Thanas vs Typo on Various Republics

[Typo]

Examples of things that are an menace to the health of the 1st republic of modern times.
All the lies, spreaded by people with an religious agenda, can harm severely the USA.

Do not forget the role of the ones that, 234 years ago, based in secular, enlightened principles, founded the USA.

Don not forget History and the role of all that suffered, many years ago, to found this republic.

Note: im not american, but has an History teacher i talk with my students about the revolutions, and the American Revolution is one of the most important; and one thing that make me sad is some people distorting all this History and the principles of the USA.

Sorry about this long text in a images thread .

[Thanas]

Examples of things that are an menace to the health of the 1st republic of modern times.

Which would be the dutch.

[Typo]

Which would be the dutch.

True, the Republic of the Seven United Provinces were founded in the Modern Age (1581).
I mean that the American Republic (who learned with the good and bad of the Dutch Republic - the Abjuration Act was an example for the Declaration of Independance ) is the 1st, meaning the best, with the best constitution, best political organization and true respect for everyone opinion, and founded in the end of the Modern Age, is the 1st example for the great changes ahead (French Revolution and so on).

-----



The greed of a few people can destroy the the foundations of a free and democratic country.

[Thanas]

Which would be the dutch.

True, the Republic of the Seven United Provinces were founded in the Modern Age (1581).
I mean that the American Republic (who learned with the good and bad of the Dutch Republic - the Abjuration Act was an example for the Declaration of Independance ) is the 1st, meaning the best, with the best constitution, best political organization and true respect for everyone opinion, and founded in the end of the Modern Age, is the 1st example for the great changes ahead (French Revolution and so on).

What are you smoking? The American Republic was built on the disenfranchisement of a large number of its inhabitants. Care to point out how that was in any way better than that of the Dutch Republic or the French Republic?

And if you want to pull out this "first democracy" stuff, read up on the swiss.

[Typo]

What are you smoking? The American Republic was built on the disenfranchisement of a large number of its inhabitants. Care to point out how that was in any way better than that of the Dutch Republic or the French Republic?

And if you want to pull out this "first democracy" stuff, read up on the swiss.

First: no need to be agressive.

Second:"The American Republic was built on the disenfranchisement of a large number of its inhabitants" is a very simplistic assertion. The groups you are thinking about (women, amerindians and africans slaves?) never had any political rights. Tha concept of "republic" was quite similar to the classical republic: a men club, only to men citizens.

Third: The dutch limited the rights of several religious groups, making them second rate people. And the great weakness of the French Republic was their complete failure in create an system of control and check of the rulers, and transformed in an de facto tyranny.
The constitution of the USA never discriminated (positively or negatively) about religion, and have a system (that works) of control and checks.

Fourth: The Swiss aren´t the first democracy. Democracy is way older than that. We normally think the in some greek poleis (Athens for example) has the first democracies, but systems similar to democracies apeared in some sumerian cities 5000 years ago. But dont forget that the concept of democracy until the XX century not include women and, in several places, people of diferent color or religion.

-----



In french: "The Third World".

Our world, regarding human rights, evolved much in the last century, but need to evolve much more.
Im an optimist. We will reach a true respect for the human rights.

[Thanas]

First: no need to be agressive.

Second:"The American Republic was built on the disenfranchisement of a large number of its inhabitants" is a very simplistic assertion. The groups you are thinking about (women, amerindians and africans slaves?) never had any political rights. Tha concept of "republic" was quite similar to the classical republic: a men club, only to men citizens.

It is still worse than the swiss model of democracy. And I thought here you were claiming the USA were the first modern democracy.

1st, meaning the best, with the best constitution, best political organization and true respect for everyone opinion, and founded in the end of the Modern Age,

Obviously that meant "improvement of the old type of republic" instead.

Third: The dutch limited the rights of several religious groups, making them second rate people.

Forcing people to pay large taxes and destroying churches is still far superior to forcing them to be slaves.

And the great weakness of the French Republic was their complete failure in create an system of control and check of the rulers, and transformed in an de facto tyranny.
The constitution of the USA never discriminated (positively or negatively) about religion, and have a system (that works) of control and checks.

Yes, that worked so well for Justice Marshall when he tried to oppose Jackson....oh wait, it did not. Or for the Supreme Court when it tried to oppose Lincoln....Checks and balances in the US system is hardly as great as you make it out to be,

Fourth: The Swiss aren´t the first democracy. Democracy is way older than that. We normally think the in some greek poleis (Athens for example) has the first democracies, but systems similar to democracies apeared in some sumerian cities 5000 years ago. But dont forget that the concept of democracy until the XX century not include women and, in several places, people of diferent color or religion.

It did however include all males even in the earliest swiss incarnations, something the US did not manage. So best constitution = worse than the swiss model.

[Typo]

It is still worse than the swiss model of democracy. And I thought here you were claiming the USA were the first modern democracy.

Obviously that meant "improvement of the old type of republic" instead.

Forcing people to pay large taxes and destroying churches is still far superior to forcing them to be slaves.

Yes, that worked so well for Justice Marshall when he tried to oppose Jackson....oh wait, it did not. Or for the Supreme Court when it tried to oppose Lincoln....Checks and balances in the US system is hardly as great as you make it out to be,

It did however include all males even in the earliest swiss incarnations, something the US did not manage. So best constitution = worse than the swiss model.

The Dutch had a great number of slaves: from Brazil to Indonesia, they used slaves in plantations; so no dutch advantage there.

The Swiss dont had slaves only because of they didnt use an colonial economic model and included all males if they follow the calvinist sect, everyone that didnt follow that sect was pretty much screwed.

And, despite of some flaws, the control and check model of the USA worked better, and helped in the defense of the democratic system in the USA: The Dutch now have an monarchy (to me monarchies are an worst system than a true republic) after the complete failure (economic and political) of their republic, that ended in 1795.
The French Republic passed for several dictatorial problems: from Robespierre, the Directorate, the First Consul - Napoleon - till the Empire and the definitive end of the French Revolution.

-----



In the floor is Poland, divided between two totalitarian states: Hitler`s Germany and Stalin Soviet Union.

When democracies are afraid to suport their ideals, opressive systems can win.
We can only hope that the victory, in the final, will be achieved by the democracies.

[Thanas]

The Dutch had a great number of slaves: from Brazil to Indonesia, they used slaves in plantations; so no dutch advantage there.

They did however not disenfranchise them on the constitutional level.

The Swiss dont had slaves only because of they didnt use an colonial economic model and included all males if they follow the calvinist sect, everyone that didnt follow that sect was pretty much screwed.

Quite wrong. Your source for that is?

And, despite of some flaws, the control and check model of the USA worked better, and helped in the defense of the democratic system in the USA:

How so? Isn't it more like the individual character of the founding fathers preventing any such development, not the checks and balances? Kindly point out the instance where checks and balances saved the USA.

The Dutch now have an monarchy (to me monarchies are an worst system than a true republic) after the complete failure (economic and political) of their republic, that ended in 1795.

Why is a constitutional monarchy worse than a republic? And the failure of the dutch had more to do with external than internal factors.

In the floor is Poland, divided between two totalitarian states: Hitler`s Germany and Stalin Soviet Union.

When democracies are afraid to suport their ideals, opressive systems can win.
We can only hope that the victory, in the final, will be achieved by the democracies.

You have a very naive and idealistic view of the world, haven't you?

[Edi]

This was split from the Political cartoons thread because it turned into a debate. Have at it.

[Themightytom]

Typo has a LOT of political cartoons though. I think his effort to remain on topic is laudable.

Thanas you owe us four cartoons

[Thanas]

You can get them when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

[Aaron]

How is it that folks who champion an American style system can say with a straight face that a Constitutional Monarchy is worse when countries like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands all enjoy far more freedom and rights then our American cousins? Do we effectively have a second and third class of citizens (gays, illegals)? Do we have free speech zones? Do we have a gulag?

[Ritterin Sophia]

How is it that folks who champion an American style system can say with a straight face that a Constitutional Monarchy is worse when countries like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands all enjoy far more freedom and rights then our American cousins? Do we effectively have a second and third class of citizens (gays, illegals)? Do we have free speech zones? Do we have a gulag?

I think it's the fact that they don't realize they're just normal Republics in all but name. For example from my understanding the Queen 'Liz on paper is still in charge, but in practice the monarchy (the institution itself I mean) could disappear over night and all that would happen is a loss of pomp and ceremony that are kept around in the name of good natured tradition and a little bit of fun dressing up.

[Aaron]

Pretty much, in theory our Governor General (being Her Majesty's rep in Canada) could come in and dissolve Parliament, veto whatever legislation she wanted and in general fuck around but there would be such an epic shitstorm that it would only ever happen in the case of some severe deadlock (like an election result that left Parliament unable to govern) or they voted something dumb in like sending gays to work camps.

Essentially, they have no practical power.

[Stark]

I think it's the different view of the executive. Having a ceremonial head of state, with elected executive below that, is quite different to the American elect-a-king system. I don't even think the American system does a very good job of separating the branches of government, but they're taught that they do.

The stuff Typo is saying, with 'checks and balances preserve liberty' etc, is just highschool civics stuff in the US, right? Government self-propaganda?

[Imperial Overlord]

The stuff Typo is saying, with 'checks and balances preserve liberty' etc, is just highschool civics stuff in the US, right? Government self-propaganda?

Yeah. I spent 8th grade in the States and that was a big part of the government part of the American History course I was taught, with diagrams and everything. I had a pretty good teacher for that course, but a lot more time was spent on the theoretical mechanics of the government than how it really functioned. Andrew Jackson's giant middle finger to the Supreme Court was mentioned, but not dwelt on. Turn out the the God-Emperor president had a fuck load of power from the beginning.

[Elfdart]

Examples of things that are an menace to the health of the 1st republic of modern times.

Which would be the dutch.

Wasn't Iceland a democracy before that?

[LaCroix]

Wasn't Iceland a democracy before that?

No, they had been subjects to the Norse and later Danish king until 1944, although in 1904, they were granted autonomy. Either way, there was a big break in the 'thing' being supreme organ. Also, it was hardly 'modern age' as stated in the OP...

[Simon_Jester]

How is it that folks who champion an American style system can say with a straight face that a Constitutional Monarchy is worse when countries like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands all enjoy far more freedom and rights then our American cousins? Do we effectively have a second and third class of citizens (gays, illegals)? Do we have free speech zones? Do we have a gulag?

You know, I can't actually recall meeting anyone who says this...

I think it's the different view of the executive. Having a ceremonial head of state, with elected executive below that, is quite different to the American elect-a-king system. I don't even think the American system does a very good job of separating the branches of government, but they're taught that they do.

In theory we do, and back in the early days of the republic the dividing lines were pretty clear. The branches were never balanced, but they were separate.

Today, the party system has taken over to the point where the divisions between the branches are meaningless- all that really matters is whether Republicans or Democrats are running a given body, because all Republicans cooperate with all Republicans in office and... well, that doesn't work so well for Democrats these days, but that's because they suck, not because of the system.

Originally, Congress had most of the power, the president had a lot of power, and the Supreme Court had no power (well, almost none). Then the Supreme Court asserted its own power to strike down unconstitutional laws (which is not written anywhere in the original document), which gave them a little power around 1808. And for just about the last 200 years we've seen a steady flow of power from the divided legislature to the unified executive branch, with results we now see: the president has most of the power, Congress has most of what's left over when the President's had all he wants, and the Supreme Court still has only a little power, except under unusual circumstances where their decisions have very far reaching consequences.

The stuff Typo is saying, with 'checks and balances preserve liberty' etc, is just highschool civics stuff in the US, right? Government self-propaganda?

More or less

[Aaron]

You know, I can't actually recall meeting anyone who says this...

Pardon me?

[Atlan]

How is it that folks who champion an American style system can say with a straight face that a Constitutional Monarchy is worse when countries like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands all enjoy far more freedom and rights then our American cousins? Do we effectively have a second and third class of citizens (gays, illegals)? Do we have free speech zones? Do we have a gulag?

I think it's the fact that they don't realize they're just normal Republics in all but name. For example from my understanding the Queen 'Liz on paper is still in charge, but in practice the monarchy (the institution itself I mean) could disappear over night and all that would happen is a loss of pomp and ceremony that are kept around in the name of good natured tradition and a little bit of fun dressing up.

Pretty much the same thing over here in the Netherlands. The Royal House could vanish into thin air, and effectively it would be a net gain for the treasury, without any significant loss of effectiveness of our government. Except that right now, inbetween cabinets, it would be a bit awkward, seeing as she has a role to play in forming a new one... Mostly rubberstamping, but she also appoints the Formator, the guy who investigates the viability of governing coalitions. Nothing essential that couldn't be worked around, but still awkward at the present time.

That, and we actually like having em around.

[Ilya Muromets]

I'm sorry, but this this guy claim he's not an American and a History teacher?

Not buying it. All of his arguments so far look like standard, simplistic lines ripped out from a high school Social Studies book. He posts like a high school student.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Pretty much the same thing over here in the Netherlands. The Royal House could vanish into thin air, and effectively it would be a net gain for the treasury, without any significant loss of effectiveness of our government. Except that right now, inbetween cabinets, it would be a bit awkward, seeing as she has a role to play in forming a new one... Mostly rubberstamping, but she also appoints the Formator, the guy who investigates the viability of governing coalitions. Nothing essential that couldn't be worked around, but still awkward at the present time.

That, and we actually like having em around.

Well, it's seriously arguable that the British Royal Family is a net money generator for the UK. They get exactly £7.4 million from the government per year, and in return the government gets the entire income of the Crown Estate (which does not belong to the government, and is technically the personal property of the monarch). That's apparently somewhat more than £7.4 million. Quite apart from that, they probably make more money than that in a year from speeches and events and so on, and that's not even taking into account indirect stuff like tourism.

Besides, the entire monarchy costs me about 64p a year (assuming that they generate no money at all), so trying to attack it on financial grounds (especially given that it's a hell of a lot better with money than any other public institution) isn't really viable.

[Siege]

Even though the direct costs of the Dutch monarchy are officially on the order of €100 million a year, the precise costs are utterly impossible to calculate: after all, how much money does it cost to pay all the policemen who have to keep an eye out whenever the Queen goes anywhere in public? And how much money does she generate through tourism, or the trade delegations that tag along with official state visits? Not to mention that a lot of the costs involved in things like the upkeep of palaces would have to be paid anyway: if the place was a republic maybe those palaces would be museums instead of residences, but museums don't come free either. And a president would also need bodyguards, and the royal domains would still need foresters to maintain even if they were called 'the democratic people's free neck-of-the-woods' or somesuch. In the end I doubt the treasury would be served much by removing the monarchy.

[Zixinus]

In french: "The Third World".

Actually, I have a question regarding this: what's with the implication that Western countries thrive at the expense of third world countries? That seems to be the assumption here, with one white kid weighting as much as three black (and apparently starving) children.

As far as I understand these countries, they are rarely influenced by Westerners and instead, going trough the processes and pains that took the West to industrialize, as well as handling various forms of problems rising from the colonial past. In short order, internal problems and lack of modern infrastructure and education, which the countries usually would have to make from scratch, if that. That, or dictators rising to power very quickly.