Italy is doomed

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Aethers » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:58 pm

Darvian wrote:
Aethers wrote:As an aside, the theory is that electing judges makes them responsive to the public interest. The Founders never anticipated campaign donations though let alone million-dollar advertising budgets...


To take you seriously, I am of two-minds on the issue. I fully see and accept the election of judges as a means to ensure they are more in touch with the people they serve on a county-to-county level. Of course every state has it's little nuisances and then there are the few quaint Commonwealths.


Is there any particular reason you called my home state quaint here? I'm just trying to figure out what possible relevance is held by calling those four states "quaint," and what content, if any, exists in the clause other than (possibly) a thinly veiled insult to Kentuckians, Massachussans, Pennsylvanians, and Virginians (myself among the latter.)

Though in general the idea of electing public figures directly especially on local and regional levels and issues is something I'm quite willing to accept. I don't know about other states, but for instance in Ohio local school-boards are elected; not uncommon, however they are done so in a bipartisan manner (no party listed on the ballot.) The issue with Judges and directly-electing them should be the same, in theory.

The problem is, in my view to go to the other side of the argument, Judges are not part of the executive or legislative organs of (edit) of our government. My interpretation of the constitution and understanding of what the Courts purposes are; is to be impartial and exercise jurisprudence without risk of public-opinion. It's a double-edged sword in this respect. Now, I'm a partisan hack and the idea that the current Governor of Ohio could appoint the judges-the thought makes me cringe. Easiest solution to all of this really is to mandate judicial elections are financed publicly and are not allowed to receive donations whatsoever. Of course, it will never happen but, I can be an Armchair General about it, dammit.


I do agree with you here. My point in the quoted post was not to disagree but to shed light on the original rationale for the law as it now stands in those states that still elect their judges.

(To be fair, though, they don't have to worry about a judicially activist court twisting the law against the majority opinion. Not that it protects them from judicial activism in favor of such a view...)
Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi (Coalition for Democracy) in Ibutho Izulu
Mugenkai in the Imperial Federation of Sekowo (inactive)
Community Communist Congress in the Republic of Ikradon (obsolete)
Cosmopolitan Unity Party in the Republic of Sogona (P2, RIP)
Aethers
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 6:46 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Molotov » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:12 am

Darvian wrote:Hah, I doubt that very much.


Really? You are the world's most (and possibly only) fundamentalist Christian country. You continue to allow guns to be sold to practically anyone, because three hundred years ago some chaps thought it a good idea. Despite the fact that your government routinely disobeys the tenets which it is meant to observe (Nixon, Guantanomo Bay, The PATRIOT Act) you think your democracy somehow superior. By your own admission, electing civil servants and judges is idiotic, yet you must continue because your country is padlocked to a piece of paper. Returning to Aether's assertion that America and her political system is somehow better than Britain's because of America's constitution, I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

True, this might have nothing to do with the Puritans, admittedly your reverence for the Bible provides only a tenuous link to your reverence for another document, your constitution. It was probably a silly suggestion of mine. Still, I think there might be something there. Just like the fact you eat bagels and doughnuts might have nothing to do with all the Dutch and Jews you've got living there, the fact Spanish is your second largest language might have nothing to do with all the Mexicans, but I doubt it.

It's difficult to observe the make-up of the society in which you live, Darvian. The hardest thing for an anthropologist is to analyse the society in which he grew up.
User avatar
Molotov
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Aethers » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:35 am

Molotov wrote:
Darvian wrote:Hah, I doubt that very much.


Really? You are the world's most (and possibly only) fundamentalist Christian country.


Ah, no, actually, we are the world's original secular nation. It's true we have the largest number of fundamentalist Christians, but that's hardly relevant to the nation as an institution.

You continue to allow guns to be sold to practically anyone, because three hundred years ago some chaps thought it a good idea.


Well, that's one of the reasons, but a more important reason is that it actually was and continues to be a good idea.

Despite the fact that your government routinely disobeys the tenets which it is meant to observe (Nixon, Guantanomo Bay, The PATRIOT Act) you think your democracy somehow superior.


I don't recall anyone saying superior. I did mention that we originated several of the key facets of modern democracy, and if you made a list I'd imagine that you'd find modern liberal democracy owes more to the American Revolution than British parliamentarianism.

By your own admission, electing civil servants and judges is idiotic, yet you must continue because your country is padlocked to a piece of paper.


Erm, no. There's nothing in the federal Constitution about electing judges (on the contrary, actually.) Several states provide for it in their own constitutions, and the people of those states may opt to keep those as constituted or amend them. It's the sovereign right of the peoples of those states.

Returning to Aether's assertion that America and her political system is somehow better than Britain's because of America's constitution, I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.


Well, I don't recall saying that, but not to dither on semantics -- what is this alleged evidence that we are no better? I don't believe we're "better," to be clear, but I do believe that by codifying the British idea of Natural Right we did more to advance liberty worldwide than any other nation has since. Let Europe liberalize on the British model and we'd have "organic societies" where, as in feudalism, the rights of the people begin and end with what "society" (that nebulous concept oft-touted by those in power) sees fit to grant.

True, this might have nothing to do with the Puritans, admittedly your reverence for the Bible provides only a tenuous link to your reverence for another document, your constitution.


To be honest, I get extremely sick of people over here who claim that the Bible is somehow related to our founding documents. You can believe whatever you want, but the fact is that our Constitution was written in large part by Deists who believed that the Bible was either metaphorical or false. And yet they somehow got together with Christians to create a functioning government for a civil society. Odd how that works, isn't it?
Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi (Coalition for Democracy) in Ibutho Izulu
Mugenkai in the Imperial Federation of Sekowo (inactive)
Community Communist Congress in the Republic of Ikradon (obsolete)
Cosmopolitan Unity Party in the Republic of Sogona (P2, RIP)
Aethers
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 6:46 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Molotov » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:53 am

Ah, no, actually, we are the world's original secular nation.


Not really. You're the world's original country with a document that binds future governments to a separation of Church and State. A separation of Church and State, whether de jure or de facto, is only one form of secularism (called today, usually, 'Western Secularism'.) India is secular, even though it has no such clear separation as does the United States, it has a legal recognition of any number of religions, of which any the government may be tied but to which none it may be biased against, if you see what I mean. The Roman Republic was secular in this sense, in many ways it way pre-religious in the way we understand religion (the ancients did not really separate the world into the temporal and the spiritual as we do now, it was all the same) but the government was not bound by an adherence to a particular religion, nor biased against a particular religion. Some of the ideas of the American 'founding fathers' were old ones indeed.

Well, that's one of the reasons, but a more important reason is that it actually was and continues to be a good idea.


That's a political opinion, and like a religious belief, there's no point arguing. Much as I like guns and think Britain's stance draconian, I think America's silly. Regardless, America's position is because of an outdated document, not because of the either the current political necessity, the current political culture, or the cumulative experience and wisdom of the past. It is just because of the beliefs of a few men, who thought they could rationally plan a society based upon abstract principles and ideals.

I don't recall anyone saying superior.


You did, but I think it was tongue in cheek. Not 'superior', you said something like Britain might have been better off with a Bill of Rights. It was a few posts back.

and if you made a list I'd imagine that you'd find modern liberal democracy owes more to the American Revolution than British parliamentarianism.


I don't think so, considering that British liberal democracy has been the model for the most successful liberal democracies in the world, excluding Britain, we have Canada, Australia and India as obvious examples. The American presidential model has influenced many countries in the post-colonial modern period, but I'm not sure how successful this has been (see many (mainly) Latin/South American countries, many African countries, some Eastern countries).

Several states provide for it in their own constitutions, and the people of those states may opt to keep those as constituted or amend them. It's the sovereign right of the peoples of those states.


It's still constitutionalism, the blame lies with codified and written constitutions which are difficult to amend, presumably from which these 'sovereign rights' are derived in the first place. Silly, so far as I'm concerned, and in my sort of professional opinion ;)

To be honest, I get extremely sick of people over here who claim that the Bible is somehow related to our founding documents. You can believe whatever you want, but the fact is that our Constitution was written in large part by Deists who believed that the Bible was either metaphorical or false. And yet they somehow got together with Christians to create a functioning government for a civil society. Odd how that works, isn't it?


I didn't mean to suggest that the writers somehow colluded with the fundamentalists to write the constitution, but that the reverence in which you hold your constitution is similar to the reverence held by American Christians for scripture, and it's entirely likely that your present culture, and your present political culture, has been influenced by your forebears (quite a few of whom were religious nutcases which we were desperate to get rid of. What do you call them, the Pilgrim Fathers?)
User avatar
Molotov
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Aethers » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:08 am

Molotov wrote:
Ah, no, actually, we are the world's original secular nation.


Not really. You're the world's original country with a document that binds future governments to a separation of Church and State. A separation of Church and State, whether de jure or de facto, is only one form of secularism (called today, usually, 'Western Secularism'.) India is secular, even though it has no such clear separation as does the United States, it has a legal recognition of any number of religions, of which any the government may be tied but to which none it may be biased against, if you see what I mean. The Roman Republic was secular in this sense, in many ways it way pre-religious in the way we understand religion (the ancients did not really separate the world into the temporal and the spiritual as we do now, it was all the same) but the government was not bound by an adherence to a particular religion, nor biased against a particular religion. Some of the ideas of the American 'founding fathers' were old ones indeed.


The "separation" idea is usually traced to the writings of Jefferson and is not present in the text of the Constitution. Prevailing legal thought holds that the prohibition of our Bill of Rights on an established religion also demands that the government, including state governments and county schools, refrain from explicit endorsement of religion, with exceptions for cultural icons not considered religious (such as "In God We Trust," one of our national mottoes.) My opinion is that that's an overly broad reading of "establishment" and has actually fueled fundamentalism by making many Christians feel they're under attack by jurisprudence. But that's neither here nor there...

When I said we're a secular nation, I meant something much simpler: We as a nation are not founded on any religious principles. And yes, secular government existed in antiquity but it was extinct in the West until brought back in America. (I'm open to any counterexamples, if there were any other secular regimes in Western nations between 381 and 1789.)

Well, that's one of the reasons, but a more important reason is that it actually was and continues to be a good idea.


That's a political opinion, and like a religious belief, there's no point arguing. Much as I like guns and think Britain's stance draconian, I think America's silly. Regardless, America's position is because of an outdated document, not because of the either the current political necessity, the current political culture, or the cumulative experience and wisdom of the past. It is just because of the beliefs of a few men, who thought they could rationally plan a society based upon abstract principles and ideals.


For the Founders, the right to keep and bear arms was hardly abstract. They had seen with their own eyes the attempts of the royal government to disarm the population, and it was mainly because of the ready availability of weaponry and ammunition in the colonies before the British government's crackdowns that America remained free, and became independent. You can agree or disagree with America's right to keep and bear arms, and similar rights like Germany's right of resistance, but don't pretend they're baseless. (And if anyone doubts the feasibility of militia defense in this day and age, I remind you that the US Army, the strongest military force on the planet, was having quite a bit of trouble with disorganized rebel militias in Iraq before it started working with the populace to create its own militias.)

I don't recall anyone saying superior.


You did, but I think it was tongue in cheek. Not 'superior', you said something like Britain might have been better off with a Bill of Rights. It was a few posts back.


Ah, so that's what you mean. I didn't say superior. Rather, I thought you were implying that America's hypocrisy had not been good for the world, and I pointed out all the good that America's high ideals, fully realized or not, had helped to create.

and if you made a list I'd imagine that you'd find modern liberal democracy owes more to the American Revolution than British parliamentarianism.


I don't think so, considering that British liberal democracy has been the model for the most successful liberal democracies in the world, excluding Britain, we have Canada, Australia and India as obvious examples. The American presidential model has influenced many countries in the post-colonial modern period, but I'm not sure how successful this has been (see many (mainly) Latin/South American countries, many African countries, some Eastern countries).


Well, when you say Britain was the model, what are you saying exactly? Australia and India both have written national constitutions. Canada's Constitution Act carries many of the same functions. I'm having trouble of thinking of a single democracy created since 1776 that has not adopted a written constitution of some sort as the basis of their government. Even Germany, which in 1949 was unwilling to call its founding document a "constitution" in the absence of a single German republic, has its Basic Law.

The nations you mention (all Commonwealth nations with specific historical ties to Britain) did adopt several aspects of the British model, but nations with less historical tradition of democracy have typically drawn more on the American example. However, in all cases with the arguable exception of Canada, the American innovation of a written Constitution is used as the basic foundation of each democracy.

Not to say America should rest on her laurels, but I'm somewhat satisfied if we designed the most viable model for the foundations of democracy, even if the edifices built on those foundation adopted several British details.

Several states provide for it in their own constitutions, and the people of those states may opt to keep those as constituted or amend them. It's the sovereign right of the peoples of those states.


It's still constitutionalism, the blame lies with codified and written constitutions which are difficult to amend, presumably from which these 'sovereign rights' are derived in the first place. Silly, so far as I'm concerned, and in my sort of professional opinion ;)


So any legislature should be able to abolish any individual right whenever they feel like it? I'm honestly not sure what you're saying -- written constitutions are a bad thing? I guess, living in Britain, you're in about the only nation that could argue that.

To be honest, I get extremely sick of people over here who claim that the Bible is somehow related to our founding documents. You can believe whatever you want, but the fact is that our Constitution was written in large part by Deists who believed that the Bible was either metaphorical or false. And yet they somehow got together with Christians to create a functioning government for a civil society. Odd how that works, isn't it?


I didn't mean to suggest that the writers somehow colluded with the fundamentalists to write the constitution, but that the reverence in which you hold your constitution is similar to the reverence held by American Christians for scripture, and it's entirely likely that your present culture, and your present political culture, has been influenced by your forebears (quite a few of whom were religious nutcases which we were desperate to get rid of. What do you call them, the Pilgrim Fathers?)


Do you mean "Founding Fathers?" Please don't get the Founders confused with the Puritans who founded four out of thirteen of the original states. By the time of the Revolution, the foremost religion in New England was Unitarianism, which might have started out as a Puritan sect but is a far cry from the Calvinist Pilgrims. And of course Puritans were a relatively small minority in all nine other colonies, including the very first.

I think it might actually be the other way around -- that the fact that our political system and basic rights are explicitly stated to be written might discourage some of our fundamentalists from making the conceptual leap beyond words on a page. But that's not to say I regard the prior step -- a codified Constitution of government -- to be superfluous. Without that, we'd still be convinced our rights were whatever a court was willing to grant us.
Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi (Coalition for Democracy) in Ibutho Izulu
Mugenkai in the Imperial Federation of Sekowo (inactive)
Community Communist Congress in the Republic of Ikradon (obsolete)
Cosmopolitan Unity Party in the Republic of Sogona (P2, RIP)
Aethers
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 6:46 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Molotov » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:43 am

So any legislature should be able to abolish any individual right whenever they feel like it? I'm honestly not sure what you're saying -- written constitutions are a bad thing?


Gah! I disagree with the very idea of universal, immutable human rights. They do not exist. To bind a nation in perpetuum to a set of ideals that are products of the moment, of the time, and of the minds of the individuals who set them down is madness. It is to play God with the future of one's nation. One of the principle traditions of the British Parliament is never to bind future democratically elected Parliaments to the vagaries of the moment. It is frankly not how things ought to be done.

That other countries have followed America in her folly is not testament to the validity of a codified constitution, only to America's growing cultural and political hegemony in the twentieth century.

Britain has a written constitution, by the way. The Magna Carta, statute law, Royal Proclamation, it all goes to form the written element of our constitution. The other parts are the sovereign power of the Queen, from which the prerogative powers exercised by her government and the sovereignty of Parliament is derived, precedent and common law and tradition. I am firmly convinced that, mish-mash as it might seem, this is a best the way to do things. At least, for us.

Not to say America should rest on her laurels, but I'm somewhat satisfied if we designed the most viable model for the foundations of democracy


Pish. There is no viable model, democracy and politics are not like cars to be designed and built and sold, one-size fits all, the Model T - any colour so long as it's black. This kind of attitude is a dangerous one.

We as a nation are not founded on any religious principles.


We as a nation are founded on no principles. Better that than to be founded on the principles of fallible men, however good they might seem.

edit: Sorry Aethers, looks like this is a political argument now, a statement of beliefs to which there is unlikely to be any actual conclusion. I cannot argue with authority that a codified constitution is worse than the British constitution because it's not really possible to find out. If this were physics we could do some sort of test, drop a British apple and an American apple and see which one lands first ;) By observation with my poorly educated mind's eye, I'd say our system is better, but then I am the product of my nation and its society, as you are of yours.
User avatar
Molotov
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Aethers » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:42 am

Okay, fair enough. And it boggles my mind a little that anyone would insist on being viewed as entitled to no rights, but if it's a disagreement of principles we're unlikely to find common ground.

I do think your Model T metaphor is rather backwards, as I wasn't talking about details such as a car's color, but integral structural elements. Automobiles need not be black, but a chassis with no engine is not an automobile.

But either way, if you're done with the discussion then I'll drop it as well.
Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi (Coalition for Democracy) in Ibutho Izulu
Mugenkai in the Imperial Federation of Sekowo (inactive)
Community Communist Congress in the Republic of Ikradon (obsolete)
Cosmopolitan Unity Party in the Republic of Sogona (P2, RIP)
Aethers
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 6:46 pm

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby JuliaAJA » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:04 am

Aethers wrote:When I said we're a secular nation, I meant something much simpler: We as a nation are not founded on any religious principles. And yes, secular government existed in antiquity but it was extinct in the West until brought back in America. (I'm open to any counterexamples, if there were any other secular regimes in Western nations between 381 and 1789.)


Native North Americans (not Mexico) were secular in a way.
Image
Joined Particracy on: December 18, 2008
Click here for my versions of Siggon's spreadsheets.
User avatar
JuliaAJA
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Cildania

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Khaler » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:10 pm

When I said we're a secular nation, I meant something much simpler: We as a nation are not founded on any religious principles.


Well, pretty much every western country can say that. Do you know why? Because they can CHANGE their consitution! They might have not been secular once, but they have evolved and changed their "Founding Document", which is something you can never do. Eventually, you will be left behind when other nations will evolve.

I just like to update the thing Molotov said about Britain; most of the other western countries are based on the principles of today, principles of of us who live in these countries, not on some old hags who have been dead for 200 years now.

Your nation is not a true democracy if it is dictated by people who have been dead for centuries.
Be on your OLD GUARD, stand firm in the faith!
-1 Selucians 16:13
Khaler
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: Great Democratic Republic of Khaleristan, a member of the caring and loving Russian Federation!

Re: Italy is doomed

Postby Molotov » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:19 pm

We have had some revolutions and those revolutions have turned out badly, you can say it is due to the process of revolution, I can say it is due to the people involved in them, the way they were carried out and the policies carried out post-revolution neither of us are necessarily correct; empirical evidence does not produce objective truths.


Well, the principles of today and the principles of the past, but the principles of the past can constantly be altered, reformed, adapted. I mean, most of our political system is nothing but tradition ("We are but dwarves, standing on the shoulders of giants."), and I believe that is a good thing, but tradition is never set in stone.
User avatar
Molotov
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests