Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
What's the US Conservative equivalent of moving to Canada?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIIRC the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). I remember how when Bill Clinton was singing its praises even some liberals here pointed out that unlike the U.S. Constitution it contained what was effectively a nullification clause."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostIt shouldn’t come as a surprise that better constitutions exist right now. Modern constitutions have benefited from knowledge gained over time and hindsight. No one denies the greatness of the US constitution, it’s importance and influence to all mankind is undisputed. That doesn’t change the fact that significant improvements can and should be made to it to make it relevant for today.
I would tend toward the view that at the time the US constitution was being ratified, that the UK's system of government was probably superior, and that over the time since then that the UK's system of government has proven itself more beneficial and successful and been successfully implemented by more countries than the US's.
To give an example from my own country's history. The founders of New Zealand in the 1830s wrote a lot about the colonial experiences in North America and Australia, and saw themselves as learning "scientific principles of colonisation" from the failures and successes in those countries. They were very much aware of the details of what had been tried before, had written books about those countries and the colonial successes and failures in them, and saw themselves as intentionally trying to adopt the practices that had worked well and discard the ones that had failed. So they designed New Zealand as a self-governing democracy, and no part of their model had any basis in the US constitution, and instead they chose a Canada/UK/Australia type model. So, within 50 years of the US constitution being written, highly informed people in the West were choosing to not use any part of it for a new free and democratic country they were designing.
I think you could probably make a case that the idea of 'human rights' had a developmental path that went through the Magna Carta, to the US constitution, to the French Revolution, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to the Canadian Charter of Rights etc. I guess the accuracy of that could be debated, but, if true, then I guess you could say that the US constitution was the most advanced step in the development of human rights for the 2 year period between the creation of the US constitution and the French Revolution? 2 years as a world leader doesn't seem like much to brag about."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostLet me raise my hand then as someone who denies the greatness of the US constitution and disputes its importance and influence to all mankind.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostLet me raise my hand then as someone who denies the greatness of the US constitution and disputes its importance and influence to all mankind.
But then, They Who Wear The Velcro Gloves tend toward such a view from their tiny little land.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostBut then, They Who Wear The Velcro Gloves
tend toward such a view from their tiny little land.
...and with the democracy index ranking New Zealand the 4th most democratic country in the world and labelling it a "full democracy" while ranking the US 25th and labelling it a "flawed democracy"...
...and with the corruption perceptions index ranking New Zealand the #1 least corrupt country in the world and ranking the US 23rd...
...we're certainly in a good position to lecture others about how to run a country well. If the US constitution is supposed to be so great, why does a country with no formal constitution thrash the US on these international measures of freedom and democracy? Maybe it's cos the US constitution actually sucks and the US system of government is bad?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostLet me raise my hand then as someone who denies the greatness of the US constitution and disputes its importance and influence to all mankind.
I would tend toward the view that at the time the US constitution was being ratified, that the UK's system of government was probably superior, and that over the time since then that the UK's system of government has proven itself more beneficial and successful and been successfully implemented by more countries than the US's.
To give an example from my own country's history. The founders of New Zealand in the 1830s wrote a lot about the colonial experiences in North America and Australia, and saw themselves as learning "scientific principles of colonisation" from the failures and successes in those countries. They were very much aware of the details of what had been tried before, had written books about those countries and the colonial successes and failures in them, and saw themselves as intentionally trying to adopt the practices that had worked well and discard the ones that had failed. So they designed New Zealand as a self-governing democracy, and no part of their model had any basis in the US constitution, and instead they chose a Canada/UK/Australia type model. So, within 50 years of the US constitution being written, highly informed people in the West were choosing to not use any part of it for a new free and democratic country they were designing.
I think you could probably make a case that the idea of 'human rights' had a developmental path that went through the Magna Carta, to the US constitution, to the French Revolution, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to the Canadian Charter of Rights etc. I guess the accuracy of that could be debated, but, if true, then I guess you could say that the US constitution was the most advanced step in the development of human rights for the 2 year period between the creation of the US constitution and the French Revolution? 2 years as a world leader doesn't seem like much to brag about.
I would also credit the US constitution as a major influence in spreading democracy worldwide. In saying that the American attitude towards their constitution as some sort of infallible document prevents it from reflecting the current values of the people, it effectively holds them hostage to it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostAustralia is considered a hybrid of the Westminster and Washington systems but it’s getting harder to spot the Washington influence.
The main thing that was adopted was a strong upper house but some states have already removed the senate and there’s decent support for doing that at the federal level.
We can also be described as having an unwritten constitution like UK and NZ which I think is the best way to do it anyway.
New Zealand doesn't have any of that. There are a number of acts of parliament that govern how things work in New Zealand, but they can be changed by parliament. They're not a separate constitution that stands over and above parliament."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIf you think that the US constitution is the best, and is obviously and indisputably the best...
...why wouldn't other countries copy it?
And if they did... then the US would no longer have the best constitution, just equal-best.
And if many countries copied it, and even one of them improved theirs in some way, via a single amendment that was beneficial... then the US would no longer have the best constitution would it?
It seems to me that constitution-worshiping US conservatives have a mutually incompatible set of beliefs: You believe that the US and its constitution are #1 and obviously #1, and believe that the rest of the world is totally envious of that greatness, yet, apparently since you believe none of the rest of the world even comes close in greatness, you must believe that none of them have even risen to the level of copying the US's marvellous constitution that you think they think is the greatest and best. After all, if they copied it, they would be equally as good, but you don't believe they are. But if they really are so in awe and so envious, why wouldn't they take the really basic step of adopting a copy of the US constitution? It's not like that would be hard for one of the world's ~196 countries to do so. Maybe, just maybe, nobody's in awe of the US's constitution at all, and the reason they aren't interested in copying it is because they think you've got a terrible constitution?
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Reepicheep View PostI'd say Hungary is the country that most closely resembles the America that Trump supporters want. If a Trump voter wanted to stay in North America but leave the United States, then the rural Canadian prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) is likely the best destination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
I would move to Australia, but that's just because I really enjoyed my visit to Sydney. I always say it reminded me of San Diego.
America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
There are two big problems with the US Constitution in my view.
The first is that it was designed as a series of compromises and accommodations due to the surrounding circumstances, but circumstances are very different today. This means we have a government system created to try to solve problems that are are diminished or not even relevant at all nowadays, while also not taking into account later circumstances and developments. Yes, there's the amendment process but that's so difficult to do it may as well not exist. A number of examples of this could be listed, but I'm speaking generally because it's a recurring issue.
The second perhaps falls into the first, but is so major it needs to be noted separately. Is that in all of the considerations that went into making it, they overlooked one of the most powerful forces in all of politics. It's understandable. It didn't really exist back then. But they still failed to take it into account, and in fact I'd say failing to do so is the biggest error made when they made the Constitution (not counting errors that were subsequently fixed). What is this thing that they overlooked? Political parties. And setting up a governmental system without taking into account political parties is like constructing a skyscraper without taking into account that people might not want to walk up more than a few stairs when going around (and therefore omitting things like elevators).
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment