U.S. 2012 = U.K. 1945?

[Gusington]

I didn't agree with everything in this article but I do tend to agree with it's main idea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/opinion/echoes-of-the-end-of-the-raj.html?hpw

...that the U.S. position in the world looks a lot like the U.K.'s two generations ago. What say you all?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

The desire for world domination is misguided to begin with. It is doomed to fail. It always has, always will.


More importantly the reach of the internet provides instant communication rendering the need for representative government obsolete. The 1700s are over. Governments will shrink becoming more like the Greek city states. Large national power will only be for mutual defence.

[Gusington]

I argue with both your points.

There were many evils perpetrated by the British Empire, but there were also many areas of the world that were much better off for being part of it...definitely better off than if they were not part of the empire.

Secondly, the internet may be a great thing but it is only a tool. It does not supply people with water or medicine. It doesn't ship actual goods from one place to another.  Representative government will become more important than ever.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm talking about local run government. All government services are provided locally. I don't go to a hospital in Ottawa. I don't get fire/ police/ ambulance from Ottawa. Nor water or electricity or gas. The roads are also repaired by local government.


I say cut federal tax that they transfer back to the province. I dont want to pay for the extra clerks. It should be a provincial tax.


As for the British Empire spanning the globe, it was a doomed dream of people wanting great statues of themselves. They are fools.

[LongBlade]

Moreover, Britain, which so proudly ruled the waves a generation ago, was tired; it lacked the willpower to pursue its imperial destiny. America's role as an imperialist is even more fragile, as it never had Britain's self-confident faith in its own imperial destiny. Americans have always been ambivalent about the role of global hegemon.

I typed up a long reply, but frankly it can be answered easily - the entire article is based on the false premise that the US has an empire.

As for rising or falling, much of that is due to two things: lack of desire to lead by the current leadership and a lack of money caused by the current and previous leadership.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm talking about local run government. All government services are provided locally. I don't go to a hospital in Ottawa. I don't get fire/ police/ ambulance from Ottawa. Nor water or electricity or gas. The roads are also repaired by local government.


I say cut federal tax that they transfer back to the province. I dont want to pay for the extra clerks. It should be a provincial tax.


As for the British Empire spanning the globe, it was a doomed dream of people wanting great statues of themselves. They are fools.

Fools that exerted global dominance for a few hundred years.  At least give credit where credit is due.

What freaky world are you living in exactly?  Representative government of obsolete?  Surely you can't be arguing that a system of government where leaders are elected by the people is obsolete...that makes no sense. And since when is government shrinking?  From my perspective, its only getting bigger and the world is headed towards a one world government...for better or for worse...local government, at least in the states, is largely bankrupt.  Counties would cease to function if State and Federal money was withdrawn.

[mirth]

Moreover, Britain, which so proudly ruled the waves a generation ago, was tired; it lacked the willpower to pursue its imperial destiny. America's role as an imperialist is even more fragile, as it never had Britain's self-confident faith in its own imperial destiny. Americans have always been ambivalent about the role of global hegemon.

I typed up a long reply, but frankly it can be answered easily - the entire article is based on the false premise that the US has an empire.

I agree and I didn't think much of the article. The comparison between 1945 Britain and the current US world position is thin at best.

[Gusington]

It's a little better than thin in my eyes.

The US is at a stress point from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places for the last 70 years. There's no money left and less of a will to be the world's cop anymore. The US took the helm for the UK in 1945...now it is being passed again. To whom exactly will take years to find out.

LB - the US has been an empire in all but name since WWII, simply through the fact that there has only been one power to check American dominance since 1945: the Soviet Union. And since 1989 the US has been the sole power to project a large force around the world. Militarily, culturally and financially, the US is/was an empire.

Americans may not have had the drive like the British did to BE an empire...American values, as stated in the article, tend to reject the traditional idea of empire. But that doesn't mean we are not/were not, an empire.

And Kev, without the British Empire, where would Canada be now? Speaking only French? The horror!!

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm talking about local run government. All government services are provided locally. I don't go to a hospital in Ottawa. I don't get fire/ police/ ambulance from Ottawa. Nor water or electricity or gas. The roads are also repaired by local government.


I say cut federal tax that they transfer back to the province. I dont want to pay for the extra clerks. It should be a provincial tax.


As for the British Empire spanning the globe, it was a doomed dream of people wanting great statues of themselves. They are fools.

Fools that exerted global dominance for a few hundred years.  At least give credit where credit is due.

What freaky world are you living in exactly?  Representative government of obsolete?  Surely you can't be arguing that a system of government where leaders are elected by the people is obsolete...that makes no sense. And since when is government shrinking?  From my perspective, its only getting bigger and the world is headed towards a one world government...for better or for worse...local government, at least in the states, is largely bankrupt.  Counties would cease to function if State and Federal money was withdrawn.

The point of a representative back then was it took time for the horse carriage to get the will of the people to the decision makers. Therefore someone with the local perspective was sent to live in the capital. Now the people can send their position on any issue instantly. Sure the existing system will stay mainly because the people in the existing system like their power. That is not the same as saying it is still required to carry out the will of the people. It is not. Most people just cant see it.


It should be the fall of dictators everywhere.

[LongBlade]

The point of a representative back then was it took time for the horse carriage to get the will of the people to the decision makers. Therefore someone with the local perspective was sent to live in the capital. Now the people can send their position on any issue instantly. Sure the existing system will stay mainly because the people in the existing system like their power. That is not the same as saying it is still required to carry out the will of the people. It is not. Most people just cant see it.


It should be the fall of dictators everywhere.

Not sure what you're arguing here, but there are good reasons why a republic is preferable to a direct democracy.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

It's a little better than thin in my eyes.

The US is at a stress point from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places for the last 70 years. There's no money left and less of a will to be the world's cop anymore. The US took the helm for the UK in 1945...now it is being passed again. To whom exactly will take years to find out.

LB - the US has been an empire in all but name since WWII, simply through the fact that there has only been one power to check American dominance since 1945: the Soviet Union. And since 1989 the US has been the sole power to project a large force around the world. Militarily, culturally and financially, the US is/was an empire.

Americans may not have had the drive like the British did to BE an empire...American values, as stated in the article, tend to reject the traditional idea of empire. But that doesn't mean we are not/were not, an empire.

Agree.


History cannot be revised, the point is what is the best way to run government going forward given new technology. Anyone running a business with typewriters and slide rules would be bankrupt. Yet people are happy to let their countries become bankrupt based on old models of doing things.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Ive said it before, I'll say it again. These days, with a literate population, people should assign their tax dollars to services provided or new services offered. You will very quickly see if there is a disconnect between what the people think is important and what the cronies want to do.


There should be a menu system of services offered. People assign their taxes to it. It cannot be the last say as bureaucrats need to remove the damage of shifts from year to year. One thing there is no doubt of, if everyone goes for a few things and a few others are unfunded it should go to referendum in future years to decide their fate with vastly changed budgets.

[OJsDad]

...local government, at least in the states, is largely bankrupt.  Counties would cease to function if State and Federal money was withdrawn.

I will both agree and disagree with you on local governments.  Yes, they are still struggling with money issues, but most of those issues are getting straightened out.  Too many years local leaders could offer a lot of services at little tax rate because they were getting subsidised on the basics by the States and Feds.  Today, the States don't have the money to waste.  Therefore, its the local population that needs to decide if they want to pay more in local taxes to keep the same level of services.  The real questions though, are the States and Feds ready to cut taxes so locals can decide on their own, and are States and Feds ready to give up control, ie regulations, so local governments can cut costs.  Ask the school districts that are in the Race to the Top program.  More and more requirements keep getting added, but no more money is being provided to pay for those requirements.  Oh, and don't bother trying to get out of the program, everyone is going to have to follow the requirements, just there wont' be any more money for them to pay for it.

[Gusington]

I hear you on literacy Kev, but don't confuse literacy for intelligence.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I hear you on literacy Kev, but don't confuse literacy for intelligence.

You would rather rely on the intelligence of the politicians? They spend more time practising their smile and handshake than reading the bills they know they would never understand. It's not so bad here, I don't think we get the 1000 page bills woven by the best industry lawyers anyone can afford. Designed to obfuscate. Frankly the politicians don't have a chance. They are happy to be told what their policy should say.


If it is something that has to be distilled down to simple line items that people can choose to pay for, its far more likely common sense will be injected back into government. Sadly it will not happen.