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?
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.
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.
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.
QuoteMoreover, 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.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 17, 2012, 12:49:48 PM
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.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 17, 2012, 12:52:48 PM
QuoteMoreover, 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.
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!!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 17, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 17, 2012, 12:49:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 17, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Gusington on April 17, 2012, 01:14:04 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 17, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
...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.
I hear you on literacy Kev, but don't confuse literacy for intelligence.
Quote from: Gusington on April 17, 2012, 07:33:32 PM
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.
^If you could only see some of the people I ride the train with every day you would not think that common sense is so common. A pure democracy is not a good idea. I like a republic a lot more. On paper at least. That said, as the old adage goes...representative democracy is the worst form of gov't, except for all the others tried from time to time.
I said from the beginning it would have to be a guide for expert technocrats to balance, not a literal pay for services. Frankly the services offered by government should be stable by now, there is no need for constant speeches and rehashing, pretending to do something useful. If something needs a serious change it should be voted on by the people.
You cant say the republic is great then always complain it doesnt work.
Id pick something like this:
| Debt reduction | |
| Defense | |
| Education | |
| Environment | |
| General research | |
| Healthcare | |
| Infrastructure | |
| Medical Research | |
| Pensions | |
| |
| |
America's decline has very little to do with its adventures abroad (though they surely haven't helped), and more to do with the stagnation of its traditional centers of economic power: the middle class, manufacturing, infrastructure, and education. Every year, greater amounts of wealth are concentrated in fewer hands and very little actually "trickles" down. Effective tax rates for the rich and corporations are at historic lows, not to mention outright tax evasion by both. Prices of food, fuel, education, and health continue to increase while incomes remain stagnate for 40 years and home values collapse... only to be scooped up by wealthy banks and investors. So no wonder tax revenues have diminished for years. Meanwhile, there are gross inefficiencies in America's single largest expenditure: defense. Of course, it's decided to purchase more over-priced under-performing aircraft and warships while letting go tens of thousands of soldiers and diminishing their benefits... which means more deployments and tasks for those that do remain, and thus more suicides, divorces, and domestic violence. But that's not enough either, so we also have to cut spending for infrastructure, education, and social services, which means more blackouts, bridge and dike collapses, undetected financial fraud, and out of control speculation in financial markets. If America is in decline, it's not because the American people are immoral, or ignorant (which they might be since education has been de-funded and universities are cost-prohibitive to many families); it's because the power of the country has been eroded from the inside out by financial speculation, privatization schemes, and an all-out assault on the American system.
For a democracy or a republic to work at least at a functional level, the citizens voting need to be aware of the issues that affect them.
Quote from: Gusington on April 17, 2012, 09:04:52 PM
For a democracy or a republic to work at least at a functional level, the citizens voting need to be aware of the issues that affect them.
+2
but that's expecting a lot more than what you are getting now. Rigid voting patterns are a great example of this lack of understanding
^Correct. Which makes me a sad panda. Until I forget about everything by imbibing in the aspects of bread & circuses that I love the most: books, sports, pc games and of course porn. If I didn't have access to those things I'd probably be a 21st century Patrick Henry. Oh well.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 17, 2012, 12:52:48 PM
QuoteMoreover, 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.
IMHO the US has many empires, but they are not government controlled national entities. They are (and have been) government supported corporations like Coca-Cola, Dole, Exxon and McDonalds.
I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'
Quote from: Gusington on April 18, 2012, 10:57:17 AM
I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'
Exxon with guns.
That's awesome.
Yeah I laughed out loud when I first heard that. Wallace is a great writer and a really funny guy.
Quote from: Gusington on April 18, 2012, 10:57:17 AM
I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'
I wonder if the British would have had the same scope of Empire, were it not for corporations like the British East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company?
Quote from: Centurion40 on April 18, 2012, 12:17:15 PM
Quote from: Gusington on April 18, 2012, 10:57:17 AM
I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'
I wonder if the British would have had the same scope of Empire, were it not for corporations like the British East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company?
You ask too many questions.... shut up and skin those beavers
Hehehehe. :D
When you tie making money to growing your empire, that's a recipe for success. Look at New York City...founded to make money.
Quote from: Gusington on April 18, 2012, 12:44:31 PM
When you tie making money to growing your empire, that's a recipe for success. Look at New York City...founded to make money.
Mmmmmm ..... must not forget that an additional driver was 'more taxes' for the crown.
Under the Dutch the tax burden wasn't as harsh as it was under the English, Breezy. The Dutch were admittedly better businessmen.
I wish that history lessons at school had been as interesting as this thread - I might not have been such a dumb git....
...left school at 15, sent up a chimney etc, etc.......
Seriously, this is facinating stuff guys.
Talk about national power behind economic enterprise! Check out the Hudson's Bay Co flag:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6f%2FHudsons_Bay_Company_Flag.svg%2F600px-Hudsons_Bay_Company_Flag.svg.png&hash=969de523b43af8f2a76db8dfa3489525b1311f78)
bob48 wait til we start drinkin'n'postin'...then things get CRAZY
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchzgifs.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Ffunny-gifs-issues-regarding-a-monarchy.gif&hash=cadf0e9c742beebf250504a3b95557022f0ab825)
First of all US is NOT an Empire.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 19, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchzgifs.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Ffunny-gifs-issues-regarding-a-monarchy.gif&hash=cadf0e9c742beebf250504a3b95557022f0ab825)
<chuckle>
They make a good point.
Quote from: Gusington on April 18, 2012, 08:15:52 PM
bob48 wait til we start drinkin'n'postin'...then things get CRAZY
Pass the jug along, Gus.........
^Plenty left in this one. It's my home made brew. Some days I need it more than others. I call it Gus's US Imperial Stout.
........(takes a swig).Hooo...........Nork Rocket Fuel!
Yeah good stuff eh? We don't mess around.
what problems do you see with direct democracy LB? as i happen to live in one, i think of it as a very powerful instrument to restrict the governments power.
I made the comments on direct democracy not being such a great thing [not LB], mainly because the majority of people I see on a daily basis are not educated enough to take the responsibility of democracy seriously.
Quote from: Gusington on April 19, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
I made the comments on direct democracy not being such a great thing [not LB], mainly because the majority of people I see on a daily basis are not educated enough to take the responsibility of democracy seriously.
REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webmastertalkforums.com%2Fattachments%2Flocalized%2F27930_redneck2009.jpg&hash=a5601b275cde231c5560cfb98a10540d32b97081)
^^ above pic
damn but that looks fun though...
^And please note that Breezy agrees with me. So I must be right.
Quote from: Keunert on April 19, 2012, 01:56:30 PM
what problems do you see with direct democracy LB? as i happen to live in one, i think of it as a very powerful instrument to restrict the governments power.
Too easy to act irrationally and/or spur of the moment. Also you can get tyranny of the majority.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 19, 2012, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: Keunert on April 19, 2012, 01:56:30 PM
what problems do you see with direct democracy LB? as i happen to live in one, i think of it as a very powerful instrument to restrict the governments power.
Too easy to act irrationally and/or spur of the moment. Also you can get tyranny of the majority.
its only tyranny if you don't like it
that might be true. on the other hand if you don't like the current course of action of the government you are quick to change that. the threat of this alone keeps a lot in check.
recently we got a lot of strict immigration laws and a ban of minaretts. you may could call that tyranny.
Quote from: Keunert on April 19, 2012, 04:18:34 PM
that might be true. on the other hand if you don't like the current course of action of the government you are quick to change that. the threat of this alone keeps a lot in check.
recently we got a lot of strict immigration laws and a ban of minaretts. you may could call that tyranny.
whats a minaretts?
A steeple for a mosque.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 19, 2012, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: Keunert on April 19, 2012, 01:56:30 PM
what problems do you see with direct democracy LB? as i happen to live in one, i think of it as a very powerful instrument to restrict the governments power.
Too easy to act irrationally and/or spur of the moment. Also you can get tyranny of the majority.
Irrationality is averaged out. If someone decides to attach 100% of their tax contribution to "Cure for Cancer" or "Guns for the military" they contribute what, $20k on a budget of trillions? So what?
If you want people to take some ownership of their part in the country you encourage them to get informed. Knowing what they are paying for is a good way. The real problem is that there are people that want to scoop up the money of everyone else to play with as they want. Frankly I think that is more open to abuse than the alternate method.
A more serious problem is apathy.