News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > General discussions > Garbage threads > @scotsboyuk vs @bobafett - where brave knights meet politic, cultures and traditions Bookmark topic

@boba

I'll just keep this topic fresh I think; which form of government would you like to see in place of those, which you have said you do not agree with?
--
Posted: 2004-07-18 14:30:20
Edit : Quote


@scotsboyuk i dont take care of gov. I was, am and will be a right forever, but the meaning of it has changed now a days. This message was posted from a T630
--
Posted: 2004-07-21 01:12:26
Edit : Quote


@bobafett

Once again you seem to have managed to avoid giving a direct answer, although I'm not quite sure why. It is a simple enough question; which form of government would you prefer to see in place of those, which you have previously stated, you don't agree with?
--
Posted: 2004-07-22 02:22:51
Edit : Quote


@scotsboyuk i didnt avoid it. I wrote my opinion of it. Still interested in politic, but i dont take care of govs itself, but like to discuss of them. In my country we had left party 40 years long, after the change right, then again left etc all of them did the same = nothing special for the country just pissed off the nation. 60 years ago we lived better then now, in 1900 hungary had a respected position in europe. In those times we had right gov which took care of the nation. Miss those times. This message was posted from a T630
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 04:03:40
Edit : Quote


Hi! Can I join in? This is actually the kind of talk I like!

Here is what I think (like you want to know, right?):

The best form of government: Democratically elected Republic

Is the United States the ideal? I have my doubts. However I'm unable to point to a better structure of government in any other country either now or in history.

Problems with a "more" democratic Democracy: Tyranny of the majority.

As mentioned before in this thread - checks and balances are necessary. The consent of the governed being where a government gains its just authority to govern is a philosophy I believe in. But that doesn't mean that the "governed" are able to make wise choices even in a majority of specific situations. (just take a look at any reliable opinion pole and see how frequently the majority changes its mind) The rights of the individual must be protected against the ever fluctuating will of the majority - else no individual has any rights.

I'm curious as to how the Monarchy in GB has a real say in governance (IE: has a real check on the balance of power). If the Monarch dissolved Parliament ... or refused to sign legislation (I didn't even know they could do this - I learn new stuff all the time) ... what would be the reaction of the people? Would there be upheaval? Would there be riots?

In the US if Congress acts - it goes. If the Executive branch acts - it goes. If the Supreme Court acts - it stands. Sure ... there are protests. Yes, there is disharmony. But I think the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of US Citizens would be appalled if any action by any branch of US government is met with violence. Look back at the Civil Rights struggle of the '60 and Rodney King riots in LA. That sort of lawlessness was repugnant to just about every US Citizen - even if they agreed with the opinion of the rioters. Is this kind of distain for violent reaction the same in European nations? Or am I off my rocker just to think that this kind of distain for violence exists in the US?

The rule of law is paramount.

And as far as the opinion that the Executive Branch (US President) has too much power? I argue that the Legislative Branch (The Federal courts and the US Supreme Court) have, by far, the most power. And I'm not sure that it is a bad thing.

Help me learn people - disagree with me and tell me why.
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 09:27:02
Edit : Quote


I didn't realise the queen could block legislation! I don't think she (or any monarch) has for a while - I don't think they even blocked the legislation meaning they had to pay tax a few years ago. I belive the UK is known as a 'constitutional monarchy'.

I think both the US, UK, and other democracies are being threatened though by this litigious culture that has suddenly mushroomed recently. People will soon be afraid to say what they want or do what they want for fear of some stupid moron sueing them just to line their own pockets. Laws in the UK were changed in 1999 to allow all these 'no win no fee' companies to take root, and every other commercial break is for one of these companies urging people to sue someone for tripping over an uneven paving stone, having a slight car accident, breathing in the wrong direction, etc.


--
Posted: 2004-07-25 11:51:35
Edit : Quote


@boba

You have answered in a very vague manner all throughout this discussion, merely stating that you disagree with most types of government and that you believe governments are all the same. This isn't what I have been asking you, however, from your last post I will presume that you would prefer to see a monarchy. If I may extrapolate from your last post further I would hazard a guess that you wouldn't mind seeing a resurrection of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under the Hapsburgs.

@Patrick-in-CA

Whilst your post was very interesting, I must take up your offer and disagree with you. Your initial comment that the best form of government is an elected republic is quite flatly untrue; the best form of government is whichever government receives the support of the majority of the people, this isn't always democracy.
Personally I favour a constitutional monarchy, which we have here in the U.K. and which serves us very well indeed. European republics differ a great deal from that of the U.S. in that Europe has a much stronger socialist element, and are subject to much stronger internal rivalries e.g. France By far the most stable nation in Europe is the U.K., which has had the same type of governemnt with gradual democratic changes for over a thousand years, with only one brief period of republicanism.
Her Majesty the Queen can block legislation, although it hasn't been done in three hundred years. I would imagine that it would be dependent upon the legislation beling blocked in determing the level of public support for such an action. The House of Lords has had its power steadily eroded over the last century and it doesn't provide a genuine balance to the Commons at the moment. In effect the U.K. is a democratically elected dictatorship with any government with a sufficient majority being bale to pass nay law it chooses to. The chief advantage of the monarchy is that the Soveriegn remains above politics and doe senter into any political dispute, a role which the Queen has performed in exemplary fashion for over fifty years.
I would imagine that Europeans detest violence even more than Americans do in light of the fact that there are still many alive who remember World War Two along with the more recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. European democracy is older than American democracy, it was invented in Europe after all, and people have defended democracy by protesting throughout history.
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 14:14:00
Edit : Quote


Quote:
On 2004-07-25 14:14:00, scotsboyuk wrote:
@Patrick-in-CA
Whilst your post was very interesting, I must take up your offer and disagree with you. Your initial comment that the best form of government is an elected republic is quite flatly untrue; the best form of government is whichever government receives the support of the majority of the people, this isn't always democracy.
Personally I favour a constitutional monarchy, which we have here in the U.K. and which serves us very well indeed. European republics differ a great deal from that of the U.S. in that Europe has a much stronger socialist element, and are subject to much stronger internal rivalries e.g. France By far the most stable nation in Europe is the U.K., which has had the same type of governemnt with gradual democratic changes for over a thousand years, with only one brief period of republicanism.
Her Majesty the Queen can block legislation, although it hasn't been done in three hundred years. I would imagine that it would be dependent upon the legislation beling blocked in determing the level of public support for such an action. The House of Lords has had its power steadily eroded over the last century and it doesn't provide a genuine balance to the Commons at the moment. In effect the U.K. is a democratically elected dictatorship with any government with a sufficient majority being bale to pass nay law it chooses to. The chief advantage of the monarchy is that the Soveriegn remains above politics and doe senter into any political dispute, a role which the Queen has performed in exemplary fashion for over fifty years.
I would imagine that Europeans detest violence even more than Americans do in light of the fact that there are still many alive who remember World War Two along with the more recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. European democracy is older than American democracy, it was invented in Europe after all, and people have defended democracy by protesting throughout history.

Ahhhhhhhh - a breath of fresh air. First let me take a quick moment to simply say Thank You.

Now - As for the thought that any form of government that receives the support of the majority of the people is best form of government is like saying the best cellular phone is the one people use the most at any given time. Is the most popular really always the best? And I once again assert, the majority seems to change quite frequently.

I still believe the best form of government is a democratically elected republic. And even though the government of GB is technically a "Constitutional Monarchy" - because there is a Monarch peripherally involved - I happen to think, much like your economy, GB's functional government isn't so very different from the US.

I know many think "Americans" are smug and arrogant. Well - I can't argue with truth - we are. But putting that aside - I know our system of governance is based largely on the principles and systems governing GB. But please don't mistake my asserting that the Democratic Republic is the best form of government is just me being an arrogant American. Maybe - especially if I'm wrong - one can chalk up my assertion to me preferring what I'm most accustomed to and knowledgeable about. Maybe that is why you assert the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government?

Now - as for the Constitutional Monarchy... I agree that the Queen has performed her role in as exemplary a fashion as I believe is humanly possible. The world, not only GB, is blessed to have her. However, if the monarch truly does have a real check on the balance of power in the structure of your government, then one person - not democratically elected - can have a major influence on your country. Although I know it isn't polite to talk of the death of the Queen - when it does happen, who's to say the next monarch will be as responsible with their position? This is part of the danger the US sought to avoid when forming its government.

Further - "sufficient majority" is a key phrase. In the US the process to change the Constitution requires "more" than a "super-majority". 2/3 of the states must agree to amend the Constitution OR 2/3 of both houses of the US Congress must adopt a proposed amendment and 3/4 of the states must ratify it. This means that it is extremely hard to change the ultimate law of the land and protects the minority/individual from the tyranny of the majority. Yet - with the will of a "sufficient majority" in favor of a change - fundamental changes to our supreme law can be enacted. This seems fair to me. How does GB's Constitutional Monarchy protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority?

You mentioned that the House of Lords has had its powers gradually eroded and doesn't really pose a serious check on the power of the House of Commons. Where does the monarchy stand as a check to the power of the House of Commons as compared to the House of Lords? What I'm really curious to learn is what serious checks exist to the power of the House of Commons? (Don't take me wrong - I really want to learn this one)

You assert that Europeans are more abhorrent to violent expression of political frustration (that is the kind of violence I was talking about - not war in general) than Americans ... because the memory of WWII is still fresh in the memory of so many Europeans. By a percentage of citizens in each ... I'm not sure that Europe has more people who remember WWII than the US. Would we be able to agree that both the US and Europe are equally opposed to violence as a way to voice political ideas/frustrations?

I'm not sure what you meant by saying Democracy is older in Europe. As far as I'm concerned the United States is just a colonial offshoot of Europe. The basis of our culture and societal philosophies are one and the same. We can both look back to Greece (if I'm not mistaken) for the roots to our common democratic philosophy. And John Locke (1632-1704), the father of American Political Philosophy, was British, was he not? I'm just curious ... you're not trying to assert that the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government because it has been around longer, are you?

Once again ... Thank You for your intelligent and detailed post. I'm learning quite a bit. I look forward to reading more.
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 17:05:54
Edit : Quote


I'm so sorry @Sammy_boy, I didn't mean to skip responding to your post.

I agree - The litigious nature of our societies does seem to be a factor in the weakening of the faith in our government and the belief that people can look to government to help solve our problems equitably. Tort reform is in order!

But it is a balancing act:

Make a plaintiff pay when they fail to win their case?
+ pro: Less frivolous lawsuits. Less harassment - more just compensation for real issues.
- con: People with limited means would be heavily discouraged from pursuing even legitimate cases against big, well funded entities (read big business).

Cap or Limit the awards to litigants in Tort cases?
+ pro: Industries like medical (one of the most costly line items in any societies budget) breath a sigh of relief as they don't have to worry as much about being put out of business for even a simple mistake. Costs of these kinds of services go down, making them more accessible to low income people.
-con: The ability for society to effectively use punitive damages or receive appropriate settlements against larger corporations and more egregious offenders is limited. Business and Industry is primarily about making a profit - and the only real incentive a business has to make real changes is when it will make a real/significant difference on the bottom line. It also prevents judges from deciding the best remedies on a case by case basis.

I'd like to hear other tort reform proposals - as well as any further thoughts. Although this is a problem in just about any form of government - hence it might be a good subject for another thread - I'm very interested in discussing it.

_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-25 16:31 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 17:20:37
Edit : Quote


What happened to this poor thread. Did I squash yet another discussion?
--
Posted: 2004-07-29 17:34:24
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index