Subject:
|
Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:04:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> The problem with your system is the huge inequalities in your country.
> Political power is bought and sold like cheese at a cheesemongers.
That's a gross overstatement, and a pretty glib generalization.
influence, perhaps; but political *power* must be negotiated.
And you don't think this happens in Britain? Please. You just
don't talk about it quite the same way, in part because for some
odd reason a huge number of Britons exist in the thrall of
government (or maybe it's just "politeness") and they don't ask
the questions they should. You start from the basic idea in
the UK that you have Good Government, and its actions are read
through that lens. In the US, we have a much more realistic view
of what goes on--and our characterization of our government is
colored by that view as well. It's cultural and contextual, not
absolute.
But I've got to admit, some of the political naivete this leads
to in the UK is rather charming. For example, I just couldn't stop
chuckling at "At Home with William and Ffion." It was quaint, and
it said more about the British political sphere--and the way it's
viewed by the British public--than these words ever could.
> People keep guns to protect themselves from there *own* government.
their != their != they're
Read the Second Amendment. Look at the language. Now, there are
some anti-government types out in the hinterlands, but in any
(and I do mean ANY) large settler state this kind of deep-woods
individual exists. Where isolation is possible, someone takes it
up.
Do we use said guns against our own government? No, not as
such (I leave the Ruby Ridge and Waco people out of this--I'm
talking actual rebellion). We don't need to. Again, context.
> Your healthcare system is derided across the developed world.
Scott, I was warned *by Britons* that if I got sick in the UK
or in Europe, it was worth it for me to fly all the way home to
the USA even though I had bought into European insurance.[1] The
rationale? British and European medical care isn't particularly
good. In our case, it's "you get what you pay for." I think our
checks and balances tend to work quite well, and if you don't
think the poor can get basic medical service, think again--the
US insured pay for it whether they intend to or not. You'd be
surprised at how things actually do work in this country, even
though we don't devise government initiatives for them (with the
attendant bloated bureaucracy). It's an artifice that some play
up as a problem, but it equates IMHO to better health care even
for the relatively poor.
Like all things, it could be better, sure. But people aren't
dying in the streets, or waiting two years or more for a procedure
as one sometimes must from the NHS. The only advantage of the
UK system is that access is guaranteed to be equal for all by law.
But is it that way in practice? If you want really good health
care, you're looking at going OUTSIDE of that system.
> These are all caricatures I
> know, but these are very real criticism of your "system". They are the
> reason that I would feel less free in the USA.
Why is free health care (which isn't free, btw--look at your
tax burden) necessary for you to "feel free?" You're confusing
rights with privileges. How does political partisanship or
influence brokering destroy *your* freedom? Odious practices
do not a police state make!
> I feel no need to carry any sort of weapon. I feel no need to have a
> contingency plan to deal with an armed intruder in my own home. I feel no
> need to teach my kids "respect" for guns. What about those freedoms Richard?
> Does the US system allow you them?
That can be completely turned around. What if you *want* to own a
firearm? If someone doesn't want to teach their child "respect" for
guns, fine--a lot of parents don't. However, just like not teaching
your children to respect speeding vehicles on the M4, I wouldn't
recommend it.
As far as the armed intruder in your home, I assume you don't live
in Greater London? Breakins were a huge problem in Acton, where I
lived (W3) for some time--all the more so because burglars knew
that the homeowners wouldn't--couldn't--be armed.
With the Constitution, as with *any* core national philosophy,
you have to understand the context. For this context, I feel
perfectly free in this country--but I also felt free *enough* in
the UK. It was merely a different environment. If you want to
look at the voting by the number of pairs of feet, compare US->UK
emigration vs. UK->US emigration. For the years 1996 and 1997:
1996 US->UK: 4,090 US stats from http://www.ins.gov
1996 UK->US: 13,624 UK stats from http://www.statistics.gov.uk
1997 US->UK: 3,900
1997 UK->US: 10,651
Those are some fairly clear numbers. Unfortunately, they don't
talk about reasons, but this is the granting of settlement visas
for those who *intend to become citizens*, so I think it differs
greatly from those who are coming for business or the like; there's
got to be some *reason* they want to become Britons or Americans.
Considering Britain's population is so much *smaller* than that
of the US, the percentage of UK->US emigrants is a heck of a lot
higher, so these figures are misleading in that regard--multiply
the comparative UK->US figures by about 6 to get a valid comparison.
That yields a factor between 16 and 20 for UK->US/US->UK.
In either case, it does indicate that a lot more Britons are
coming here than vice-versa. I'll admit there are a lot of
variables, [2] but desire probably isn't one of them. And, of course,
in fairness these numbers represent an exceedingly small percentage
of *both* national populations, which indicates that the respective
populaces tend to be happy with their own cultural context (which
includes "freedoms" real and perceived). But if you want to make
the statement that the US is less free, the feet don't look to be
voting your way. If you add in emigration from around the world, an
even greater disparity emerges. You can think you're a voice in
the wilderness if you wish, but you'll be lonely out there.
best
LFB
[1] It was required for the extended visa.
[2] These are also legal settlement visas granted by both countries.
My understanding is that anyone with a reason to settle between
these two countries generally has little trouble doing so. But
adding immigrants from the "rest of the world" there may be a
(nay, there is a) greater disparity between desire and acceptance.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
