History is nothing more than the struggle between freedom and govt?

[James972]

Even the most rugged individuals appreciate law & order and good roads.

all agree, and?????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Oozlefinch]

Not exactly. A individual could in theory live as he liked if he was not harming others and without government nanny state interference, but still be afforded certain services that a government is inclined to provide by the voters demands. Even the most rugged individuals appreciate law & order and good roads.

And National Defense, and a system to provide assistance during the time of disaster.

However, most of the problems we have been seeing with "nanny state" is not really the Federal Government, as much as it is the State Government.

Compare living in California or New York, with say living in Idaho or Alaska.

In 2 of those listed, the state governments are oppressive and constantly hyper-extending it's reach (with the approval of the citizens of the state). While in others, the state government is much less restrictive, which is what the citizens there demand.

 

[James972]

And National Defense, and a system to provide assistance during the time of disaster.

However, most of the problems we have been seeing with "nanny state" is not really the Federal Government, as much as it is the State Government.

Compare living in California or New York, with say living in Idaho or Alaska.

In 2 of those listed, the state governments are oppressive and constantly hyper-extending it's reach (with the approval of the citizens of the state). While in others, the state government is much less restrictive, which is what the citizens there demand.

well, govt tends to be evil at all levels. The states have balanced budget amendments mostly so have to be somewhat responsible fiscally. Feds are totally irresponsible putting every American $60,000K in debt. State debt per person is 20 times less.

 

[Oozlefinch]

well, govt tends to be evil at all levels. The states have balanced budget amendments mostly so have to be somewhat responsible fiscally. Feds are totally irresponsible putting every American $60,000K in debt. State debt per person is 20 times less.

What kind of planet do you live on?

I happen to live in California. This state is able to at the same time claim that they have a surplus, and raise taxes saying they do not have enough money (at the same time the infrastructure is crumbling from lack of maintenance).

Got any kind of reference to back up that claim?

And if the "Government is evil at all level", then how are the States doing good? Is that not also a level of government?

Sorry, I really do not take paranoids seriously at all.

 

[James972]

Got any kind of reference to back up that claim?

.

what claim??????????????

 

[James972]

And if the "Government is evil at all level", then how are the States doing good? .

who said they were doing good? I said they were somewhat responsible fiscally.

 

[James972]

I happen to live in California. This state is able to at the same time claim that they have a surplus, and raise taxes saying they do not have enough money (at the same time the infrastructure is crumbling from lack of maintenance).

.

what is your point? if you know it please share it with us

 

[Oozlefinch]

what claim??????????????

The states have balanced budget amendments mostly so have to be somewhat responsible fiscally.

That claim. What states, and how well are they doing it (if they are)?

Here is a clue, a great many states simply ignore such "requirements". California is a great example of that.

Way back in 2004, California passed such an Amendment. And how much good has it done? This year alone, California is expected to add $1.9 billion to it's almost half billion dollar debt.

Yet, it has such an amendment. In fact, California has passed multiple Propositions (the way the state handles Constitutional Amendments), all dealing with how taxes are created and raised. Prop 13, Prop 46, Prop 62, Prop 218, Prop 39, essentially they limited the ability to create new taxes or to raise existing taxes to the people. All taxes must be voted on and approved by the citizens of the state.

But that did not stop the legislature this year from increasing the gas tax significantly. And the debt has grown even more since then.

So, got references to back up that claim? And how well it is working?

what is your point? if you know it please share it with us

And if all you can do is respond with single sentence snarky whines, I see no point in continuing.

 

[devildavid]

We study history to understand how we got where we are today. History is about everything. Narrowing it's scope narrows our understanding of it. It's not just about the struggle between freedom and govt any more than it is about class struggle.

 

[Oozlefinch]

We study history to understand how we got where we are today. History is about everything. Narrowing it's scope narrows our understanding of it. It's not just about the struggle between freedom and govt any more than it is about class struggle.

But that can not be, because it is in contradiction of the Dialectic of the great Marx.

 

[soylentgreen]

They argue that the Founders derived their ideas from English tradition, Athenian democracy, and Roman Republicanism, but they don't argue that "history is a straight line."

English tradition gave america its culture, not its governance which america rejected to create there own three part governance system. Athenian democracy gave the right of citizenship only to the wealthy and land owners where as american democracy was in theory to all. Same with roman republicanism was given to all citizens but only the wealthy could vote in the senate.

If anything the americans took there government from the french libertarians.

 

[Harshaw]

English tradition gave america its culture, not its governance which america rejected to create there own three part governance system.

. . . based closely on the English system, with some added separations and safeguards. The traditional roles of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary remained mostly the same, and really have no parallel in any other historical system.

 

[soylentgreen]

. . . based closely on the English system, with some added separations and safeguards. The traditional roles of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary remained mostly the same, and really have no parallel in any other historical system.

Not even close to the english system. America rejected party politics for the individual. There is separation in name only. They do not even have a written constitution as america does. America has nothing like a house of lords nor is it dependent on the president to sign off on any laws passed as england is with the queen.

It similarity is more in that they both speak an english language. Apart from that america went out of its way to create something different.

 

[Harshaw]

Not even close to the english system.

It's so close that English common law still holds sway in numerous jurisdictions in the US.

America rejected party politics for the individual.

No. There were parties from the get-go, even if some of the Founders thought it would be best to get away from it.

There is separation in name only.

If you are referring to the English system, it's more defined than you think, but as I said, the American system added far more concrete separations, and checks and balances.

They do not even have a written constitution as america does.

No, but that doesn't mean much when comparing systems.

America has nothing like a house of lords

The Senate was very much constructed to be analogous to the House of Lords.

nor is it dependent on the president to sign off on any laws passed as england is with the queen.

How exactly do you think laws are passed in the United States?

It similarity is more in that they both speak an english language. Apart from that america went out of its way to create something different.

No, the similarities are extensive, as I already described, and intentionally so.

 

[soylentgreen]

It's so close that English common law still holds sway in numerous jurisdictions in the US.


.

The discussion is on resembalance of systems not on any particular common law in use.

No. There were parties from the get-go, even if some of the Founders thought it would be best to get away from it.

Not as the english use them. America has individual politicians who align with a party rather than the english system where a politician is a member of a party.

If you are referring to the English system, it's more defined than you think, but as I said, the American system added far more concrete separations, and checks and balances.

I am not going into a full dissitation on the english system for you when a quick synopsis will do. England is not one united country like america but separate countries united with separation of functions shared.

No, but that doesn't mean much when comparing systems.

yes it does as your own signature tells us. The english can and do constantly question the constitution. That is the benefit of not having a written constitution.

The Senate was very much constructed to be analogous to the House of Lords.

Yet the english government can ignore the house of lords if it wants to pass a bill where as the american system they cannot.

How exactly do you think laws are passed in the United States?

Not by getting a queen or a president to sign off on them.

No, the similarities are extensive, as I already described, and intentionally so

Not at all. They have similar goals but go about it by a different method.

 

[Harshaw]

The discussion is on resembalance of systems not on any particular common law in use.

I do not believe you understand what "common law" is, if you think the two are not intertwined.

Not as the english use them. America has individual politicians who align with a party rather than the english system where a politician is a member of a party.

It is true that we in the United States do not vote by party. I also didn't say the systems were identical.

I am not going into a full dissitation on the english system for you when a quick synopsis will do. England is not one united country like america but separate countries united with separation of functions shared.

Wow. OK, I guess you don't quite get what the United States is, or how federalism works here, because we're 50 sovereign states which act like separate countries except in the areas which are "shared."

And England is in fact a united country; you meant to say "the UK." Given this discussion, that's NOT a minor slip of phrasing.

yes it does as your own signature tells us. The english can and do constantly question the constitution. That is the benefit of not having a written constitution.

Yes, there is benefit to having a written constitution. But it still doesn't matter to whether American government was set up similarly, as a system, to the English system.

Yet the english government can ignore the house of lords if it wants to pass a bill

Not as a general matter, they can't. Where are you getting this?

Not by getting a queen or a president to sign off on them.

:doh Dude. The President has to sign bills passed by Congress, or they don't become law.

Sure, if 2/3 of both houses vote to override the veto, they can still become law, but that's rare. As general matter, the President, in fact, literally signs every bill into law.

I really don't think you know nearly enough about any of this to be in this conversation.

Not at all. They have similar goals but go about it by a different method.

"Goals," shmoals; that doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. The American legislature, executive, and judiciary were closely modeled on the English system. Even TODAY, when discussing the powers of the branches of government, courts will cite those traditional English functions and how they're mimicked here as evidence of what the powers of the branches mean, and what they entail.

 

[James972]

So, got references to back up that claim? And how well it is working?

.

as I said states have been somewhat responsible fiscally because they are constrained by balanced budget Amendments. Average state debt is
around $5000 per head while federal govt debt is about $60,000 per head. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

We study history to understand how we got where we are today. History is about everything. Narrowing it's scope narrows our understanding of it. It's not just about the struggle between freedom and govt any more than it is about class struggle.

h

istory is all about the struggle between freedom and govt. If you don' have that in mind when you study history it will appear to be a random series of 1 billion events with no order, continuity or meaning.

 

[devildavid]

h

istory is all about the struggle between freedom and govt. If you don' have that in mind when you study history it will appear to be a random series of 1 billion events with no order, continuity or meaning.

Or it could be that's exactly what history is and it doesn't bend to your personal beliefs.

 

[spud_meister]

h

istory is all about the struggle between freedom and govt. If you don' have that in mind when you study history it will appear to be a random series of 1 billion events with no order, continuity or meaning.

When the South went to war over the institution of slavery, was that for freedom or government?

 

[James972]

The discussion is on resembalance of systems not on any particular common law in use.

Not as the english use them. America has individual politicians who align with a party rather than the english system where a politician is a member of a party.



I am not going into a full dissitation on the english system for you when a quick synopsis will do. England is not one united country like america but separate countries united with separation of functions shared.


yes it does as your own signature tells us. The english can and do constantly question the constitution. That is the benefit of not having a written constitution.




Yet the english government can ignore the house of lords if it wants to pass a bill where as the american system they cannot.




Not by getting a queen or a president to sign off on them.



Not at all. They have similar goals but go about it by a different method.

Most important English, American, and European systems are mostly identical since the only issue all face is freedom versus govt. The exact process through which they face the central issue of human history is not that important.

 

[Somerville]

as I said states have been somewhat responsible fiscally because they are constrained by balanced budget Amendments. Average state debt is
around $5000 per head while federal govt debt is about $60,000 per head. Now do you understand?

Does any state support an independent military? Do any American states have embassies in other nations? It is a long list of actions that the federal government must carry out, which individual states do not.

 

[soylentgreen]

I do not believe you understand what "common law" is, if you think the two are not intertwined.

I understand how they connect. I understand your point that there is a similarity. But that does not mean that the method of governance is the same only that they have similar goals.

It is true that we in the United States do not vote by party. I also didn't say the systems were identical.

That is the point i disagree with you on though. It makes a big difference in the way voting and politics is structured by the difference in party system in england

Wow. OK, I guess you don't quite get what the United States is, or how federalism works here, because we're 50 sovereign states which act like separate countries except in the areas which are "shared."

The difference is in history though. Your country formed together as a collective where as england took awhile longer and shed a great deal more blood over becoming united. Where americans all call themselves americans in england you asking for a punch in the nose if you call a scotsman an english man.

And England is in fact a united country; you meant to say "the UK." Given this discussion, that's NOT a minor slip of phrasing.

You do know that the scots have been trying for independence from that unity. The irish hate the english and the welsh would rather speak Cymraeg.

Yes, there is benefit to having a written constitution. But it still doesn't matter to whether American government was set up similarly, as a system, to the English system.

I disagree that there is any such benefit especially in a country like america where many look upon the constitution as if it were scripture rather than a contract. And no it is not a similar system. Look how much trouble your president has pushing through his legislation while in england the prime minister holds the majority of seats and can push any legislation through as long as he holds the majority. As well your government is bound by the constitution where as the english make it up as they go along. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected where as the house of lords is appointed. Your supreme court is elected by presidents where as english supreme court avoid areas they deem political.

Not as a general matter, they can't. Where are you getting this?

The Parliament Acts - UK Parliament

Parliament Act 1911

The result was the Parliament Act 1911, which removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years. The Act also reduced the maximum lifespan of a Parliament from seven years to five years.

Parliament Act 1949

The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the Lords' delaying powers to one year.

:doh Dude. The President has to sign bills passed by Congress, or they don't become law.

Sure, if 2/3 of both houses vote to override the veto, they can still become law, but that's rare. As general matter, the President, in fact, literally signs every bill into law.

I really don't think you know nearly enough about any of this to be in this conversation.

So does the queen But the queen unlike your president has no power to create laws .

"Goals," shmoals; that doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. The American legislature, executive, and judiciary were closely modeled on the English system. Even TODAY, when discussing the powers of the branches of government, courts will cite those traditional English functions and how they're mimicked here as evidence of what the powers of the branches mean, and what they entail.

Comparative Government, US & British, PS201H-3B1

Great Britain's parliamentary system and America's presidential system differ from each other, as regards eight political variables: (1) whether there is a constitutional fusion or separation of the legislative and executive powers of government, (2) the nature and method of selection of the top executive authority in the government, (3) whether the executive, institutionally, is part of or separate from the legislature, (4) whether the top executive office or organ is constitutionally responsible to or independent of the legislature, (5) whether the executive is the agent of the legislature, or the two institutions are coordinate organs of government, (6) the constitutional relationship between the positions of chief of state and head of government, (7) the possibility of divided party control of government, and (8) the nature of the lines of political authority and responsibility.

 

[soylentgreen]

Most important English, American, and European systems are mostly identical since the only issue all face is freedom versus govt. The exact process through which they face the central issue of human history is not that important.

Actually the process is what is important. And no the idea of freedom versus government is typically an american paranoia over government rather than anything other countries worry about. Try not to push americas failure to create a viable form of governance on every one else. that really is your problem.

 

[Harshaw]

I understand how they connect. I understand your point that there is a similarity.

No, you don't. I don't think you even know what common law is.

You prove you don't by saying:

But that does not mean that the method of governance is the same only that they have similar goals.

It has nothing to do with "goals." The POINT has nothing to do with "goals." You just don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

That is the point i disagree with you on though.

Then you're contradicting yourself. That happens when you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

It makes a big difference in the way voting and politics is structured by the difference in party system in england

It doesn't affect the basic roles of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. :roll:

The difference is in history though. Your country formed together as a collective where as england took awhile longer and shed a great deal more blood over becoming united.

Again, you are contradicting yourself.

Where americans all call themselves americans in england you asking for a punch in the nose if you call a scotsman an english man.

They call themselves "British," which is the actual, proper analogy to "American."

You do know that the scots have been trying for independence from that unity. The irish hate the english and the welsh would rather speak Cymraeg.

So what? You're just proving my point that your saying "England" instead of "the UK" was no trivial matter. You pooched it.

That happens when you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I disagree that there is any such benefit especially in a country like america where many look upon the constitution as if it were scripture rather than a contract.

Dude. :shock: In your previous post, you said there was. Holy CATS, man; you disagree just to disagree, and not only do you not understand the subject, you don't even understand what you yourself say from post to post.

And no it is not a similar system. Look how much trouble your president has pushing through his legislation

And that is a separation and check we have.

while in england the prime minister holds the majority of seats and can push any legislation through as long as he holds the majority.

1) The prime minister is not the equivalent of the President, on those terms.

2) The President finds it much easier to get his legislative agenda passed when his own party controls Congress.

As well your government is bound by the constitution where as the english make it up as they go along.

:doh Now you've come full circle. In your previous post, you said there was a benefit to a written constitution. In THIS post, above, you said there's no benefit to a written constitution. And now, here, in the very same post, you say there's a benefit to a written constitution.

This tends to happen when you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected where as the house of lords is appointed.

The Senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures.

Your supreme court is elected by presidents

No, the Justices are appointed by presidents but do not hold office until they're confirmed by the Senate.

where as english supreme court avoid areas they deem political.

1) This has nothing to do with how they're chosen, so this is a complete non-sequitur

2) US courts follow the "political question doctrine," wherein they avoid political areas as well.

Just. Stop.

The Parliament Acts - UK Parliament

This is not dissimilar to some Constitutional provisions defining the relationship between the House and the Senate, and these are special circumstances. As I said, as a general matter, legislation still has to be passed by both Commons and Lords.

So does the queen But the queen unlike your president has no power to create laws .

OK, first, you're changing what you said. You said the President doesn't have to "sign off" on laws. He very much does.

Second, the President can't make laws. No, executive orders are not laws.

Comparative Government, US & British, PS201H-3B1

These merely describe some of the separations and checks and balances I referred to earlier.

This conversation has gotten too stupid to continue. Learn about these subjects. Until you do, I have little further interest in hearing from you on this.