• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Made in the EU

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hotpoint said:
Nice to know you come to the debate with an open mind :p

Government is not tyranny as long as it does not interfere with the individual more than it has to for the greater good of all individuals. The Libertarian notion that Government is akin to slavery is as much an example of irrational ideological baggage as you hear from the damn Marxists at the other end of the spectrum.



We are more collectivist. Look at our institutions such as the National Health Service, or how relatively strong our Trade Union Movement is. We simply aren't as knee-jerk individualistic as you lot.

If you want to base this discussion on the number of government agencies that we have established... I think you're going to have to ceed the argument. My personal belief is that you've probably not even begun to see the tip of the iceburg of government agencies that citizens have access to.
 
stormbind said:
I disagree strongly.

The Revolutionary War was about a desire for representation. Representation that would in turn limit the effects of Higher Law on society's laws. The amendment process is slow and destructive: it creates a situation where politicians can argue for years over what actions to take without coming to an amiable agreement.

The US written constitution and amendment process was an attempt to slow or prevent change in future governments. An effort that would defend the founding father's "rights" and deprive future generations the freedom to change them.

Read this and see what difference an unwritten constitution can make. The ability to change their society is the freedom British people inherit from birth, and it is what makes this island great. Each and every generation has edited our unwritten constitution in the same manner - though admittedly few issues will ever be as important as that covered by that given link.

I oppose all EU regulations, not because the rules are perceived as wrong, but because anything that reduces the freedom of future generations to make decisions for themselves is not freedom, and certainly not British.

Each generation deserves freedom. We have the power to give them freedom, and they should not have to fight for it through civil wars!

I am going to have to strongly disagree. First off, you obviously did not even bother to read The Rights of Man. In fact, the Constitution (if you ever actually read it) is designed to be just the opposite of what you have suggested, making it difficult for government to interfere in the freedom of the people. The Congress must debate for years until it can pass a measure restricting a person's freedom and in most cases that legislation is overturned by the Supreme Court.

I agree regarding Civil War. Anyways, you should definitely make a point to study the American perspective during the Revolution.
 
farting bob said:
True, the people werent owned by britian

Yes they were ... what do you think a subject is? It is undeniable that at one time the Americans were all subjects of the monarchy - most of the colonists considered themselves loyal subjects with the same rights as any Englishmen, and it was the passage of things like the Writs of Assistance, which theoretically violated their constitutional rights as subjects, that caused many to turn against the British Parliament. It was the British Parliament's passage of new taxation laws which caused the uprising - "no taxation without representation" - not any inherent opposition to a monarchy. The latter was something for a small number of educated few, but didn't really hold much sway with the majority of the population, who simply saw themselves as resisting Parliament (not the monarchy) in order to reassert their rights as British subjects, as defined under the English Bill of Rights. It wasn't until later some time into the war that there was any notion of the colonies becoming an independant federation - in the beginning, there was only the notion that they should be taxed by their colonial representatives, and not Parliament, because the English Bill of Rights guaranteed that subjects were able to elect representatives to the body responsible for taxation and that they should have representation in this body for "redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws". The laws passed between the Writs of Assistance and the Stamp Act were viewed as violations of the guarantees given to them in the EBR.
 
Also,

"slavery" was defeated in the US precisely because it was "unconstitutional"

"women" won the right to vote in the US precisely because laws restricting them from doing so were "unconstitutional"

"minorities" won the right to vote in the US precisely because laws restricting them from doing so were "unconstitutional"

Do you see a pattern developing here?
 
Aleph-Null said:
I am going to have to strongly disagree. First off, you obviously did not even bother to read The Rights of Man. In fact, the Constitution (if you ever actually read it) is designed to be just the opposite of what you have suggested, making it difficult for government to interfere in the freedom of the people. The Congress must debate for years until it can pass a measure restricting a person's freedom and in most cases that legislation is overturned by the Supreme Court.

I agree regarding Civil War. Anyways, you should definitely make a point to study the American perspective during the Revolution.
Utter hypocrisy! The constitution says one thing and through it's mere existence, it does another. Did you even read the link? :dubious:

The USA suffers still, even after a bloody Civil War you still have rights. Those rights prevent change: it remains unconstitutional to live in a society without guns, and future medical treatments will no doubt be hindered by that constitution as well.

Numerous American scholars have discovered the error, including Woodrow Wilson.

Having been educated in the USA, I am aware of American perspective. Do you know the British perspective?

This is not about which society is better, it is about protecting a system which has been proven to work extremely well for many centuries. Union with any nation which does not share that value would destroy what is a unique freedom.

The unwritten constitution does not deserve to join the oldest Greek democracy as a footnote in history.
 
Aleph-Null said:
You seem to miss the point. The Union are more important than the rule of the Monarchy. It is because of that, that it were those individuals inspired most by those Principles of freedom and liberty, people like Jefferson, Washington, etc... that saved the Union. It is absolutely naive to think that the Monarchy could remain sovereign over the Americas while in competition with every foreign power which was immigrating to it. Had the Founding Fathers not joined in overthrowing the Monarchal government of the Union then the Americas would have remained a battlefield of darkness for centuries to come.

You really have a distorted vision of the circumstances surrounding the War of Independence. If the British Government had offered the Colonies representation in Parliament many of those involved would have been quite happy with that whereas for the others the issues were things like not wanting to pay taxes (even though they were a fraction of those in the UK), or wanting to annex more land from the Indians (which was being prevented because of British Treaties with the natives) or in some cases because the British had just banned slavery and they wanted to keep their free labour.

As late as 1775 the Second Continental Congress was still affirming its loyalty to George III and Washington and his men were toasting the King. These are not the notions of rabid Republicans with an aim of overthrowing the Monarchy.

Aleph-Null said:
Instead, by bringing all nationalities to the service of the Union, the Founding Fathers were able to establish a nation which has lived in peace & tranquility for people of all races and national backgrounds. This was something they would have never been able to do, while in service to a tyrannical monarch.

Peace and tranquility for people of all races? You must be kidding! British racial relations have been better than those in the United States since your country came into being. You didn't even get rid of slavery until the 1860's and that took a bloody war.

Aleph-Null said:
George Washington turned down the offer to become King believing that no man on earth was worthy of such a position.

If he thought that why was he previously a Monarchist? In reality he was just following in the tradition of Oliver Cromwell who had done the same thing when offered the Crown over a century earlier.

Aleph-Null said:
What I think you are allowing your pride to blind you from, is that we didn't just cast off the British king. We threw down every European king and it was the Union that led the charge.

Sorry but that's just too funny for a decent response. I'm afraid I'll just have to go with "not even close".

Aleph-Null said:
He possessed faith in his people a faith that then king of Great Britain did not possess and his reward as such, as been to become one of the most pre-eminent and recognizable historical figures in the world today.

I'd call him a damn traitor but I suppose that's just a matter of perspective ;)
 
stormbind said:
Utter hypocrisy! The constitution says one thing and through it's mere existence, it does another. Did you even read the link? :dubious:

Numerous American scholars have discovered the error, including Woodrow Wilson.

I'm sorry stormblind, but I'm going to have to disagree. Also, it would have been nice if you had posted a quote. The Constitution is merely the organizational structure of the government. The Bill of Rights is your personal defense against any unconstitutional acts. The Constitution can be changed whenever we so desire through Amendment as is our right as outlined in the Declaration of Indepedence.
 
Aleph-Null said:
I'm sorry stormblind, but I'm going to have to disagree. Also, it would have been nice if you had posted a quote. The Constitution is merely the organizational structure of the government. The Bill of Rights is your personal defense against any unconstitutional acts. The Constitution can be changed whenever we so desire through Amendment as is our right as outlined in the Declaration of Indepedence.
It exists, but the process is slow and restricts freedom: one side in a debate can frequently find defense in arguing that mere change is unconstitutional (see: frequent arms debate) without need to apply logic.

Decades can pass while injustice persists. That is not freedom.
 
Aleph-Null said:
What I think you are allowing your pride to blind you from, is that we didn't just cast off the British king.
What a big victory it must have been to cast off a monarch with no power.

British policies of the time were written by Parliament, under Prime Minister North.
 
Hotpoint said:
You really have a distorted vision of the circumstances surrounding the War of Independence. If the British Government had offered the Colonies representation in Parliament many of those involved would have been quite happy with that whereas for the others the issues were things like not wanting to pay taxes (even though they were a fraction of those in the UK), or wanting to annex more land from the Indians (which was being prevented because of British Treaties with the natives) or in some cases because the British had just banned slavery and they wanted to keep their free labour.



If he thought that why was he previously a Monarchist? In reality he was just following in the tradition of Oliver Cromwell who had done the same thing when offered the Crown over a century earlier.



Sorry but that's just too funny for a decent response. I'm afraid I'll just have to go with "not even close".

I believe Cincinnatus was the inspiring figure.

I'd call him a damn traitor but I suppose that's just a matter of perspective ;)

Lets get rid of the title of "King" when talking about GBs head of State at the time. Washington was not a "traitor" of the Union. He simply won recognition as the Lead Representative of the Union and defeated UK George for the Presidency. I remind you, it was UK George who began the hostilitites. As you said, GW was toasting the man.

My references to races implied the "different races of Europe" or "nationalities" as was the common use of the word at the time. Slavery was the responsibility of the Dutch and GB only abandoned it when they lost the Americas. I was not reference "black - white" race relations as is today. As a Patriot my official and personal opinion is that we are one human race.

The US is a much bigger place than GB, there were many regions in the US where slavery was outlawed even in the earliest periods. In order for slavery to be abolished, the laws of those regions allowing slavery had to be accepted as unconstitional.

Like I said, the US drove out many Monarchs from America. However, the 13 colonies were saturated with many local laws and many non-british communities. The South had heavy influences from Spain and France where slavery was still dominant and had not yet been outlawed.
 
stormbind said:
What a big victory it must have been to cast off a monarch with no power.

British policies of the time were written by Parliament, under Prime Minister North.

no power... riiiight....
 
Aleph-Null said:
no power... riiiight....
PM North was leader of British government, and acts were taken in the King's name - just as it is done today.

Wikipedia said:
Since 1689, England, and later the United Kingdom, has been governed under a system of constitutional monarchy, which has been uninterrupted.
 
While the form of government adopted by the United States drew heavily on European sources, it was nonetheless distinctly American. The colonists, of course, brought English ideas with them when they crossed the Atlantic, but once here these ideas were slowly but definitely modified to reflect conditions in the New World.

The settlers, like their kin who stayed in England, believed that British government and the common law constituted the greatest protections of individual liberties that had ever existed. Magna Carta (1215) had laid down the great root principle of constitutional democracy, that a fundamental law exists beyond which no one, not even the king, may trespass. The rule of law, as it had developed in the centuries between Magna Carta and the first English settlement at Jamestown, came to encompass a parliament and a court system -- the first to represent the interests of the people to their rulers, and the second to provide impartial administration of justice. Although the executive power and the symbols of majesty remained with the monarch, the parliament gradually won an important share of power through its control of taxes and the purse. The judicial system achieved its authority by mastery of the intricacies of the law.

The British system, both in theory and in practice, relied on the existence of an upper class, an aristocracy which had the wealth, leisure and education to devote to the problems of governing. In their studies of government, English writers posited a society of distinct classes and interests, all of which would be balanced so that no one part could dominate the others. It was in parliament that the various groups in society would be represented, look after their own interests, advance the greater interest of the realm and, above all, jealously guard the rights and properties of the people.

It is not surprising that the colonists tried to emulate these institutions when they created their own governments. Moreover, they took with them some powerful ideas then beginning to circulate in the Mother Country, such as the notion that the Puritans had developed of a compact or covenant. In the New England colonies especially, the covenant theory became an essential part of political as well as religious thought, expressing the idea that people covenanted with one another to form a government that they were bound to obey, provided it did not exceed the authority granted to it.

In the 169 years between the landing at Jamestown and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the colonial experience diverged significantly from its English roots. Here there was no established aristocracy; no leisure class could devote itself to government. The settlers looked to those of their neighbors who had talents and abilities for leadership, with the result that the Americans came to see government less as the preserve of the upper classes than as an instrument for all the people.1 Because colonial society was so fluid, the notion of a parliament representing fixed interests made little sense; moreover, the towns and rural areas that sent representatives to their colonial legislatures gave them directions, often instructing them on how to vote on particular issues. While it is true that a majority of the settlers were disenfranchised because of gender, race or lack of property, the fact remains that popular participation in the political process was far greater in the colonies in the eighteenth century than in the Mother Country.

The Americans, even as they separated from the Crown, nonetheless claimed that all they wanted was their rights as Englishmen. After independence, as they set about creating union and government, they relied on two sources of thought -- classic English political theory, and their own experiences. In the Articles of Confederation, the United States' first constitution, the framers relied more on theory, and aimed at creating a federal government that would avoid the problems associated with a strong central government, the very problem that had led to their revolt from Great Britain. But that system proved too weak for the task of governing the new nation, since it lacked sufficient powers. At the Philadelphia convention of 1787, John Dickinson, the chief author of the Articles, urged his fellow delegates: "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." The Constitution they drafted drew from both reason and experience, and as a result has proven a remarkably durable document.

But the Constitution, even after its adoption in 1788 and the addition of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, in 1791, was little more than an outline of government. The Philadelphia convention had spelled out certain powers and limitations that it had considered important to have clearly articulated, but it left much of the actual operating structure to be worked out on the basis of experience. For example, there is no mention of a "cabinet" in the Constitution, yet George Washington, the first president, convened the heads of the executive departments on a regular basis to advise him, and the Cabinet has become part of the American government.

One unique aspect of the American system has been the role played by the courts. Although the Constitution set up three branches of government -- the legislative, executive and judicial -- it devoted relatively little space to the role of the courts, assuming that judges would know what to do. But unlike Great Britain, where there was little interplay between the courts and the other branches of government, in the United States the Supreme Court has become a balance wheel of constitutional government. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. In many of its decisions in the last two centuries the Court has arbitrated between the executive and legislative branches, and has also spelled out both the powers and the limits of the federal government.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/part2.htm
 
Aleph-Null said:
Lets get rid of the title of "King" when talking about GBs head of State at the time. Washington was not a "traitor" of the Union. He simply won recognition as the Lead Representative of the Union and defeated UK George for the Presidency. I remind you, it was UK George who began the hostilitites. As you said, GW was toasting the man.

For the last time (I hope) there was no Union if you can prove there was please produce the evidence. At the time there were just a few rebellious colonies.

As for who started the hostilities what makes you think it was the British? We were happy with the status-quo it wasn't us that tried to change things.

Aleph-Null said:
Slavery was the responsibility of the Dutch and GB only abandoned it when they lost the Americas. I was not reference "black - white" race relations as is today. As a Patriot my official and personal opinion is that we are one human race.

Slavery became illegal in England in 1772 four years before the Declaration of Independence. By 1773 several slaves in the American Colonies were actually seeking to use the legal precedent set to have themselves set free based on the point that Courts in the Colonies followed English Common Law.

It might be worth noting that several thousand slaves volunteered to fight for Britain during the War of Independance precisely because they regarded the British as being far more sympathic to their cause. There was even an all-black regiment of Volunteers who had "Freedom for Slaves" on their uniforms.

Aleph-Null said:
The US is a much bigger place than GB, there were many regions in the US where slavery was outlawed even in the earliest periods. In order for slavery to be abolished, the laws of those regions allowing slavery had to be accepted as unconstitional.

If you had stayed under the auspices of British Law slavery would have been abolished much earlier than it actually was.
 
It is also worth noting that the current US Federal Government is nothing like what the founders desired. They wanted to be sure that a US government would be decentralised, giving states autonomy, and that it would not evolve into another Westminster.

Thus quoting history does well defend the current White House.
 
Hotpoint said:
For the last time (I hope) there was no Union if you can prove there was please produce the evidence. At the time there were just a few rebellious colonies.
You seem to be contradicting your early point that prior to the Revolution Washington and the Congress were 'toasting' to Britain. There was indeed a "Union" if you would scroll up, you will see the flag that I provided you.

As for who started the hostilities what makes you think it was the British? We were happy with the status-quo it wasn't us that tried to change things.
Think Tianaman Square, or Boston Massacre... or Bunker Hill.

Slavery became illegal in England in 1772 four years before the Declaration of Independence. By 1773 several slaves in the American Colonies were actually seeking to use the legal precedent set to have themselves set free based on the point that Courts in the Colonies followed English Common Law.
In England, not in Great Britain.

If you had stayed under the auspices of British Law slavery would have been abolished much earlier than it actually was.
Those slaves who fought for Washington were granted Freedom. You seem to be liking to say that the US took so long to get rid of slavery. For some reason, you seem to suggest that Great Britain could have ended slavery far sooner in North, South, East, and West, then what the US was able to do. Absolutely foolish, because GB would have been pre-occupied fighting with the other Monarchs of Europe. GB never outlawed slavery in its Colonies, but many States did outlaw Slavery long before the Civil War, in fact, it was the Northern states, which had long abolished slavery vs the Southern States which had not. Much of the Civil War, in actuality, was a struggle between the remaining influences of various other European monarchs who were still competing in the Americas. The French, for instance, only sold the US Louisiana believing that the US would not be able to hold on to it and they would re-acquire it. There is the Spanish-American war, and a whole host of other things which the government of GB would have been ill capable of dealing with.

Here you were just moments ago talking about the rights of Britain as a State, and now, we are discussing State's rights. For instance, the right for these States to allow their citizens the right to own slaves.

I do not think you know enough about the realities of the American experience to suggest that GB would have had a prayer in hades of outlawing slavery throughout the Americas. Especially when you fail to understand that Slavery was brought to the Americas by THE DUTCH.
 
Aleph-Null said:
In England, not in Great Britain.
Laws of England are not forced onto peered states, unlike the legislature of more imperialist Washington D.C. Scotland has always had it's own courts independent of England.
Alpeh-Null said:
Absolutely foolish, because GB would have been pre-occupied fighting with the other Monarchs of Europe.
I always thought Napoleon established a republic.
Aleph-Null said:
GB never outlawed slavery in its Colonies
Utter bull. Great Britain abolished slavery in Africa, demonstrating that it is just a matter of time for changes to filter through the system, after which it conducted raids against US slave shipping to release their cargo.

You have to bare in mind that they did not have the Internet, or even telephones - they had horses and parchment! It even took a few years for anti-slavery laws to become enforced in all corners of England.
 
Aleph-Null said:
The French, for instance, only sold the US Louisiana believing that the US would not be able to hold on to it and they would re-acquire it. There is the Spanish-American war, and a whole host of other things which the government of GB would have been ill capable of dealing with.
If the states had not seceded, then their resources would have been available to the British in said theoretical conflicts.

Anything the US could do by itself, the British Empire + US could certainly have done.
 
Aleph-Null said:
You seem to be contradicting your early point that prior to the Revolution Washington and the Congress were 'toasting' to Britain. There was indeed a "Union" if you would scroll up, you will see the flag that I provided you.

That was not a "Union" that was a collection of Colonies which were still interested in staying under British Rule.

Aleph-Null said:
Think Tianaman Square, or Boston Massacre... or Bunker Hill.

1) Irrelevant

2) The Redcoats were provoked into firing as Ben Franklin himself showed in his defence of the soldiers (they were put on trial for shooting civilians)

3) The Colonies had already taken up arms. The British were putting down a revolt that had already started.

Aleph-Null said:
In England, not in Great Britain.

In England and Wales. Slavery became illegal in Scotland in 1778 (when we were still in the America's).

Aleph-Null said:
Those slaves who fought for Washington were granted Freedom. You seem to be liking to say that the US took so long to get rid of slavery. For some reason, you seem to suggest that Great Britain could have ended slavery far sooner in North, South, East, and West, then what the US was able to do.

The delay in the abolition of slavery in the US was precisely because it's system prevented rapid change. In the British Empire Parliament just voted and Slavery became illegal everywhere under British Rule simultaneously. As for size the Empire was far more geographically widespread than the United States at this time.

Aleph-Null said:
Absolutely foolish, because GB would have been pre-occupied fighting with the other Monarchs of Europe. GB never outlawed slavery in its Colonies, but many States did outlaw Slavery long before the Civil War, in fact, it was the Northern states, which had long abolished slavery vs the Southern States which had not.

Britain banned slavery in all its colonies by 1834 and had prohibited the Slave Trade accross the Empire by 1807 (enforcing the rule with the Royal Navy). Please note that the latter was done during the Napoleonic Conflict which were among the most "pre-occupying" period of European Wars.

Aleph-Null said:
I do not think you know enough about the realities of the American experience to suggest that GB would have had a prayer in hades of outlawing slavery throughout the Americas. Especially when you fail to understand that Slavery was brought to the Americas by THE DUTCH.

I'm afraid you are unaware that the British managed a far larger task when they abolished Slavery throughout the Empire. The fact that Slavery was bought in by the Dutch is irrelevant, all that would have happened is that Slavery would have been declared illegal and if the slaveowners didn't like it then they would have had to deal with the British Army (no doubt boosted by thousands of freed slaves).
 
Anywho, the basic point is that the United States came into being not only in transcending the authority of the King of England, but in transcending the authority of all the European monarchs. Americans from all European backgrounds through off their monarchs.

You can either take pride in recognizing that it was the British who led that charge, or not. Doesn't matter to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom