i'm ranting here a bit, but try to understand what im trying to say.
in my opinion, there is a difference in philosophy between citizens of the
us and subjects of the UK, and a little less, australia and new zealand,
which was (imho) highlighted recently in the Australian Rebublican
Referendum, which was defeated. In the USA there is a long history of
complete freedom for the individual, it was pretty much guaranteed in the
first constitution. In the UK the citizens are subjects of the crown, even
if it is only little more than a ceremonial role. This has been
historically based on the monarchs divine right, and that the 'king' knows
best for his people. however reletive that is now, is debatable.
Personally, i dont dislike the current system in Australia, an elected
government headed by a governor general, nominated by the Prime Minister
(leader of the ruling party in government) and ratified by the British
crown. It theoretically provides a non political voice of reason in
government, and prevents the country turning into a virtual 'Weimar
Republic'. the system is not quite democratic, but it could be argued that
the us governmental system isnt quite democratic either.
anyway, my point is that if youre a citizen in the US system, you really
want to protect your rights (and privacy) more vigourously, because you
don't want the political majority (which you may or may not be apart of)
interfering your rights. I think one of the founding fathers of the US, or
someone important said that if you dont have a government you like, then
you should take up arms and revolt.
Under the Westminster style system (UK, aus, nz and many other countries)
you expect that there is someone non-partisan at the head of government
that is looking out for the good of the nation first and foremost, and does
not have to worry about politics and political parties so much. you expect
this person to guard your rights. However, that doesnt mean you should
abandon any affirmitive action yourself, prevention is better than whinging
about it later.
thats an hypothesis on the reason behind the differences. i'm sure heaps of
people will disagree with this view, and thats fine. But at least read what
i have said and think about it. i'm open to any constructive critism or
alternate views. A book that really opened my eyes to the role of Governor
General in Australia is called "Why I want to be king of Australia" by
edward de bono, i suggest everyone read it, no matter where or who they
are. I really dont think that democracy in any form is the best form of
government, but as winston churchill said, "its the best weve got".
democracy should be upheld, no matter the system, flavour, distribution,
whatever you call it. It has the same basic fundamentals, that every person
has a role in decision making of a nation.
>From: "Mikus 29" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
>Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:34:51 -0400
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>In response to the recent implications that America is the source of the
>problem, I'll present this to counter that "we" are not as much to blame as
>those who accept, blindly, the invasions across the ocean. "We" are not
>quite so lethargic about invasions of our privacy, and resistance of a
>"Police-State".
>
>Mikus
>
> >NO HIDING PLACE
> >
> >SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE -- But the LIBERTARIAN nerds, known in this
> >field as "cypherpunks", fought back in the name of freedom from
> >the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother government. In the United
> >States they have had some success, thanks to the native distrust
> >of government; in Britain they have had almost none.
> >
> >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/04/15/magazine1.html
>
>A few other bits from this (rather lengthy) bit of reading...
>
>We seem to have such fear of crime, and such a mute acceptance of the
>seizure of power by the authorities, that we are actually comforted by the
>thought that we are being watched all the time. This, in the current climate
>of paranoia and high technology, is dangerous. Our right to live a
>law-abiding life without interference is now utterly compromised. The
>Englishman's home is no longer his castle, it is his virtual interrogation
>cell.
>
>...
>
>Closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are the final turn of the screw.
>There are now 1.5m(million) of these operating in Britain, and some, as in
>the London borough of Newham, use facial recognition software that
>automatically identifies target individuals. Some of these cameras are
>visible, but many, in pubs and clubs, are not. In time, it is thought these
>cameras will be linked in a nationwide web. They will become, as Dr Stephen
>Graham of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne has suggested, the "fifth
>utility", after telephones, water, gas and electricity. "These networks," he
>writes, "have long since merged and extended to become technologically
>standardised, multipurpose, nationally regulated utilities, with virtually
>universal coverage. I would argue that CCTV looks set to follow a similar
>pattern of development over the next 20 years, to become a kind of fifth
>utility."
>
>"We have far more of these cameras that any other country," Graham tells me,
>"though Germany and the US are now catching up. Why? Well, I suppose we have
>fewer constitutional and political fears about invasions of privacy.
>
>...
>
>Soon, some have suggested, we shall have to record our entire lives on audio
>and video just to establish an alibi, in case we are implicated in a crime.
>Indeed, not to make such a recording may one day be treated as a cause for
>suspicion.
>
>Do we care? In Britain, apparently not. We accept CCTV cameras out of fear
>of crime, and as a result we have more than any other nation in the
>world...........
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
