Dark times are coming

[Loxley]

WTF??

I dunno what you are saying here. Brainwashed? Socialist police state? Whoho where have you been?
The soviet union diseapered several years ago. The only states in europe that has some touch of socialism are social democrats(yeah there is some left of real comunism in russia but i have not seen it anywhere else ) You know what? If you look around i'm certain that you will find a line that you can use to draw yourself back to reality.

 

[Sander]

Old School Roleplayer, I'm thinking you have it all upside down here. Because very clearly, socialism is _not_ in control in any way in Europe. I, for one, very clearly support Socialism, but that is not because of being brainwashed, but because I have a free mind and am allowed to think what I want.
For instance, with the last elections here, it wasn't a socialist party that won, most votes went to the more right-wing conservative parties, and since those exist and have won in the last elections, I very much doubt your words and your views. Despite what you might think, Europe isn't controlled by socialist totalitarian governments who brainwash the people into believing they vote out of their own free will. Seriously, though, if you believe that, well, you should go read some conspiracy books..

Now, as for _why_ I am a supporter of socialism(so you won't think I'm actually brainwashed), I am a supporter of socialism because I sincerely believe that every man/woman and child has equal rights, as long as they help society out to the same amount. Every jonb, whether it is garbage man or computer game programmer or senior executive at a bank, has equal improtance, because without those jobs, society would function in a completely different manner, and usually in a bad manner. What would happen if your garbage wasn't picked up(and you wouldn't deliver it to some place yourself), or if banks were to be non-existant and you would have to kepp money in your house laying about, or if entertainment would be nearly non-existant? If you think abuot that, you'll most likely come to the conclusion that everyone is as important as everyone else, and that therefore everyone needs to be rewarded in the same way, as long as they function within society.

Back to copying music:

I believe that copying music isn't a bad thing, I however, do believe that having it in your possesion for long without ever paying a dime for it can be a bad thing. Because of the impact it has on the economy and society as a whole. It may be a very small impact, however, many small things make one large thing. Think of it as "Better the world, start with yourself."

 

[Ratty Sr.]

OldSchoolRoleplayer, uh, OSRP, when you spoke about totalitarism and brainwashing, are you sure you weren't describing your own country? Most Americans haven't noticed this (as they were "brainwashed"), but all of your media was taken over by powerful media conglomerates who are part of an internationalist regime that also controls the US government. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times and others are all owned by ten corporations, and their content is entirely determined by conservative politicians from Bush' administration. Currently, European countries are the only truly democratic states in the world (as USA is slowly falling into totalitarism, and American people, instead of fighting to preserve their liberty, choose stupid patriotic conformism which will in the end be their own destruction), but it won't be long before international capitalist "shadow government" takes control of Europe as well and turns our comfortable world into a totalitarian anti-utopia, in which there will be two blocks: bickering 3rd world countries choking in poverty and social unrest on one side, and on the other side one humongous, nationless police state run by corporations. Dark times are coming indeed.

 

[Brother None]

Wow, this is what frightens me, Kharn. First of all, the jury trial is one of the *cornerstones* of American government. God, I shudder to think that our lives would be determined by professional jurors or judges with God complexes. Yikes! To be judged by a jury of one's peers ensures that people who know and can understand the circumstances of the person brought up on trial can judge that individual fairly. The idea of law in America was *never* designed to punish the guilty. It is--and always has been--designed to protect the innocent.

You seem to have a problem with specialists making educated calls. You clearly mistrust politicians, and now you put the smack-down on judges.

There's nothing scary about a judge passing judgement on crime, it's what they're there for. Also, be clear that most of the European law system is very open, you get every shot you can get, you can go from the lowest regional court to the European Supreme Court to debate your case. And because there're no executions, the innocent can still be released with a wad of cash for their troubles (fortunately, this doesn't occur too much).

While in the American system, a good and charming lawyer can convince a gullible jury that his client is a clean, innocent man, and that he didn't mean to get 5000 people fired with his tax frauds, while a bad lawyer usually means an innocent person being executed for a crime he didn't commit.

Why? Because the jury isn't trained to look beyond appearances.

Take Greek Mythology. Before the 3 judges were placed in Hades to judge the Dead, there were real living judges that judged the DYING, not the Dead. However, the rich Dying dressed up nicely and acted courtly, so that whatever they had done in life they usually got sent to the Elesian fields, while the poor couldn't put up this show, and were sent either to the Planes to forget and wander or sent to Hell to be tortured...

The 3 judges were placed by Zeus, because he saw that this was wrong, and only immortal judges could see the Dead, after they had died, for what they truly were.

I hope you see the point I'm making; simple men can't look beyond common appearances. It's dangerous to let ignorant people judge over things like this.

Just like your comments about Capitalism and Democracy.

Comments? I said they weren't the best. Do you know who I'm quoting when I say that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"? Winston Churchill. His opinion is widely shared. Capitalism and democracy simply ARE NOT perfect, but they're both the best we have.

I find your views typical of Europeans, and that is one of the most frightening things I can imagine. Europe is simply a socialist police state in which most of the population is brainwashed or forced to believe a certain philosophy which adheres to the policies of the state, and not the individual.

I guess what I'm saying is that the system of the United State Government--however flawed and off the track of it's original intentions--was placed because of liberties which were denied our ancestors by an oppressive government in Europe. It seems that little has changed--and I for one know that I could not live in Europe for one year without landing in prison. I find it disgraceful and appalling the conditions in which Europeans so readily accept.

*sigh* This is equally wrong as the common European view that "All Americans are a-social/care only about money/are gun-nuts/etc."

It's wrong.

1. There is no "Europe". We're not a country with one people united by common ideals. The biggest difference is between East and West, but even amongst countries placed inside those divisions there are changes.

Because one person, or even one certain country, believes something, that doesn't mean the whole of Europe does. England, for instance, shares far more affinity with the American way of life than the Rhineland (Germany and the Benelux) or Scandinavian way of thinking. Hell, your political model isn't called the Anglo-American model (as opposed to the Rhineland model) for nothing.

2. "Europe is simply a socialist police state in which most of the population is brainwashed or forced to believe a certain philosophy which adheres to the policies of the state, and not the individual."

Holy crap.

Well, I think most of this rather paranoid sentence has been attacked sufficiently. Talk about scary...

This is typical mis-understanding of Europe. These mis-understandings work both ways between our continents, obviously and they should be avoided as much as possible both ways.

The thing is, we ARE different, and neither of us is wrong. This is a thought a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp. Europe (and in this case you cán talk of Europe as a basic "entity", because all European countries share this) and the USA just have a completely different basic philosophy, and not one of these philosophies is actually wrong, which is why the people shouting "the USA ís horrible" are wrong.

If you tell a European how many people live below the poverty line in the USA (13%), how many people are starving, how many people die of gun-shots, how many people have no healthcare, etc. etc. the European will be shocked, while these same figures won't rattle the American.

But on the other hand, if you tell an American how much taxes the Europeans pay, how the democratic system works, how little freedom the European has in some ways (though I don't believe an American is truly "more free" than an European, it's just that Americans generally have less awareness of their limitations), the American will have a heart-attack, and the European will shrug it off.

This is because America simply puts more value into individual freedom than Europe. It's the simple truth, Europe believes a bit more in the "common good" and a central society, the USA is a bit more "every man for himself". Neither of us are really wrong, it's just the way it is.

But because the European and the American can't imagine how you would possibly WANT to live like that, the two renounce each other like a bunch of nuts.

"The USA is so horrible!" and "I can't imagine living in Europe" are probably still true, though, but this is because of what you identify as "brainwashing". I think a more appropriate name would be "raising your children". When you raise your kids, you give them a set of ethics. The American gives his/her children an American set of etha, the European gives his/her children a European set of etha. Because of this, it seems both are completely brainwashed, unbending, unwilling to compromise or attempt to understand the other side. I know I'm talking in extremes, but it's not that far from the truth.

Also, Ratty's right in a way (though his whole corporations-are-taking-over theory is kind of insane, just like your Europe-is-a-police-state is kind of insane), you Americans ARE losing a lot of your civil rights. When a president can lie flat-out during the State of the Union and not even get a reprimand, you know something is wrong.

This is also true for Europe; the whole situation with the democratic rights in Italy and Berlusconi is a joke, but worse and bigger than that, the EU is a hugely undemocratic entity. If it takes over completely, we Europeans would be living in a country with a lot less democratic rights than America, as opposed to now, when most european countries are more democratic (it's true, sorry).

PS: OSRP; have you ever been to Europe? There's a reason I never contest welsh's statement about Americans being surprisingly open and friendly people, it's because I've never been to America. To make radical judgement calls like yours requires quite a lot of insight, which I don't think you have.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Well Ratty and Sander, I am fully aware of the changes which are taking place within the borders of the United State. I am assuming you are referring to the USA-Patriot Act, which has dissolved our rights to perform our lives without government interference. I can also assure you that the USA Patriot Act is being fought *very* hard in this country by civil libertarians and lobbyists.

But make sure you don't mistake politics for freedom. What George Bush does to other countries is considered "Foreign Policy" and not subject to American laws--only Congress. I don't think you guys really understand American government fully (and it's okay--most non-Americans never fully grasp the concept of how it works). See, the American government is a system of checks and balances. George Bush cannot pass any laws without the majority approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. He cannot even legally propose a bill for a vote in either house of Congress. Once the bill is passed, he only has three choices: approval, which immediately makes it a law; veto, which then can be *overridden* by a 2/3 majority vote by both the House and the Senate or the bill dies; and he can let the bill expire simply by not signing it, which is exactly the same as a veto in every other way.

Now, even if the bill *is* passed into a law, there are invariably people who will disagree with that particular law. Those people will break that law (often intentionally) for purposes of challenging that law. In that case, the process goes through the court system and through the various appeals processes, can make it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the challenge makes it that far (and for Federal Laws, the Supreme Court will typically see any case which seems controversial), then the Supreme Court can decide if the newly passed law is even *legal* according the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court decides that the law violates either the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, then the law is immediately discarded, and nothing further can be done about it, except for Congress to begin work on a modified version of that law which perhaps is Constitutional.

So as you can see, it is very difficult for George Bush to go against the wishes of the American government or it's people. As much as Europeans, Arabs and Asians would love to think that George Bush is some sort of Fascist dictator, it simply isn't the case. In fact, George Bush's approval rating is one of the highest of any president's in several years. Perhaps you can take the idea of Americans being brainwashed, but that's about all you have. I can tell you what/why Bush has done what he's done, and why politically, it was a brilliant move but that's for another topic. I must say though, Bush is not as stupid as other people think, and he has successfully manipulated enough people that the entire country has rallied behind him.

Europe isn't a Socialist State? Hmm. Let's see what America has that Europe doesn't:

Free Speech--First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Doesn't exist in Europe. Don't believe me? Try going to Germany or France and saying that the Holocaust never happened.

Right to Bear Arms and Maintain a Militia--Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Becoming infringed upon by liberal lawmakers, but the heart of it hasn't been completely gutted. In Europe, it doesn't exist. There are no guaranteed rights for Europeans to keep and bear arms in any way. As a matter of fact, only the very wealthy are even allowed to *hunt* in Europe and anybody who carries a weapon without all the "right" paperwork is automatically classified as a criminal which are the very people that person is trying to protect himself from.

Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure--Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Any searches by law enforcement *must* first be accompanied by a warrant issued by a judge upon probable cause. The only exceptions are if something illegal is being done in plain sight of an officer (if you leave your blinds open or something) or the law enforcement agent has good reason to believe someone's life is in immediate danger. In Europe, you must carry identification at *all* times. Even children may be asked to present an ID or they will be fined. Wasn't that in the book, "1984"? Of course, the real question is--who do they write the fine out to if they can't prove who you are? "Well, Mr. Fred Flintstone, I'll make sure we send this fine to you in the mail..."

As for the concept of Europe *not* being a socialist state, I believe you might want to look up what constitutes a socialist state. I for one, don't even like the idea of a third of my taxes going to the government. To give up half of everything you earn--to me--is absurd. That is what makes capitalism work--only those who are unable to work will be taken care of by the government. The rest have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and earn a living. It is never the responsibility of an individual to care for the rest of the population. An individual must have the choice to help other people--not the mandate by law. I would sooner give half of my income to charity than have it squandered away by a large, overpaid government beaureacracy. Charities are far more efficient than governments. Case in point: Both the U.S. Government and the Red Cross have decided to pay out money to the families of those killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The Red Cross has delivered most of the money (even after uncovering a scandal and dealing with it) to the families of the victims, while the U.S. Government has yet to pay most of the families.

Now, tying all this back to the subject at hand, I think that more Americans, valuing freedom over security will disagree with the Europeans (who believe the opposite--security over freedom) about the RIAA decision. For me, the very idea that they would even consider trying to search my computer for a file makes them the ultimate villain. That means that I would choose the lesser of two evils and side with the pirates, because the pirates aren't hacking into my computer to try and erase my files.

Wow, this is getting really long. Remind me in my next post I'll tell you guys about the story of a Penn State professor who was sued by the RIAA and won.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Hehe, Kharn, we pretty much said the same things, only your post came up first.

But yes, I can give you my credentials for what I know about Europe. I have just recently been laid off by an international company based in Berlin, which is a subsidiary of Elf Atofina in France. Don't worry--I'm not bitter, as a much better opportunity has presented itself for me, so don't fear my ideas are tainted by bitterness to my experience. Anyway, I have had the benefit of experiencing the varied economic and social cultures of Europe and Asia (where most of our business was based). The vast majority of my colleagues here in the U.S. were either Americans (duh! ) or Europeans. I have had numerous discussions with the Europeans--especially the Germans--about the concept of liberty and our differences. the mother of my girlfriend (of one year this month--woohoo!) also lives in Belgium. In addition (and this is the least of my "credibility"), in college I have met an unusually large number of Europeans and Asians in my classes, as roommates, and in general as friends.

Of course, I am tainting my arguments with my own perceptions by calling Europe a socialist police state. That was intentionally done. It basically comes down to the idea that Americans value freedom over security and Europeans value security over freedom. Simply based on the history of oppression by British rule, most Americans who know their history (and I am saddened to say, that is probably less than 20% of the population), agree that freedom is a benefit even worth sacrificing your own life for.

 

[Brother None]

But make sure you don't mistake politics for freedom. What George Bush does to other countries is considered "Foreign Policy" and not subject to American laws--only Congress. I don't think you guys really understand American government fully (and it's okay--most non-Americans never fully grasp the concept of how it works). See, the American government is a system of checks and balances. George Bush cannot pass any laws without the majority approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. He cannot even legally propose a bill for a vote in either house of Congress. Once the bill is passed, he only has three choices: approval, which immediately makes it a law; veto, which then can be *overridden* by a 2/3 majority vote by both the House and the Senate or the bill dies; and he can let the bill expire simply by not signing it, which is exactly the same as a veto in every other way.

*rolls eyes*

You have to be fucking shitting me.

Excuse me, but Europe works the same way. DUH!!!

Free Speech--First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Doesn't exist in Europe. Don't believe me? Try going to Germany or France and saying that the Holocaust never happened.

Free speech is also in most european constitutions.

If you say "the holocaust didn't happen" in Germany or France, people will probably yell at you. That's called free speech as well.

In fact, free speech is held very dear in many European countries. Look at Berlusconi calling the German Europarlement-dude a "Nazi camp-executioner", and yet he doesn't even get kicked out of the parlement. Look at the Dutch Fortuyn making a lot of remarks bordering on racism and fascism, but instead of shutting him up, a political debate is opened with him (he was murdered, in the end, by a lone gunman, horrible event).

How in God's name did it occur to you that free speech doesn't exist in Europe?

Right to Bear Arms and Maintain a Militia--Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Becoming infringed upon by liberal lawmakers, but the heart of it hasn't been completely gutted. In Europe, it doesn't exist. There are no guaranteed rights for Europeans to keep and bear arms in any way. As a matter of fact, only the very wealthy are even allowed to *hunt* in Europe and anybody who carries a weapon without all the "right" paperwork is automatically classified as a criminal which are the very people that person is trying to protect himself from.

Duh

This is because Europeans don't WANT the right to bear arms. And we don't need it either. I've had this discussion with Tone and Gwydion too many times to really get into it, but has it never occured to you that if a European country would want to pass a right-to-bear arms law, it could?

Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure--Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Any searches by law enforcement *must* first be accompanied by a warrant issued by a judge upon probable cause. The only exceptions are if something illegal is being done in plain sight of an officer (if you leave your blinds open or something) or the law enforcement agent has good reason to believe someone's life is in immediate danger. In Europe, you must carry identification at *all* times. Even children may be asked to present an ID or they will be fined. Wasn't that in the book, "1984"? Of course, the real question is--who do they write the fine out to if they can't prove who you are? "Well, Mr. Fred Flintstone, I'll make sure we send this fine to you in the mail..."

Not sure about all of europe, but for Holland the following is true:

You must carry identification at all time. Of course, this can't be checked, so it's not obligatory at all, see below.

It's illegal for the police to force you to reveal your ID, unless you have commited a crime or are at a location where they have the right to ask your ID (i.e. coffee-shops, where they have to be able to check, and other exceptional places).

I have no clue where in God's name you got the idea from that Europeans are fined for not carying an ID, but it's not true.

In fact, like free speech, this law is held very dear. It's illegal, for instance, for a policeman in Holland to search you without proper cause (remember the scene in Pulp Fiction) or to search your house without a warrant. In fact, if a store-guard asks you to open your bag because he suspects a theft, you may refuse and walk away.

As for the concept of Europe *not* being a socialist state, I believe you might want to look up what constitutes a socialist state. I for one, don't even like the idea of a third of my taxes going to the government. To give up half of everything you earn--to me--is absurd.

I'm guessing you didn't read my post at all.

Read it.

PS: OSRP, your opinions and knowledge of Europe does seem tainted, even if you've been here a long time. I don't know a lot about what kind of situation you've been in, in Germany (which, btw, is a very exceptional case in Europe, want me to explain why?), but the stuff you've been saying just isn't true for most of Europe, including Germany.

 

[Loxley]

Okay in norway we do not need to carry ID at all times.

We Need an allowence to have a gun wich is good cause else the criminals would have such an easy times getting weapons.

You would have been yealled at, as kharn said if you claimed that holocaust never happened.

The police cannot search us unless they have good reason, and they cannot go into our houses without a search warrant.

In norway the largest party, wich at certain points in history have had allmost complete political controll in norway, is a socialy democratik party. They built this country after the war. We pay huge taxes and things are in general very expensive in norway, BUT UN just recently presented an annual report where they said that Norway is the best country to live in, in the whole world. What is so wrong about social democrasy?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

In fact, if a store-guard asks you to open your bag because he suspects a theft, you may refuse and walk away.

Holy shit, why didn't you say so before? Holland is a gold mine! I'm calling all my buddies right away, to tell them that we're "going shopping" in Netherlands...

 

[Gwydion]

*rolls eyes*

You have to be fucking shitting me.

Excuse me, but Europe works the same way. DUH!!!

'There is no "Europe". We're not a country with one people united by common ideals.

This is because Europeans don't WANT the right to bear arms.

'There is no "Europe". We're not a country with one people united by common ideals.'

Germany... is a very exceptional case in Europe, want me to explain why?)

'There is no "Europe". We're not a country with one people united by common ideals.'

Watch yourself, Kharn.

Yeah, I can be a bastard.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Hehe, but see, the European Union makes "one Europe." If there was no "one Europe" then there wouldn't be a European currency or a European council or any of the unified beaureacracies.

I guess that every European I've met in person has lied to me about Europe then. I suppose that there really is no law banning Scientologists from government positions Germany, or that there are no fines for not carrying identification in Belgium. I hate to break this to you, but there really *are* laws against saying the Holocaust never happened. If you don't believe me, check out the case of France vs. Ebay. Yes, the French Supreme Court actually backed the government when they *sued* Ebay. Why did they do this? Fraud? Lack of Enforcement? Nope. They sued because someone sold NAZI PARAPHENALIA online. Since French citizens are allowed to access this through the internet, this meant that Ebay was in violation of the law which prohibits the sale or display of anything "promoting" the Nazi party.

Come on--who are you people trying to fool? Why would you deny that these facts exist? If you acknowledge these facts, then how can you claim that Europe is lush with all these freedoms you claim. That's just like saying "Capitalism sucks," and then denying that you ever said that (*coughKharncough*).

This may not be representative of *all* of Europe, but several nations (states?) of the European Union have these laws and very similar laws. If Europe is to become a unified "nation" (or whatever you call that conglomerate of countries), then the trend will homogenize. Yes, I know that most individual nations want to maintain their own nation, language and culture, but that still does not hide the fact that they are slowly becoming one.

Oh, at BTW, Kharn, I obviously did not read your post. Read the post just above your last one and I acknowledged that. Look at the time difference between the two and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Sander]

Look, OSRP, first of all, the EU is _not_ one big nation-state that is controlled by one big council, the main thing about the EU is that it is an effort to coordinate certain things between the European countries, to make things go more smooth, and probably to have more power in the world, as everything is about power.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that every country has the same laws, rules and behaviors. YOu're basically saying "Well, Germany has this one law, and France has one, and Belgium has one as well, so all of Europe sucks."
Because France has a law against _nazi propaganda_(obviously, you never said anything about there being no holocaust, just that they sued e-bay for having nazi propaganda), does not mean that that same law is in effect in the rest of europe.
The fact that Belgians can be fined for not having an ID, does not mean that that is the same in all of Europe.
YOu're assuming things that aren't true, here.

This may not be representative of *all* of Europe, but several nations (states?) of the European Union have these laws and very similar laws. If Europe is to become a unified "nation" (or whatever you call that conglomerate of countries), then the trend will homogenize. Yes, I know that most individual nations want to maintain their own nation, language and culture, but that still does not hide the fact that they are slowly becoming one.

Ahem, what you are saying is that not the good laws, but the "bad" laws will prevail. Excuse me: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry man, but you're making very little sense. YOu're thinking "Europe, I pay high taxes there, and I can't say "NAZIS RULE" in certain countries. Damn those bastards.", but you're completely misinformed. First of all, in most countries, Nazi Propaganda is allowed, it's not encouraged, but it is allowed. To illustrate this fact, we have this old lady from WW2, who was the widow of a very influential National-Socialist group(Rost Van Tonningen(Can't remember his first name)), and that widow is publishing a lot of books and pamphlets and whatnot saying that the holocaust never happened, and that Hitler was a good man.

I'm starting to think here that your hatred towards Europe(Which seems irrational, or at least odd....), stems from what you have been taught in the USA. I'm certain that, when you were young, people weren't too friendly with regards to the EU, and when you're around a certain line of thought at a young age, that line of thought tends to affect your entire thinking pattern for the rest of your life.
If you can tell me that you're disliking of the EU does _not_ come from a thing like that, but from facts. I'd certainly like to advise you to read more about what is exactly happening around the EU and why things are absolutely NOT the way you're portraying them.[/quote]

 

[welsh]

just a quick line

This is really getting interesting, but just a few thoughts-

Kharn- I generally will go with OSRP on the issue of death penalty and trial by jury, though perhaps not for the same reasons. What happens with the death penalty cases is two trials occur. One for the guilt or innocense, the other for the penalty. The idea goes to a constitutional right to being "judged by your peers." In that case your peers would be fellow citizens. This is a case of moral judgment on your actions, and I would say its better that your pers do this than agents of the state. In the US the judge is merely the overseer that the process is just (although often he is also a triar of fact).

I didn't say I think the death penalty is moral or correct, I only conditioned that "if you believe that its not cruel and unusual punishment."

I agree, that one reason why many african-americans may be more likely to get the death penalty than whites has to do with stereotypes. It's regretful but true. This is not yet a color blind society, but then I think that can probably be said for most countries.

Whether the jury has the sophistication or not to judge- well probably they do. Juries are part of the adversarial process of US justice and have been proven to be fairly sophisticated. Jury's have been proven to be able to work through complex medical malpractice, antitrust, securities and a variety of other litigations in civil practice. So its not lack of sophistication that's the problem. Given the ability of jury's to be untarnished by the state and capable of figuring out complex facts, I would trust the jury more than state agents (but then I believe that healthy skeptism of the state is a good thing for democracy).

With regard to the roll back on civil rights in the US (the Patriot Act for example). During times of crisis the President and the Executive Branch is usually granted more autonomy by the people. It is not coincidence that many of the most important first amendment cases happen during time of US crisis (the red scare cases for example).

But to think that the roll back in Civil Rights is purely a 9-11 phenomena would also be in error. The Rhenquist and Burger Courts have significantly cut back on civil rights over the last 20-25 years. Recent decisions regarding gay rights, affirmative action and states rights may indicate that the trend is coming to a close. Part of this was due to advances in civil rights made during the Warren Court years and a feeling among many who followed that the Supreme Court had gone too far. A close examination of US constitutional rights is often unsettling and surprising for most Americans who haven't had the chance to really look at constitutional law in a focused way.

With regard OSRP's comments on law and the president, well you have forgotten something in the area of foreign policy. For one the President, as Executive, is given much greater discretion in areas of foreign relations than in domestic. Some decisions are not reviewable by the Court or would be touched by Congress. The other issue is the concept of an Executive Order. An Executive Order is basically a statement of policy coming from the President but which is often given the strength of law, especially in areas of foreign policy. While EOs can be overruled by Congress or can be ruled unconstitutional by the Court, they are created by the President without the consultation that Congress is supposed to bring to making a bill a law. There are a lot of EOs out there, especially with regard to foreign and national security policies, but also on domestic issues - such as environmental policy.

Finally, the common perception of the US is a unified federal state in which states have substantial sovereign authority with federal oversight. Thus states can give more rights than the federal government and states can disagree (for example on issues as gay rights, gun control, environmental protection, labor law). Another way of looking at the US is also as a unified common market which allows economic unity under common rules while allowing substantial state autonomy and distinctions. Not sure if that helps, but it might help us see comparisons between US and Europe. We may be more alike then we think.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Welsh, you're a friggin' genius! I couldn't have said it better myself (and apparently didn't). But if you reread my initial post carefully, I did mention that Executive Orders regarding foreign policy are treated differently than internal laws (which I mentioned in response to the "Dictator Bush"-type comments).

Sander, I can honestly tell you that European politics was never on my mind or taught in my schools. I studied three years of German in high school, but that was as far as the culture I was exposed to in my younger years. It wasn't until I worked for an international company when I began associating with my European colleagues that I learned what kind of place Europe is. I agree that Holland and Scandanavia are good places to live--I've heard that from many Europeans. Obviously Eastern Europe has it's own problems. However, Western Europe--which makes up the bulk of the cultural and political influence--has laws which prohibit what we Americans consider quintessential rights. Hell, even England has a board of censorship! I have spoken with so many people in Europe that I can honestly say that I would not want to live in Europe.

For a primary reason--I don't like the idea of supporting deadbeats who are too lazy to work. The socialism is the first and foremost reason--Socialism may as well be called "Half-Communism" because it makes the people who work hard have to give up a very large portion of their income in order to pay for the people who don't. It has little to do with taxes and more to do with the philosophy of paying for laziness. In some parts of Europe (have to add that disclaimer in case someone on the fringe of Europe wants to argue the point), because the population is declining (hmm, I wonder why?), people are given money just to have children. In America, when people who have lots of children to get government money, it's called Welfare--and it's generally frowned upon.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck--it's probably a duck.

 

[Sander]

Socialism may as well be called "Half-Communism"

In case you didn't know yet, the only difference between socialism and communism, is that communism wants to achieve it's goals through revolution, and socialism through democracy.

But I think you were talking about a Social Democracy, which is a very different thing.

And you're saying that Europe lacks quintessential rights? Look at your own government, please.
I haven't seen anything regarding legal gay marriages in the USA, nor have I seen anything about legalizing prostitution(If you want to be a prostitute, it's your right.). I also haven't seen anything about legalizing (soft) drugs(After all, it's your own body, you can do with it whatever you want, and before you say"Your drug problem is bigger", or something like that, it isn't, it's very much smaller than the drugs problem in the States). I'd actually say that Europe is _more_ free than the USA, obviously, this doesn't go for all countries, but at least a couple of them.

Then you say you don't like supporting deadbeats, however, I'd like to hear you if you lost your job, your house got impounded and other nasty stuff happened which would make you one of those deadbeats. Afterall, people who say things like that, are, for the most part, selfish people(Not that there's much wrong with that,it's merely a difference in morals), but most of those people would scold the government if they found themselves in the gutter and there was no social welfare to help them.

What you _also_ don't realise is those high taxes you pay come back to you in ways you don't see, such as roads, trash cans, clean streets, public transportation, health care and other things.

And ehmm, one thing you may not realise Holland and Scandinavia are part of what is considered "Western Europe".

Oh, and we do have freedom of speech here, censorship is as non-existant(Probably even _less_ existant) than in the USA(I wonder if you could find, for instance, pornography on channels late at night in the USA(meaning: non-membership channels), while it may seem immoral to certain people, leaving it _off_ the channels is also a form of censorship.)
Ofcourse, there are other laws that exist in the USA, mainly the arms law, however, the bulk of the Europeans don't _want_ things like that, laws could be very obviously passed to gain more freedom, however, people obviously don't want that.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Not in the true Marxist sense of the word. Communism is simply an idealistic utopic version of an economy. The Soviets and Chinese corrupted an economic system to refer to a political system. They are different.

Quintessential rights have little to do with it Sander. Only in the Netherlands are drugs legal--the vast majority of Europe still holds those laws to be true. And yes--I agree with you 100% that drugs and prostitution should be legal. The whole idea of making drugs illegal (in the U.S.--I'm not referring to the Opium Wars in China) was set forth by conservatives in the 1930's, and were augmented by a film called "Reefer Madness". Anyway, prostitution and gay marriages are state laws. Just because you haven't seen anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An example is that prostitution is legal in Nevada, gay marriages are recognized in Vermont, and marijuana is legal in California (although the federal government is fighting those laws--and performing raids on people who have marijuana legally--but change doesn't occur overnight). There was a recent Supreme Court decision which is actually paving the way for gay marriages to be recognized sooner or later--but again, the wheels of justice turn slowly and you can't expect things to change overnight.

And actually, Sander, I *am* recently unemployed. The difference is, I didn't sit on my lazy ass and expect the government to pay for me. I decided to return to college and get my master's degree in business administration from the same university which I achieved my degree in chemical engineering. I was born into a welfare family during the recession of the 1970's. My father took a minimum wage job to take us off of welfare. See, for most Americans, being on welfare is an embarassment--it signifies a lack of independence.

I see every day where my 33% tax rate goes here in America. It goes to pay overpaid and overstaffed beaureacracies. It goes for frivolous research grants to the University of Iowa to determine if cow flatulance depletes the ozone layer, and so on. Again, in America, taxes do not pay anythin you've listed except street sweeping and roads. Trash is paid for by the resident. Public transportation is paid for by the people who ride the buses (although they get a minimal subsidy).

The problem with your logic is that there are far too many programs which many people do not use. People who choose not to have children should not be forced to pay school taxes--just as people who do not drive should not be forced to pay for road improvements. The "voluntary tax" system works very well. A prime example is that the state in which I live in (Pennsylvania) does not collect taxes for the support and upkeep of State Game Lands. Everything is solely paid for by the hunters and fishermen. Trout are stocked by the licenses they purchase and anything they donate.

Basically, the problem with Socialism is that it punishes people who succeed by forcing them to support the people who do not succeed. It does not teach independence or encourage a strong work ethic. Granted, at least you get *some* ability to keep your money--unlike Communism. However, what's the difference between "you keep half of what you earn and the other half is redistributed" vs. "you keep nothing that you earn and *everything* is redistributed"? Communism didn't fail because of Russo-American politics or any other political conspiracies that people want to come up with. Communism failed because Marx did not account for basic human laziness and greed. Greed drives people to work, laziness drives people to slack. Capitalism embraces both of these concepts. Just so you don't try to utilize this concept--there are laws in the U.S. against monopolies as well (a concept which would work well on the other thread about how Clinton spent more time going after Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden--which he later said was his biggest regret).

The issue of the right to bear arms and maintain a militia was set up to prevent government oppression. If the American people decide that the government is unjust, the people *will* rise up--violently--against the government. At this point, Americans like what they see. When they don't--they change leaders (which Bush may find out if he doesn't find WMD in Iraq before the 2004 election). Just remember--especially in Hitlerphobic Europe--that one of the first things the Nazi regime did was disarmed the German people "in order to reduce crime and carry us into the 21st Century". We all know where that led.

Oh, and one last thing Sander. This is just being a bit nitpicky, so don't hold it against me. However, the word is Nazi "paraphenalia" not "propoganda". Paraphenalia is the word to describe the tools or devices used. That word in the U.S. is mostly used to describe marijuana bongs with resin in them, hehe. Anyway, propaganda refers to lies used to manipulate people. Just a minor distinction, but it makes a big difference when referring to Nazis. Then again--maybe France should never be considered a part of Europe anyway--seeing as how they arbitrarily go against everything the EU does anyway. Oh, and Elf Atofina had billions of dollars tied up in the Iraqi oil fields--that was the real reason why they fought so hard in the UN against the United State's case against war with Iraq. I know this because I was just recently laid off from that company.

 

[Sander]

Ehmm, I know the difference between paraphenalia and propaganda, OSRP, but you said:

the sale or display of anything "promoting" the Nazi party

And for as far as I know, that is propaganda.

Anyway, the difference we have here, is a difference of principles, there isn't any good, or any wrong here. We are both right, in the sense that we both support what we want and what we believe. I'm hoping that I've cleared some things here, and have cleared your mind a bit about what is and isn't happening around here. Or maybe I just read your previous posts in a completely wrong way and you had everything right. Ah well....

Oh, and about the arms law, I know why it is there, however, I don't think it is necessary, or at least over here, and could very well result in situations we see in the USA with a large number(well, relative to the numbers in the Netherlands anyway) of murders and assaults with those weapons. Again, it's a matter of principles, one where there is no right or wrong, but merely a difference in opinions.

Also, being on welfare is embarassing here as well, it's only logical. However, sometimes people have _no choice_ but to sit on their asses because they may not have the money to go to college(there is NO WAY the wellfare is enough to go through college), or they can't find a job, or perhaps they are handicapped and can't work, or perhaps they're in the hospital for months and can't work because of that. There can be many reasons, while there may be people abusing it, it is also helping others.
Again it is merely a matter of principles, I know I won't convince, and please realise you won't convince me, but I'd like you to know how it works..

Also, you are wrong about communism and socialism, they are the _exact_ same thing when taken in the true form of the word, I know what both are, and I also know that the _only_ difference between the two(I am serious here, if you don't believe it, please look it up.), is the way to get to the end goal.

There isn't a single socialist state in the world, and there are no communist states either, they use words but they do different things. Ah well.

I hope we can close this part now

 

[Brother None]

GOD DAMNED! I had a whole reply typed out, but it got deleted when something violently took over my browser. @#$!%#^#$!@!@@%#$@#$@$@!^#$@%#@$e%!@#$%^$^#$@%!@#

Ugh, I'll recap shortly, but this'll just be a short-hand version of the original, I don't feel like writing all that over again.

1. Gwydion. Thank you, you're being a bit anal, though

2. Communism and Socialism both aren't Marx' theories. Marx wrote Marxism. Lenin wrote Marxist-Leninism, also known as Communism. Socialism is a general reference to Mensjewikism, a political form that existed in Russia before the revolution. Socialism doesn't believe in the Revolution. Also, while it strives for the same ideals as Communism, it does so much more slowly, i.e. it doesn't take all your money (which, btw, Communism doesn't either).

Marxism (and Socialism and Communism) are basically flawed because they're Social-Darwinistic philosphies. And because Social-Darwinism is flawed in its concept (just like, say, Rationalist Philosophy), it is by definition wrong. For the same reason you can discount Anarchism and the original draft of Liberalism (1. Liberalism being "Capitalism/the market should rule without limits" and not the strange definition of the US (i.e. "liberal" is not "left-wing") 2. There are no Liberalist countries in the world. "Liberalist countries", like the USA, GB, Italy and (currently) Holland, are, in fact, Neo-Liberalist)

Social-Democracy and Neo-Liberalism aren't as far apart as most people think. Social-Democracy (which, in my opinion, was founded by none other than FD Roosevelt) just holds more dearly to the opinion that the state has responsibility over it's civilians. However, you'll be hard-pressed to find a Social-Democrat to state that the state should, because of this, take care of ALL civilians that ask for help.

On the other hand, nor will a Neo-Liberalist ever say the State should retract from Wellfare completely and let the poor people starve (which, btw, is Liberalism).

Social-Democracy works, SD Europe proves that (the Dutch quality of life is higher than the American quality of life, for instance), but it is also flawed. During the mid-80's, there was a crisis in Europe because the wellfare state was becoming too expensive. This convinced most people that the wellfare state was not practical, both because of the high cost, but also because of the low work ethic you mentioned. Since then most European countries have been working on a balance (and failing )

3. OSRP, you seem to base a lot on some individual cases. Such cases could be dug up for the USA as well because, as you mentioned, different states have different laws (which reminds me, wasn't the anti-homo law annulled by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional? I never finished up on the subject in the paper, didn't have time before I had to go to work), and some of those hidden laws might not be as likeable as you want them to be.

The USA has a lot of the problems that "Europe" (gotcha there, Gwydion!) has and probably more. Note (and I've used this link many times) how low you score on the RSF "freedom of journalism" test.

Your basic statement is weird. You're saying that Europe has some odd laws here and there and that thus it is a Socialist Police state?

Also, you don't seem to understand the EU. The EU was originally an economic alliance that grew out into a political alliance once the idea of "a united Europe" grew (especially after the Cold War). This has gone a bit wrong (see below), but not so wrong that we have an insane Council that will pass only bad legislation and leave just laws by, which seems to be your opinion (do you truly believe that all of Europe would copy an anti-nazi act from FRANCE, of all countries?)

The EU is basically flawed, though, it has drawn far too many legislative powers to itself (the Council can pass laws which can't be stopped by individual countries in any way), without worrying about it's balance problems (big countries vs. small countries) or the un-democratic problem (the general turn-out for a European Election is 30-40%. For comparison, the Belgian turn-out is 99% (obligatory voting), the Dutch (non-obligatory) turn-out is always around 80% (for national elections). If a Dutch election ever had a turn-out of 50% (like the American presidential election), the government thus elected would probably have to step down and a re-election declared (depending on the situation))

Whether the jury has the sophistication or not to judge- well probably they do. Juries are part of the adversarial process of US justice and have been proven to be fairly sophisticated. Jury's have been proven to be able to work through complex medical malpractice, antitrust, securities and a variety of other litigations in civil practice. So its not lack of sophistication that's the problem. Given the ability of jury's to be untarnished by the state and capable of figuring out complex facts, I would trust the jury more than state agents (but then I believe that healthy skeptism of the state is a good thing for democracy).

This is another major difference between Neo-Liberal America and Social-Democratic Europe.

SD Europeans tend to be, in general, rather naive when it comes to civil rights and the checking of democracy (just take the EU, for example), The attitude, insanely enough, is a lot like that of West-Europe before WW II. "It'll never go wrong" "This'll never happen to us"

Because of this, American paranoia (can't trust the government!) would see the way to go, but I don't believe that true. American paranoia, while more practical than SD European naivity, causes a lot of problems in the standing between the government and the people, amongst these problems are the low turn-out for elections. A balance of the two would be great.

There isn't a single socialist state in the world, and there are no communist states either, they use words but they do different things. Ah well.

Cuba is still communist, in the essence of the word.

China, N-Korea and Vietnam are State-controlled Capitalist countries. This form of government used to be called National-Socialism, but people seem to be rather slow in using this term these days.

PS: please excuse any mis-statements in this post, I really suck at concentrating on typing an entire message over again, which is damned annoying.

 

[welsh]

Just two comments-

One, OSRP's view on the value of social welfare systems is not, in my opinion, representative of most Americans. While there are quite a few Americans who are pissed off about welfare and any "socialized" systems in the US (free healthcare anyone?) most americans still support paying property taxes for schools (thus increasing property values), paying for parks and even assuring some level of social safety net. In addition unemployment in the US is pretty awful. I think its like $300 every two weeks. In some countries that might sound like a lot but in the US, that might be enough to pay the rent for a one bedroom apartment, and that's about it.

While a lot of Americans do support the "keep the state out of everything" approach, there are a lot who look back at the New Deal and the Great Society as some of the high points in US domestic politics.

Second and related point. It is widely recognized that the state places a critical role in the development of economic prosperity- in both the richest and poorest of nations. WHile the US has been one of the great beneficiaries of globalization, so does one see an increase in the state with regard to globalization.

True, a bloated bureaucracy, a corrupt state and a variety of other rent-seeking state apparatus are bad, the state has also played a central role in maintaining and fostering economic prosperity, North's nobel winning book on the role of institutions in economic performance is a good first place to go when reading on this. The success of the Asian "Dragons" is also evidence of the role of the state in making economic success work.

This is not socialism. Rather the state, as part of society, is also one of the central economic actors. While funding for such things as cow farts and the ozone layer might piss off some folks, other research, for instance the creation of the internet, allows the state to promote and even subsidize research and development when its expensive and thereby get the business cycle rolling again. In many industries getting new investment in cutting technologies can be very difficult without subsidies from the state

Furthermore, most countries that have succeeded have had to protect infant industries at some point. Finally there are some industries that might be best left to the state or under significant state control- think of your public utilities, before being deregulated. Every successful capitalist country has benefitted from an active state in economic development.

Finally I think we can complexify the issue of states past economic system. Totalitarian systems need to be considered as well.

 

[Gwydion]

Because of this, American paranoia (can't trust the government!) would see the way to go, but I don't believe that true. American paranoia, while more practical than SD European naivity, causes a lot of problems in the standing between the government and the people, amongst these problems are the low turn-out for elections. A balance of the two would be great.

I'm not sure that's really accurate. If everyone were really paranoid, instead of not voting they'd be voting for Libertarian candidates. I think it's apathy and ignorance that keeps people from voting, really.