Subject:
|
Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:52:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
320 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> 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.
It was meant to be a caricature – and I said it was!
> And you don't think this happens in Britain? Please.
What I was talking about was how in the USA the main political parties are
hugely indebted to their sponsors. On of the criticisms of GWB's NMD was
that it was payback. Dan has alluded to how the lobby groups keep Israel on
the political agenda in the USA. Funding of political parties in the UK is
much tighter (partly due to past problems) and the amounts of money involved
are far less.
> 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.
WH is not typical of UK politics... at least I hope not.
>
> > People keep guns to protect themselves from there *own* government.
>
> their != their != they're
Ok, I shall correct it:
People keep guns to protect themselves from their *own* government.
>
> 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.
It was meant to be a caricature – and I said it was!
>
> > 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]
Ah! That is anecdotal. But even if that were true, you could afford the
trip back. What proportion of the USA has health insurance? What proportion
of the USA needs health insurance. What proportion of the UK needs health
insurance?
> The
> rationale? British and European medical care isn't particularly
> good.
I think the UK is good. I think France is better.
> In our case, it's "you get what you pay for."
What if you can't pay?
> 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.
But not perfect:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_142000/142327.stm
>
> 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.
That is not typical. To wait 2 years, it would be for a minor procedure (say
tattoo removal) or other appointments would have been cancelled by the
patient. No patient in Scotland waited even half that long last year. But
you are correct, it is not perfect. It could be better.
> 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?
There are geographical differences, these reflect cultural (diet)
differences within the UK.
> If you want really good health
> care, you're looking at going OUTSIDE of that system.
I don't agree. I think really good health care exists inside it too.
>
> > 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
Did I say it was?
> ) necessary for you to "feel free?"
I do not have to worry about medical bills. I feel good that I can pay tax
to help those who otherwise would not be able to afford health care.
> You're confusing
> rights with privileges.
That is one way of looking at it.
> How does political partisanship or
> influence brokering destroy *your* freedom? Odious practices
> do not a police state make!
Look at Dan's comments on Israel & Lobbying.
>
> > 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?
What if you want to own a rocket launcher?
> 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.
I know of no violent "Breakins". They do happen, but they are rare.
>
> 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.
I agree. We have different cultures. I like bits of yours. I expect you like
bits of my own. But, I expect neither of us wants a swap.
> 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
Yes UK graduates are in demand worldwide!
>
> 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.
UK weather is *crap*. :-)
>
> 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.
I'm not sure I ever said it was? Have I?
> If you add in emigration from around the world, an
> even greater disparity emerges.
I expect the number will change a bit in the coming months. With or without
Sept 11, the USA economy was due a bump.
Scott A
> 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
|
|
|
|
