On May 11, 3:51 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > De Tocqueville said of the USA, that it will remain a great country so > long as its people are good. > Thereafter, it will fail. > He is proving correct.
He was talking about a tiny minority of the intellectuals of the time. His words are probably more ironic than you realise. He recognised that during his life-time the US democracy only ever represented those elites - under 5% of the population voted. Americas greatness relied on a "few good men". > > I think that the US and Britain are suffering not so much from > political defects as from social and cultural ones. > > Civics are no longer taught well, and history has become propaganda. > US history books teach more about Marilyn Monroe than about George > Washington, for example. History is taught far less propagandistically then ever before. How is teaching Washington not propaganda? History is taught as a means to find out, not a series of facts. > Courses in Western Civilization are not only omitted, they are even > frowned upon. What would they look like? > > In the US, we are approaching the point where more than fifty percent > of the voters are net tax consumers, that is, they live largely off > the labors of a minority of workers. You mean like police, teachers, firemen, civil service, road builders, ambulance drivers, the army, navy and airforce, the government etc..?? > > Such people tend to vote for higher taxes and more government > spending. I don't think so. These are the very individuals that are preserving the civic structure of society. And are the ones that can deliver the history you think is propaganda. > > We are becoming Greece, the lesson of which is tragically lost on an > oblivious Europe, US and Canada. I don't think you are. > > Eventually, the west will mimic the downfall of the old USSR, which > woke up one morning to find its electric power shut off for non > payment, and I say that not only figuratively, but even literally. You seem to have mistaken the role of the banks in the current economic crisis. The banks who are at this moment trying, with the help of the right wing media to focus the problems on the lowest paid to find easy scape- goats. > > The difference next time will be that there is no one to bail out the > west. > Such massive social collapse is not unprecedented in history. > It tends to be followed by dark eras of social disintegration, power > struggles, and eventually, ruthless tyrannies that lead to wars that > cost millions of lives. We have managed to engineer that without any social collapse, though I do admit that social collapse has been encouraged in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran since the 1970s, as a precursor to invasion. > > We in the US have several slogans that may seem naive, but they bear > truth. > Freedom is not free. The tree of liberty must be watered in each > generation with the blood of patriots. > The price if liberty is eternal vigilance. 1) true 2) false 3) a contradiction > > A Canadian friend lamented to me that his nation had traded freedom > for free things. > Winston Churchill remarked that war is not the worst affliction of > humankind--- slavery is. Whilst I am kindly disposed to the wise words of Churchill I hardly think that taking his words out of context are relevant here, but as for you canadian friend - he can lament all he likes but this does not make his words wise. > > And while we cannot survive on slogans, we must soon recognize that we > cannot depend on > distant governors to be wiser and more benevolent than we ourselves > are. Who? > We must ourselves embody the virtues of freedom and self-governance. > Only then will we be fit to hold our Lords accountable. Not sure why you think this relates to the above. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > On May 10, 10:11 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We don't want to emulate the US - you copied the system that we now no > > longer have a use for. > > In a first past the post system where you have more than 2 parties, > > the result is a winning party > > that has a small share of the votes. > > > So the Tories who got 36% of the National vote have 307 seats. > > Labour who got 29% get 258 > > But the Liberal Democrats who got 23% get only 57 seats. They ought to > > have 150ish. > > Others got 28 seats. > > > When there are only 2 main parties such as before 1930s and after 1945 > > the system was fairly reliable > > at producing strong governments, But the Liberal Democrats are in the > > ascendant at the moment, and the anti-Tory vote is split between them > > and Labour. > > > There are 2 problems. 1 is that these seats do not represent the > > popular vote. 2 there is no overall majority > > and so no one can pass legislation. > > > Normally one party will get a massive majority but with always less > > than 50% of the popular vote. > > This means that we tend to get draconian governments that can do what > > they want until they are replaced > > and then the next one undoes all the good of the previous. > > > Most people seem to want the number of seats to be reflected by the > > number of votes and want the parties > > to compromise on their most extreme measures. This would mean > > introducing a PR system with transferable votes, based on a party list > > system. > > > On May 10, 11:30 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm not British, so please excuse my ignorance of the issue. > > > I saw the web site, but it does not explain what the issue is. > > > What is the objection to the present system, > > > and what is the remedy? > > > If you are countenancing imitating the American (USA) system, > > > then I reluctantly alert you that our representatives have insulated > > > themselves > > > in a coccoon of unaccountability, public secrecy, and disinformation. > > > They are perceived by a huge portion of voters as arrogant, > > > unresponsive, and even corrupt. > > > I seem to think that the US suffers from a different sort of problem. > > It has much more to do with wealth so that the vast majority feel > > little connection > > with the process. > > You tend to be campaigning all the time - this casts huge amounts of > > cash which retards the > > growth of new parties and independents. In the UK it is all over in 4 > > weeks, anyone can stand > > fore a small (returnable) fee, and sometimes independents get in - > > though it is rare. > > We don't vote in a PM, - it is the choice of the ruling party who is > > the PM not the people, as long as he is an MP and leading the party. > > There are more variations but these are the main ones. > > > > Their intransigence has triggered several large popular movements, > > > chief of which is the Tea Party. > > > The movement's most popular Brit is Daniel Hannan, > > > MEP.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027693/what-could-b... > > > Please show us a better way than that. > > > Our Constitution is ingenious, but the public has allowed the ideal to > > > erode, > > > and the struggle to restore it is a difficult slog, > > > It's a plutocracy like most systems but probably the most extreme in > > the West. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On May 9, 1:33 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.takebackparliament.com/ > > > > > In a multiparty system it was only to be a matter of time before the > > > > first-past-the-post voting system was going to fail. > > > > THere is a growing consensus among the electorate that thinks that it > > > > is time for consensus politics rather than the idiotic draconian and > > > > dogmatic extremism of the two old two part system. > > > > If you are a British voter of whatever colour please take a moment to > > > > sign the petition below... > > > > >http://www.takebackparliament.com/ > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
