Thanks for the explanation, Spiny Norman. Didn’t know that about Denmark.
AFAIK Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Austria, Italy have all had major overhauls of their legal system (civil, criminal and political) in the last two centuries, resulting in more or less modern codes of law. Hence my remark.
Yeah, not that European countries like, say, Spain, France or Germany to name a few, had liberal revolutions in the mid XIX, right? Oh, and Europe never EVER contributed to law philosophy in the past 200 years, of course, forgot that too.
You’re right, I really should’ve put in a modifier - something like “some older countries, particularly those that never lived though a revolution”. Oh, that’s right - I did.
Would have been a very well-made point if I’d pretended to speak for all of Europe which, incidentally, I did not.
So, what merited such scathing sarcasm ?
WhyIoughtta… Get your mind out of the gutter, please! What I meant was simply the I do not want any agency to probe around in - ehm, I mean, I don’t want them rummaging around in - make that, I don’t want them to stick their nose in - I want them to keep their hands off - ehm, I do not want to leave an opening for - my position on this subject is - the thrust of my argument would be this is not going well at all…
Look! A motorcycle thread over there! <runs away>
Spiny Norman was I scathing? don´t think so.
You must understand that ideas fly over borders. European countries who weren´t through revolutions in the mid XIX were the less (the later Prusia, for starters). Constitutions and parliaments were not made as “oh, lets try this and lets see what happens next”. It was a hard proccess that took years and civil wars in some cases (sadly to say, Spain may be a good example on this one) to consolidate a democracy. This was made possible to those ideas and those who beleived in that. My country´s constitution recognizes people´s rights, it´s not something “given by the king´s hand”. And most countries in Europe right now are republics, not monarchies (again, sadly to say, Spain is not one of those).Such a swith would surely need a wide change in the lawmaking, right? And the USA is not the only countrie who goes like “now that we are making laws, let´s put a philophy to base them”.
That merited a little sarcasm… of course without offense intended.
Hmmmm, the short answer would be different cultures, different customs. Living in Germany I would scream bloody murder, if the government would impose a speed limit on the highway on me, would make anal sex illegal or bar adults from drinking alcohol (drinking age 21? WTF?). In the states nobody seems to mind though and I think likewise nobody around here really gives a damn about flags. Besides, I don´t really know whether anyone would mind if I would put a flag on my house.
As for the alleged restriction of freedom of speech: There is no other restriction here, but the nazi Germany related stuff. As far as I know “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler is illegal to possess, it´s not allowed to sing the national anthem with the text of that time and you are not allowed to have swastikas in games . The last point is especially a hot topic, as board games like World in Flames or the Wolfenstein Computer Game line are in trouble due to it. But those things are there to protect children, so in essence it is a good idea. After all, the political conditioning of children as it has been done in that particular era is something nobody around here wants to see repeated.
Swastikas in history books or in movies like Schindler´s List on the other hand are perfectly ok and in line with the law.
However, this isn´t just whimsical restriction of freedom of speech. If there is a group threatening the democracy, then the Verfassungsschutz is going to investigate it. The nazi party (which never makes it past the 5% hurdle needed to get seats as a party in the Bundestag, by the way) wasn´t outlawed. In fact, the Verfassungsschutz tried to get it outlawed, but that was repealed as it turned out that high ranking members were in fact agents of said institution. So it´s all been done within due course of law. Besides, I am sure the USA would have a similar, if not more, aggressive stance on groups that exist for the sole purpose of destroying your democracy.
And don´t get me started on biased media: Certainly most news agencies have got an agenda, but the government doesn´t interfere with what gets reported, around here. You guys got your Rupert Murdoch, so I wouldn´t be too vocal about biased media as a governmental propaganda tool…
Well, a lot of Americans tend to go nutty whenever they hear terms like “national broadcasting” or “state channel”. When of course it’s entirely possible to be “state” and impartial: see the BBC. They pretty much got Alistair Campbell out of the political arena, fercryinoutloud. Don’t think mr Blair was too pleased with the BBC for that.
With regards to American not minding some of their more restrictive laws: I don’t know. I think it’s more of a fear of pissing off the large contingent of religious right in the US that neither party ever attempted to lower the drinking age, but is there really a majority in the US that thinks people should be 21 before touching alcohol? I highly, highly doubt it. The US just tends to hold on to essentially puritan laws, because changing them would cause a large disruption in a significant part of the voter populace, meaning more uncertainty at election time. It’s risk avoidance rather than conviction, methinks.
Spiny, I’ll let you off the hook. I mean, I’ll no longer probe in your personal affairs. Errr, that is to say, I’ll withdraw from… gah. Motorcycle thread, you said? 
You´re right of course. After hitting post, I once again regretted the lacking edit function or having hit preview first. Boldly stating “nobody” was - among other things - a bit over the top. Sorry about that.
It has not been prohibited for decades, at least not nationwide. As far as I know, the only Federal prohibition on flag burning is within the District of Columbia. There have been state laws, but the Supreme Court has ruled these laws unconstitutional.
What kind of twisted view of the USA does your press like to tell people?
You don’t actually have any experience with reality in respect to the USA, I take it. This idea that the Federal government here has only “limited authority” over states is balderdash. The Federal government has a great deal of authority over the states. However, many matters are simply left up to the individual states to regulate rather than being centrally controlled, more as a matter of expediency than anything, these days.
As for people “identifying” with their state governments, not hardly, Maynard. It’s “the damned government” no matter what level it is. The USA is not some confederation of independent or semi-independent countries. It is a unitary country that happens to have a tradition of local control of some functions of government. Remember, any European nation would make a moderately large US state.
Cite from US Code or other US law for that claim? Any yoyo can put a sign in front of a gas station. Also, is this anti-“topping off” in the sense of “you must drive until the tank is nearly empty” or is it in the sense of “you’re not allowed to store explosives in your basement”?
Contrary to the claims of propagandists and their parrots, the US drinking age was not foisted upon us by religious puritans. It was very Euro-ish nanny-state-ism and “safety expert” opinion that did it. The theory of the nannies and “the government must protect us at all costs, cradle to grave is our goal” types is that raising the drinking age will “protect” teenagers from driving drunk.
In other words, the government was regulating “safety” not “morality”.
I have absolutely no idea, but when I drove from San Fran to Vegas via the Grand Canyon in 2001, it was stuck on nearly all the gas pumps I used. Perhaps it’s a huge yoyo-driven misinformation campaign to confound libertarian types and European visitors.
I took “topping off” to mean pumping after the auto-switch had cut off.
Yeesh, Dogface, calm down, man. No one’s attacking you, or your country. And while we’re at it: please use one reply instead of 5, if at all possible.
Define “our press”. Just because one poster isn’t aware of the current US laws on flagburning means “our press” (I’m assuming this means European, yes?) is providing a distorted view of the United States? Nice.
Thanks for that response. I never claimed it was religious puritans that came up with the drinking age, of course - I merely stated that altering said age might piss off the electorally important religious right.
Why regulating safety is either “Euro-ish” or “nanny-state-ism” I’ll leave up to those who care to find out, but one would think that not letting 16 year olds drive would be a hell of a lot more effective, safety-wise.
Got a cite for the origins of the drinking age laws, BTW? Just curious.
Hmmm. This cite shows us that the MLDA was brought back UP to 21 for traffic safety reasons in the 70’s, after several states lowered it alongside with lower voting age, et cetera. It doesn’t state the reasons for the MLDA of 21 that was introduced after the Prohibition, however. Surely, traffic safety wasn’t a major concern in those days. So, what’s the skinny?
This cite gives insight into the reasoning behind the liquor laws introduced in Oregon in 1934, after the Prohibition ended.
Bolding mine.
Yeah, that’s not puritan or moralistic at all. Sorry Dogface, but if federal laws are anything like this Oregon example, traffic safety has nothing to do with the initial reasons behind the MLDA of 21 years old.
Coldfire, please use one reply instead of 3…
:eek:
:d&r:
BTW, dogface, I’ve lived in Europe and the US; there are vague differences in “freedoms”, but I don’t feel that either side of the pond is less or more free than any other side.
One of the major differences I’ve observed is in perception: many people in the US quite rightly want their freedoms codified, especially wrt the Constitution, whereas many Yurpians are satisfied to take them de facto. It could be argued that we’re too trusting, and are setting ourselves up to be taken advantage of by a malicious government, but that’s when we take to the streets.
Thanks for the corrections, Dogface. The flagburning is something that is stuck in at least my mind because it seemed that in the past people were extremely mad about it, but apparently those times are long past. Good.
With respect to ‘limited authority’, I meant precisely that. The federal government has a lot of authority indeed, but it still is limited. I always understood (but I may be wrong) that there is stuff that can not be decided on the federal level because the constitution or so has not mandated that power to the U.S., hence is solely at the state’s discretion (within the boundaries of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights). Can the federal government prohibit the death penalty, for example? Proscribe the death penalty? Prohibit three-strike laws?
In contrast, European nation-states typically can decide whatever they want on the national level (exceptions do exist, of course, such as Germany, which is a federation as well. I won’t even go into the situation of the UK).
I’m not saying the U.S. state is a bad regime, I’m just trying to understand why Americans have (for Europeans) such an odd way of reasoning. But you’re probably right that Cardinal’s way of putting things need not be typical of U.S. citizens in general: you may hate the government for taking away your freedoms but still believe it’s your government.
A possibly different explanation is that Dems and Pubs seem (to my non-American eye) to have developed an intransigent attituted to each other, so partisans only grudgingly obey the other’s decisions, hoping to overthrow them once they have the majority. I’m used to having coaltion governments, which have to win the approval of a broad group. Maybe that might explain why we’re not so concerned with ‘the’ government’ taking away ‘our’ freedoms.