| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
crimson thing 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848
|
 Posted: June 23 2006 at 03:06 |
We don't have an explicitly written constitution - which is why Blair has managed to ride roughshod over parliament - but people often talk about an implicit one, composed of many years of case law & parliamentary precedents.
Incidentally, although we (the UK) are considered to be a (parliamentary) democracy, there are so many historical quirks and anomalies in the system that, unless you've grown up with it, it appears to be a ridiculously unwieldy & anachronistic arrangement. I suppose it is, and in an ideal world, we'd start again & design an all-inclusive 21st century model, which would address all the oddities. I have to say, from the outside, there are just as many anomalies in the US system, and could see how that too could benefit from a 21st century makeover.
|
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS 
|
 |
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: June 23 2006 at 00:52 |
Clem:
If I didn't know you better, I'd say you are being deliberately obtuse! LOL.
England, France, Spain and most other European countries have been around for well over 1,000 years. All of them have existed without "constitutionally-derived" governments for all that time. And dozens of other countries (in Asia, South America and Africa, among others) have also existed for far longer than the U.S. under their various forms of government - some of which, admittedly, may not be the best ones, but that is the point you seem to be missing: they may not be the "best' forms of government, but they have existed longer than "American representational democracy." And that was the point I was making.
Peace.
|
|
Minimalist777
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 19 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 293
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 22:21 |
What about Fascism? I cant say I like in from what ive read about the ideologies but Its really only gotton two times in power and Mussolini started out good before turning sour and Franco was a pretty food ruler from what I have heard about them both.
|
|
WWOSD?
What Would OliverStoned Do?
|
|
NotAProghead
Special Collaborator
Errors & Omissions Team
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7852
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 21:33 |
Aristocrasies.
But it's utopia, where will we find so many "real" aristocrats?
|
|
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 21:12 |
 maani wrote:
Clem:
You missed my point. NNJF's statement was "I think American representative democracy is pretty good, its lasted us this long." I pointed out that our country is only 250 years old, and that many other countries have existed successfully under other forms of government. Although NNJF mentions the Constitution at the end of his post, his original statement was not about "forms of government with constitutions." It was an response to the original topic of the thread: "Best Form of Government."
Thus, since neither NNJF's statement nor my response specified "forms of government with constitutions," you cannot simply exclude every non-constitutional form of government. Thus, my statement remains correct.
Peace. |
Perhaps I missed your point. The only countries I'm aware of without some form of constitution are Bhutan and Somalia. Are you suggesting they have successful forms of government? Or are you referring to countries and/or forms of government that no longer exist today?
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 20:58 |
Clem:
You missed my point. NNJF's statement was "I think American representative democracy is pretty good, its lasted us this long." I pointed out that our country is only 250 years old, and that many other countries have existed successfully under other forms of government. Although NNJF mentions the Constitution at the end of his post, his original statement was not about "forms of government with constitutions." It was an response to the original topic of the thread: "Best Form of Government."
Thus, since neither NNJF's statement nor my response specified "forms of government with constitutions," you cannot simply exclude every non-constitutional form of government. Thus, my statement remains correct.
Peace.
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 20:12 |
maani wrote:
"It has lasted us this long." A whole 250 years? Consider that we are among the youngest (if not the youngest) countries on the planet. Which means that the governments of all the still-extent countries founded before us have forms of government that have lasted them far longer.
Peace. |
maani,
I don't mind the USA bashing, heck I do it myself quite regularly. But in the interest of accuracy, I looked up the list of which countries have the oldest constitutions. Since a constitution is by definition a charter for a government, this should provide a common timeline for which current governments are actually the oldest. These are the only ones I could find with constitutions more than 100 years old:
Congo, Dem (1906)
Australia (1900)
Tonga (1875)
Switzerland (1874)
Luxembourg (1868)
Canada (1867)
Argentina (1853)
Denmark (1849)
Pitcairn Is (1838)
Belgium (1831)
Netherlands (1815)
Norway (1814)
USA (1787)
San Marino (1600)
Sure, there are places where people have lived longer than they have here, but these are the longest continuous governments (excluding monarch, anarchist, feudal, and dictatorial states).
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
crimson thing
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 19:03 |
maani - yes, totally serious. Yet, there are much older houses in the area.....I can see one (a farmhouse & formerly a mill) from here......do bear in mind, however, that old houses aren't necessarily chocolate-box pretty.........and ours certainly ain't!....
I've seen some old places in NJ - near Princeton, I think, although it was a while ago.
|
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 18:36 |
CT:
I assume you are serious about the age of your house. My friends own the oldest house in NJ, and one of the oldest known original (i.e., unrenovated, unrestored) houses in the U.S. It dates from about 1760 - also prior to the DOI.
Peace.
|
|
crimson thing
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 17:41 |
250 years ain't that long.........my house is older than that.....  .......and, sadly, it looks it.......  ......(I have a copy of the mortgage agreement for it dated a few days before the Declaration of Independence)
|
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 17:36 |
NNJF:
^
"It has lasted us this long." A whole 250 years? Consider that we are among the youngest (if not the youngest) countries on the planet. Which means that the governments of all the still-extent countries founded before us have forms of government that have lasted them far longer.
"Other than civil war there have been no crises of government." Ever heard of a little thing called Watergate? A president was forced to resign when it was clear that he would be indicted for "high crimes and misdemeanors." And Iran/Contragate also threatened to reach into the highest levels of government, though Reagan was able to dodge it when others (Poindexter, North et al) essentially agreed to take the fall.
"And we have had regularly scheduled elections every two years for about 230 years." Yes, but the accuracy and reliability of those elections have become increasingly questionable, especially in recent years. Our current president had to be "appointed" by the Supreme Court after the Florida debacle of 2000. And there is strong reason to believe that the 2004 election was also unreliable due to certain problems and irregularities in Ohio.
"The constitution is a brilliant document." True, for the most part. But keep in mind that is based at least partially on a much older document (the Magna Carta), and that the very "elasticity" that its founders built into it has become a flaw and, in some cases, a liability.
Peace.
|
|
NetsNJFan
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
|
Posted: June 22 2006 at 13:34 |
|
I think American representative democracy is pretty good, its lasted us this long. Other than civil war there have been no crises of government, and we have had regurlarly scheduled elections every two years for about 230 years. That stands for something. The constitution is a brilliant document.
|
|
|
|
MustShaveBeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 20 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 366
|
Posted: June 21 2006 at 17:05 |
It'd be nice to have a perfect government but you're all forgetting one very important thing- corruption makes the world more interesting! 
|
|
Your life or your lupins!!!
|
|
AtLossForWords
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699
|
Posted: June 20 2006 at 23:42 |
maani wrote:
The situation in the U.S. is not that much different from the situation that our hair-challenged sisters () note in Germany: it does not matter who one votes for, since all of the major party candidates (and even some of the others) are pretty much alike. And although part of the problem is indeed "human nature" - power/greed (along with money/oil in many cases) - the other part of the problem is that the transnational corporations now "own" almost every major party politician in almost every First World nation.
True, there are some differences in world leaders and their countries' forms of government, but these are largely superficial. Ultimately, all countries and leaders have virtually no choice but to "bow down" before the transnational banks, and the oil, agribusiness, telecomm, pharmaceutical, insurance and other major industries. This is what comes not simply of globalization and rapid technological advances (the Internet high on the list, but also telecomm, scientific/medical, etc.) but of the continued - and rapidly increasing - agglomeration of those industries. Where synergistic mergers used to be intra-national, they are now international, with banks and various corporate industry leaders buying their competitors in other countries. This puts the world's resources - money, food, natural resources, etc. - into the hands of a very few people, few if any of whom have consciences or even morals.
The result of this is extremely dangerous, because it creates transnational entities that can (and do) fall outside the legal and regulatory jurisdiction of a particular country or countries. And because they are virtually a law unto themselves, their "control" over countries and their leaders is all the more troubling.
So whether it is capitalist democracy in the U.S., socialist monarchy in the UK, proto-capitalist communism in China, straight socialism somewhere else, etc., all of these countries and their socio-political systems rely on money (banks), oil, natural resources, etc. So all of their leaders - no matter how strongly they espouse their particular form of government - are ultimately dancing to the same tune.
Sadly, the situation is getting worse, not better, and the prognosis for any reversal of this juggernaut is slim to none.
Peace.
|
To quote you Maani, "bravo". 
No matter what form of government a country has, it ultimately has to mix togethor with the rest of the world. Could we continue this by saying the best form of government is a unified world government?
|
 
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: AČ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: June 20 2006 at 22:11 |
BaldFriede wrote:
king volta wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Germany is both a republic and a democracy. The seperation of the 3 powers is part of the German constitution, and the word "republic" even appears in the full name of Germany, "Federal Republic of Germany". These two terms do not exclude each other at all. |
speaking of--how is germany's government? does it hold up well or what? |
In our opinion it sucks. The problem is: No matter whom we would have voted, it would still have sucked. Politicians all fail to see the real problems. Or if they do they don't see the real solution. Though it is not as if there are no solutions around; there are a lot of interesting models for solving the main problems. But they are all "utopian". No-one dares to make some real changes to the basic system. |
Didn't you say you lived in Germany? 
That sounds very familliar to me. 
|
|
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: June 20 2006 at 21:36 |
The situation in the U.S. is not that much different from the situation that our hair-challenged sisters ( ) note in Germany: it does not matter who one votes for, since all of the major party candidates (and even some of the others) are pretty much alike. And although part of the problem is indeed "human nature" - power/greed (along with money/oil in many cases) - the other part of the problem is that the transnational corporations now "own" almost every major party politician in almost every First World nation.
True, there are some differences in world leaders and their countries' forms of government, but these are largely superficial. Ultimately, all countries and leaders have virtually no choice but to "bow down" before the transnational banks, and the oil, agribusiness, telecomm, pharmaceutical, insurance and other major industries. This is what comes not simply of globalization and rapid technological advances (the Internet high on the list, but also telecomm, scientific/medical, etc.) but of the continued - and rapidly increasing - agglomeration of those industries. Where synergistic mergers used to be intra-national, they are now international, with banks and various corporate industry leaders buying their competitors in other countries. This puts the world's resources - money, food, natural resources, etc. - into the hands of a very few people, few if any of whom have consciences or even morals.
The result of this is extremely dangerous, because it creates transnational entities that can (and do) fall outside the legal and regulatory jurisdiction of a particular country or countries. And because they are virtually a law unto themselves, their "control" over countries and their leaders is all the more troubling.
So whether it is capitalist democracy in the U.S., socialist monarchy in the UK, proto-capitalist communism in China, straight socialism somewhere else, etc., all of these countries and their socio-political systems rely on money (banks), oil, natural resources, etc. So all of their leaders - no matter how strongly they espouse their particular form of government - are ultimately dancing to the same tune.
Sadly, the situation is getting worse, not better, and the prognosis for any reversal of this juggernaut is slim to none.
Peace.
Edited by maani - June 20 2006 at 21:38
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
|
Posted: June 19 2006 at 14:10 |
|
Too much competition can certainly be counter-productive, but the drive supplied by it won't neccesarily be replaced by working for the common good.
There are people today who take advantage of what little concessions we make away from a laissez faire economy by cheating taxes and allowances: these people certainly wouldn't be doing any more work than neccesary under communism.
|
|
AtLossForWords
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699
|
Posted: June 19 2006 at 13:17 |
goose wrote:
AtLossForWords wrote:
Communism is and always will be the most perfect idea of government. A community governing itself has the highest standards of honor and altruism where everyone can succeed. Artistic expression would also reach it's absolute peak without the opression of classes.
Capitalism is just theoretically flawed. It provides no protection for citizens and creates and individualist, greedy, and competitive society. |
I'd say individuality promotes individualism and competition promotes ambition, neither of which I see as a bad thing. With regards to art, I think most of the notable composers coming from Russia during its communism were in fact in opposition to the regime.
There's also no way communism could reward some people more than others - so the only reason to work hard is something like national, or perhaps even personal pride. Maybe many years ago people had enough for that to work, but the enormous disaffection in a lot of Western countries just isn't going to let that happen. Not to mention the fact that communism has never actually existed - I'd say inpracticability was something of a flaw!
Pure capitalism would doubtless have precisely the opposite problems to communism, which is I would say why it's toned down by any government in a capitalist country to a greater or lesser extent. An analogy could, I suppose, be made to socialism, which is something resembling a toned down version of communism and I feel rubs off some of the nasty corners that communism has. I still don't support it, but I think it's a lot more feasible than communism.
But as I said earlier, properly implemented by people who genuinely care about the country I think any system could work equally well. Poorly implemented by people who don't care (as in most dictatorships..!) is going to be no good for anyone. Certainly if in the future a communist regime exists that works for the people, I'll be glad rather than otherwise even if I wouldn't choose it myself  |
Inviduality is not a bad thing, but selfish individualism is. Competetition is counter-productive. Rather than having the best and brightest minds working togethor to achieve goals, they are split apart trying to out do the other.
That's why the standard of honor in the society is so high. Rousseau also believe people will work to support a surplus that they draw benefits from. When the population works to support a surplus, work is always necessary and never useless.
|
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
|
Posted: June 19 2006 at 06:51 |
AtLossForWords wrote:
Communism is and always will be the most perfect idea of government. A community governing itself has the highest standards of honor and altruism where everyone can succeed. Artistic expression would also reach it's absolute peak without the opression of classes.
Capitalism is just theoretically flawed. It provides no protection for citizens and creates and individualist, greedy, and competitive society. |
I'd say individuality promotes individualism and competition promotes ambition, neither of which I see as a bad thing. With regards to art, I think most of the notable composers coming from Russia during its communism were in fact in opposition to the regime.
There's also no way communism could reward some people more than others - so the only reason to work hard is something like national, or perhaps even personal pride. Maybe many years ago people had enough for that to work, but the enormous disaffection in a lot of Western countries just isn't going to let that happen. Not to mention the fact that communism has never actually existed - I'd say inpracticability was something of a flaw!
Pure capitalism would doubtless have precisely the opposite problems to communism, which is I would say why it's toned down by any government in a capitalist country to a greater or lesser extent. An analogy could, I suppose, be made to socialism, which is something resembling a toned down version of communism and I feel rubs off some of the nasty corners that communism has. I still don't support it, but I think it's a lot more feasible than communism.
But as I said earlier, properly implemented by people who genuinely care about the country I think any system could work equally well. Poorly implemented by people who don't care (as in most dictatorships..!) is going to be no good for anyone. Certainly if in the future a communist regime exists that works for the people, I'll be glad rather than otherwise even if I wouldn't choose it myself
|
|
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: June 19 2006 at 01:17 |
yes but unfortunately, no matter what we say here, all of thsi sh*t is impossible because of the stupidity and insanity of the world's modern society. human nature sucks 
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
best form of govt
