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.

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.