what they're against.

I don't see this as being exclusive. Is the left "against the Iraq war?" "Against big oil?" "Against global warming?"

Or are they "for peace?" "For the environment?"

And aren't conservatives "for gun rights?" "Standing up for the lives of the unborn?" "For morality and democracy?"

congrats on the baby by the way, Phryxis. I've got a 7-month old

Thanks... But I already have a 2 year old, so I know the drill. Altho I hear two kids is more than twice as insane.

Whereas laws that ban abortion force women to carry a baby to full term irrespective of potential physical and psychological damage to mother and/or child.

I've heard this argument made before, but it doesn't carry water for me. The fetus is denied a choice, or the mother is denied a choice. Somebody is denied a choice. Somebody is imposed upon.

I really object to the mentality of some pro-choice people, which is to ignore the baby in the equation. As I said before, I'm pro-choice. But I think it's critical to internalize the fact that every abortion is the killing of a baby. Know that to be true. If you're still pro-choice after you understand that fact, then you've done your homework. If you dodge around that fact, pretend it's not real, then you're not mature enough to decide if a baby should live or die.

(Not you specifically, just "you the reader.")

Abortion is still effectively illegal in Ireland, causing pregnant women to travel to mainland Britain to get abortions.

Or to special boats right offshore, right? How bizzare is that?

The internet and satilite radio offset this.

Really? I mean, I've always viewed the internet as too huge and diverse to have any one particular message, but if it did, I'd think it'd be generally left leaning relative to the US as center. After all, MANY people with a computer are living to the left of America (all of Europe, for example), and most Americans with computers are of a younger, more left oriented sort.

Reading your news on the internet is really more of a choice of media, than a total shift in the ultimate source of the information. Most people are going to the websites of major news provideders, and, if you're talking aboot MSNBC on the net, then it's effectively the same as MSNBC on TV. Same goes for any other network.

Satellite radio, I have no idea.

Fox News reported a nearly 70 point margin of victory for McCain.

I can't say I saw anything like this going on. What I saw was Fox news people announcing that Obama was going to win, and looking sorta sad and wistful aboot it.

To whatever extent this did happen, it's important to note that something like 4 of the first 5 states to be easily callable happend to be red. Sure, McCain was up at that point, but nobody was really pretending he was going to win. What's to even be gained by that sort of deception? Are the clerk and recorder offices across the nation going to just say "hey, screw it, 270, 70, who cares? McCain wins!"

I generally object to the idea that Fox is less factually accruate than the other networks. I think you're putting the cart before the horse, actually. I think that, almost universally, those who hate FOx hate them for their politics, and then they try to ascribe them falsehoods as a result.

I think all the major networks are rigorously fact checked. The simple truth is that you don't need to lie to mislead people, or frame the debate, or push things where you want them to go. It's actually a lot more reliable to just be honest, and simply omit things that don't support you, or steer the discussion to things that help your ideology.

That's the thing aboot the media, when I say they're left leaning, it's not like they categorically refuse to cover stories that hurt Obama (as an example). They certainly do carry those stories. The trick is that they push them less aggressively than similar stories against Republicans, and they use their editorial pages to argue in favor of left leaning policies.

As much as people hate guys like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., one thing I respect these guys for, is that they proudly admit they're right wing ideologues. I don't see why more people can't be more honest this way. I just find it very frustrating when the major networks peddle oot commentators who are supposed to be analyzing the politics of the day, and when you look at their career, you see they were working on the Carter campaign in 1976, or writing speeches for Clinton, or running Al Gore's election team in Florida, or whatever.

Phryxis wrote:What if government decided that the age of consent was denying younger people the choice to enter into sexual relationships with older people? We don't really care aboot their choice then. We decide when a person is too young to make their own choices, and even then don't even allow their parents to waive that decision (you can't decide it's ok for your minor child to have sex with an adult).

The age of consent is different from state to state and has changed a lot of the years and I imagine will continue to change. Go outside the US and it is different still.

Phryxis wrote:As much as people hate guys like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., one thing I respect these guys for, is that they proudly admit they're right wing ideologues.

The first two sure, but O'rielly likes to play off as being moderate and unbiased.

Phryxis wrote:
I have to disagree. One thing that's really pissed me off aboot the gay marriage debate, is that it's actually very simple to find a compromise. Create a legal category called, say "legal partnership" and then say that it's legislatively interchangeable with the term "marriage" but is not actually marriage.

Might piss off some people on either side, but honest, screw them.

I would agree with that, but I don't see it as a compromise between the majority of either side in active, argumentative participation. To my mind part of the problem with gay marriage is that the vast majority of people are largely ambivalent towards it. They might take a strong stance on the matter, but beyond casting a vote they simply don't care. Leaving the task of actually legislating the issue to the extremes at either end. Moreover, I'm not sure you could garner any more support for removing marriage from the legal lexicon than you could for giving gays access to it.

Phyxis wrote:
I don't see this as being exclusive. Is the left "against the Iraq war?" "Against big oil?" "Against global warming?"

Or are they "for peace?" "For the environment?"

And aren't conservatives "for gun rights?" "Standing up for the lives of the unborn?" "For morality and democracy?"

It isn't exclusive, but the negative rhetorical slant of the left has been a fairly recent invention. Back in the 50's and 60's, when the parties found it easier to compromise with one another, left issues were almost universally presented in a positive context. We need to change this, or do that; the conservative voice simply served as a negative declaration of the same type.

Similarly, it was only under the guise of modern Conservatism that the project itself took on a positive identity. It was no longer so much about moderating progress, but making an entirely different type of progress. That's why I say that the modern Conservative movement co-opted the Libertarian ideology; they literally changed the the conversation in order to become the party of 'progress'.

That's what really got to the more Liberal parts of the crowd. Not that the conservatives were dominant, but that they were literally reversing the direction of roughly 100 years of Liberal progress. Something which was unprecedented in memorable history.

Phryxis wrote:
I can't say I saw anything like this going on. What I saw was Fox news people announcing that Obama was going to win, and looking sorta sad and wistful aboot it.

To whatever extent this did happen, it's important to note that something like 4 of the first 5 states to be easily callable happend to be red.

I was referencing the debate coverage, not the election.

If it is forbidden then that choice is taken away.

Sure, and if it's legalized then peace of mind is "taken away" from those who oppose it. Might seem a bit ridiculous to some, but it's still a reality to others.

The problem is that this is based on a false premise - the assumption that because something is legal, people will want to do it, whereas if something is illegal, people won't.

Some people are homosexual. This is a fact that will not be changed no matter what the law says. Some people (not saying you, Phryxis) assume that the instant gay marriage (or whatever term you use) becomes legal, then sons and daughters of the 'morally pure' will instantly turn to sodomy [apologies for the perjorative term - please read in context].

By the same token, allowing legal abortion does not mean that expectant mothers will flock to clinics seeking terminations, or that the minds of people who think it is wrong under any circumstances will be changed.

As much as people hate guys like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., one thing I respect these guys for, is that they proudly admit they're right wing ideologues.

I absolutely agree - these peoples opinions are just as valid as anyone elses. The fact that I disagree with them is neither here nor there. The problem comes when people feel that changing minds through reasoned and informed debate is no longer enough and they push for laws that impose restrictions on the freedom of others (even when such actions will have no effect on them personally).