I’m not saying that you are wrong. I am interested in the point is all. If your cite can shed some light on this then it would be welcome, but if you want to post it just to prove how urbane you are then don’t bother. I wouldn’t believe it anyways. Osakadave:
If you are submitting your ideas for consideration then I would ask what you thought would be the advantages of disenfrachising people.
What about “no taxation without representation”? John Corrado raises an important issue.
The problem of political advertising would need to be addressed.
I recommend outlawing it.
Uhmm…would this be the same Britain where private ownership of many if not most firearms is banned? The same Britain where the right not to incriminate yourself has been eliminated (i.e., refusal to answer a question can be considered an admission of guilt under the law)? The same Britain where suspected “terrorists” can be arrested and imprisoned on nothing more than word of a senior police official? The same Britain which is steadily working at eliminating jury trials? The same Britain where the government intends to monitor every ISP in the nation and search messages indiscriminately? The same Britain where entire villages-full of men are DNA-printed in hopes of turning up a criminal or two?
Can you define a “totalitarian” state for us so that an objective observer would be able to tell when it had come into being? Or is it like obscenity–you can’t define it, but you know it when you see it? All of the features I’ve listed sure as heck fit my definition of a totalitarian state, even if they don’t (yet) have jack-booted thugs marching round, herding undesirables into ghettos.
Well, someone legal will have to answer for me, but I’m not too sure about self-incrimination. As for gun control, if banning the private ownership of firearms is totalitarianism, then the UK is no worse than, say, Japan. And if the US had serious active terrorist groups, how long do you think it would be before the government would pass a law allowing indefinate imprisonment of suspected terrorists?
As for the other three points, they are all occurring under a government with a huge majority. I think they illustrate my point on the possible abuses of a parliamentary system pretty well. Thanks, Al.
2sense: Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply anything about your views. I was just trying, in a probably overly verbose way, why UK liberals seem to like the US Constitution when they don’t much care for the US.
Side note: Though I’ve been studying British history for 12 years, most of those years have been studying 16th-century English history. Now that was totalitarianism. (I recently attended a lecture entitled “Henry VIII and Stalin.” Verdict: their policies were close, give or take a few million peasants murdered in the name of collective farming.) So that’s why I warned that I might be fuzzy.
Perhaps a different picture might illustrate the problem…“Imagine G.W. Bush with this kind of power.” That’s scary.
As for totalitarianism in the UK, read Al Mondroca’s comments. It’s actually a bit scarier than that–you should hear some of the things that Jack Straw (the Home Secretary) is thinking about for Blair’s next term. (Yep, Labour is thinking that far ahead already.) I’m a US citizen, married to a UK citizen. I’m currently applying for leave to stay (not UK citizenship, just an allowance to stay in the country). As of October, if I fail to return my application form on time, I will be deported. No right of appeal, no extension, just “get on that plane and go back where you came from.” Thanks, Jack. Apparently next year Straw is planning to have prospective immigrants pay £600 (about $900) to make an application. If you fail, you don’t get it back. It’s not so bad for me, but imagine the effect it’s going to have on immigrants from India, Pakistan, etc. This from a government with “celebrates multiculturalism.”
Sorry for the rambling, but I just wanted to illustrate one point. Not only all of the opposition parties but most Labour backbenchers strenuously opposed the legislation which comes into effect in October–in other words, probably more than half of Parliament. Blair, Straw and the government whips ran it through without a fight. Same is true with the ISP legislation Al Mondroca cites, legislation which about 99% of experts think will greatly damage the UK IT industry. Again, it went through Parliament without any serious debate–MPs knew that Labour’s majority, and the action of the government whips, would be able to pass it. Furthermore, despite the probable illegality of the legislation under European Human Rights laws, the judiciary in the UK will be unable to overturn it.
Personally, I like our Constitution the way it is. The only two things I would change are:
Get rid of is the Electoral College, with its all-or-nothing treatment of the states (I know this isn’t mandated by the Constitution, but that’s what happens now) and switch to direct popular vote of the President & Vice President. In my opinion, the Electoral College system is outdated and even detrimental to our democracy.
Either impose term limits on Congressmen or remove them from the President. I don’t see any reason why what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
Yes, Japan qualifies as a totalitarian state in my book. And government which demands that its citizens surrender their ability to resist violent criminals and tyrants (on any pretext) qualifies as one which ought to be overthrown. But aside from making sure the peasants remain unarmed (and old and well-enforced tradition there for centuries), their system for compelling confessions from prisoners certainly fits the bill as well.
As for indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists in the USA on the mere say-so of a police official, theoretically its a no-no. The rights of due process, habeus corpus, requirements for warrants, etc., would preclude it. In theory. In practice, of course, that didn’t stop the feds from locking up Japanese-Americans during WWII…and the government was a hell of a lot more observant of the limits on its power then than it is now.
[The observant may note that I am implying that the modern USA fits my definition of a totalitarian state. They would be correct.]
Did you forget to put a smiley on the end of your post, or are you serious? Only a quick glance at, say, “the antidote” to “The Feminization of Western Culture” suggests that this solution will lead to totalitarianism, at least for 51% of the population. I didn’t have to bother to look at the rest of the website.
My point: if you define any loss of personal liberty as totalitarianism, every system of government is going to be totalitarian. OK, maybe medieval Iceland. Let’s all come to the Althing and keep your axe sharp, 'cause you’ll need it.
I agree that the examples that you and Al Mondroca gave are infringements of liberty. I can think of no reason to justify them. My question is this:
How do the British voters feel about these actions?
I am uncertain of exactly how elections get called in the UK. If enough regular people don’t approve of the actions of the government, how can they pressure the government to accomodate their view? How do they go about ridding themselves of an unresponsive government?
People need the right to do both.
I would accept a powerful Dubya government with a philosophical shrug. Naturally I would be concerned, but his successors ( May his reign be brief! ) would then have the ability to fix his mistakes. An advantage I see in this is that it would be more difficult for a President with this authority to pass the buck. People will know who to blame.
BTW- I also enjoy English history. I prefer the pre-Conquest period.
Hi Al Mondroca,
Welcome aBoard, we can always use some fresh blood in GD. May I make a suggestion? I find the arguments here are often thick enough when I only have to read them once. I get distracted when people post long unnecessary quotes. Plus, the extra load slows down the board ( not an unimportant consideration with the SDMB ). There is actually a current Pit thread about this practice. On your last post I would not have quoted anything. I would just have added “Duke:” at the top.
I hope that you take this advice in the spirit of friendliness it is offered.
Thanks.
As to your point: Since your definition of totalitarianism includes the States it does not apply to my generality.
My assertion refered to people who don’t think that we have totalitarianism here due to the fact that we have the Constitution.
Main Entry: to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1926
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
I will leave the UK and Nippon to others but America does not fit either of these definitions. Governmental control is far from centralized ( checks and balances, baby ) and the freedoms of citizens are enshrined in an “eternal” social contract.
[Through the years the Constitution has bent–sometimes seriously–but never broken, ]
“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
never broken, yes never broken and there is a tooth fairy
I haven’t looked for a citation yet, 2sense–I’ve been too lazy–but I wanted to apologize for misspelling your screen name. That said, I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about–how urbaneI am?
Re the discussion on the UK: in the OP, I said:
Freedom which can be taken away at the whim of a parliamentary majority is not true freedom–it’s rent-a-freedom, and it is not necessarily permanent. And yes, I would be very much opposed to such a system replacing our current one.
k2dave said:
Would you like to mention in which way the Second Amendment is broken? Two competing schools of thought, you know. And, if it is, how would you fix it?
“Urbane” as in exposed to the ideas of the wider world, sophisticated, not a country bumkin who cannot be expected to understand intellectual arguments. It was a lame attempt at humor on my part. I believe that you read the fact about Jefferson somewhere; I just was asking if anyone could shed more light on the question. If you think your cite can help - great. If not, I wasn’t challenging you so you don’t need to find it.
I hope that was a little more clear.
As to your point about rent-a-freedom, what other kind is there?
Any government can arbitrarily restrict freedom if the people are not vigilant. Our current system can restrict any rights they wish as long as the Supremes say it is OK. By enshrining rights in the Constitution and encouraging the idea that this keeps them safe what we are doing is encouraging citizens not to worry about them.
Thus the Constitution cripples the only thing that can assure our freedom - us.
This statement appears to be calling for regular constitutional conventions every 20 years or so, at which time any minor or major changes could presumably be made.
2sense said:
I’ll agree that people have to be vigilant to protect their rights, but suggesting the Constitution somehow prevents this is much like claiming seatbelts and airbags cause traffic accidents by giving drivers a false sense of security. This may be true up to a point–it could be argued that the safest drivers would be ones who had explosives embedded in the steering column to guarantee they died if they got into an accident–but getting rid of seatbelts, airbags, and Constitutional rights still strikes me as a bad idea.
You had to go and do it didn’t you? It wasn’t enough that I named you my favorite poster of the month. You had to show off your knowledge.
*You’ve been with the professors and they’ve all liked your looks.
With great lawyers you have discussed lepers and crooks.
You’ve read all of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books.
You’re very well read, it’s well known…
But something is happening here and you don’t know what it is… Do you… Mr Jones?*
Ballad of a Thin Man by Bob Dylan
( from memory so there might be errors )
I am wondering if Mr Jefferson’s view was common amongst the FF. I have asked over in General Questions so let’s see what the scholars here care to share.
On to analogies huh?
OK, I would disagree that the false sense of security is the same in my argument and your analogy. A better one IMO would be a system of traffic controlled by a central computer. People realize seatbelts and airbags can not prevent accidents but in my analogy people might be expected to believe that the computer could. I assert that in this example it would be a bad idea to trust that the computer would never fail and stop encouraging people to learn to drive.
My reasoning about the Constitution preventing people from protecting their freedoms is 2fold.
People believe that the Constitution keeps their rights safe.
( I stated this earlier but I am unsure of why you disagree with it. )
The document limits the power of the people to assure their own freedom.
Hi Opal.
And there is no such creature as a well read bumpkin.
What would be the point?
This thread must be dead–2sense and I are singingat each other.
2sense said:
I’m flattered. Imagine how much you’d like me if we ever agreed on anything.
But once you questioned it, I realized that what I thought was well-known wasn’t, necessarily–thus, I thought I’d better find an example.
(And why are you complaining? The TJ quote supports your position more than it does mine.)
Let me throw a few abbreviations at you: ACLU, NAACP, NARL, NRA. There are plenty of organizations out there fighting for constitutional rights as they see it, and some of them are very well-funded. If people were as complacent about their rights as you suggest, these organizations–and the counter-organizations each one has–wouldn’t even be noticeable. Yet I’ll wager virtually everyone here knows what ACLU, NAACP and NRA stand for, and most can identify NARL.
Ok…in essense, having a right enshrined in the Constitution simply means that it cannot be removed without a cumbersome amending process and super-majority political support. There are nuances–maybe I have this urgent desire to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but the Supreme Court has ruled that’s not protected speech; nonetheless, the government can’t decide that since one example is not protected they have the right to quash my political opinions.
Now as I interpret your position, you are suggesting it would be best to leave civil rights to the government as voted in by the majority…or is it a plurality? At any rate, if the people don’t like what this government does to their rights, they then have the opportunity to kick the bastards out and put new bastards in. This more or less removes the Supreme Court from the equation, at least in the sense of long-term interpretation.
(Is this a fair summary? Am I missing something?)
Now let me present a couple hypothetical scenarios. We’ll say these happen during one very bad month.
1. A school shooting, a laColumbine.
-(a) There is a large outcry over the availability of firearms.
-(b) It is discovered that the perpetrators liked violent video games and movies.
-(d) It comes out that the authorities had information that the perps were dangerous, and had actually caught one of them with an illegal weapon…but it was an illegal search, and charges were dismissed.
2. A federal building is blown up, a laOklahoma City, by the Patriotic Interstate National Headquarters (popularly known as the PINHeads).
-(a) The FBI had been investigating the PINHeads for months, and had requested both a search warrant and a wiretap–these requests had been denied by a judge, who ruled the FBI had insufficient probable cause.
-(b) The member of PINHeads who actually planted the bombs, Richard Lester Dummschitt (a/k/a Dick Les Dummschitt), had been up on charges of illegal weapons trafficking one year previously–the jury hung 8-4 in favor of conviction, and the US Attorney’s office had dropped the case.
So what is the public response to these horrors? And what is the political response, with the enthusiastic approval of the majority of the voters?
1.
-(a) “We must protect the children!” Civilian ownership of all firearms is banned.
-(b) “We must protect the children!” Congress establishes the National Board of Entertainment Review, which must approve games and scripts.
-(d) “They had him, and he got off on a technicality!” Search and seizure rules are modified–from now on we will trust police officers’ judgments in such things.
2.
-(a) “We must stop making the job of the police harder!” Wiretaps will also now be up to the police, since they know best.
-(b) “The jury blew it!” Instead of a unanimous vote to convict, Congress authorizes federal convictions on a two-thirds majority jury vote (8-4). State legislatures quickly follow suit, not wanting to look like they’re coddling criminals.
(We could argue about the probability of these kinds of reactions…and yet I’ve heard variations of every one of them already.)
For the record, we have just gutted, in whole or in part, the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments; we have also taken a whack at the Fifth Amendment (a two-thirds majority vote for conviction would not constitute “due process of law” as we currently understand it.) I think we can safely say that the rest of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights would go shortly thereafter…because you really can make a case for it, in the name of public safety, in the name of the children, in the name of whatever, if you have a mind to.
Now maybe you’d actually approve of some of these results, 2sense–I have no way of knowing–but either way I think you get my point. If our rights are just those that the majority is willing to tolerate, then we are constantly about one minute from the beginning of the end of those rights. With the possible exception of the Third Amendment, I doubt you could get a majority to vote for anyof the Bill of Rights nowadays.
(And I’m a middle-aged white guy–imagine being a minority and contemplating that your rights are what the majority says they are. Would this frighten you? It would certainly frighten me.)
And that, my friend, is why I believe the Constitution is a damn good thing.
I’ve always been of the mind that the great thing about the constitution is that it can change… so to say that a new constitution should permanently do anything is wrong, imho.
Damn, I wish I had time to jump into some of this stuff. As it is, just a comment for 2sense:
Considering how little we agree, I am shocked to find that this strikes a chord with me. I shudder to think what the consequences may be for one–or both–of us.
Given my bias, I cannot help but conclude that your thinking will eventually lead you to agree with me more.
IYHO? I have yet to see anyone in GD whose Os were really H.
I mean the term “permanent” here as “longer than the next time Congress decides to fiddle with it.” The 18th Amendment permanently banned the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors”…until the 21st Amendment repealed the ban slightly under 15 years later.
