Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
It is interesting to observe that in Europe among the most stable,
democratic and long-benign countries it is the monarchies that stand out.
And in Spain it was the king who personally (at great risk to his life)
stood up to rioting generals in parliament and prevented a coup and
reversion to right-wing dicatorship from happening.
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"greek_philosophizer" <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137184064.959140.235540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> There is nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy.
> It has 4 pillars unlike the USA's 3 pilars of government.
> It is better.
>
> I could use a Maybach.
>
> .
>
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:45:41 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>It is interesting to observe that in Europe among the most stable,
>democratic and long-benign countries it is the monarchies that stand out.
>
>And in Spain it was the king who personally (at great risk to his life)
>stood up to rioting generals in parliament and prevented a coup and
>reversion to right-wing dicatorship from happening.
>
>DAS
>
Ok, I'll bite
China has a stable leadership. The USSR had a stable leadership.
Through "great" leadership China even recently prevented a coup which
would have thrown the country potentially into democracy !
A long running Monarchy /Feudal based society is more indicative of a
society comprised of compliant/subserviant "subjects" than of any
inherent benefits of a particular system.
I believe in God, but I don't believe that God decides via birth who
should lead a country (which is the whole basis of Monarchies and
Class/Cast based systems).
Government leadership should be a short term job based upon ability
not a birth order designated opulent lifestyle. (though for Prince
Phillip it's been a decent gig all in all).
I admire the Spanish King risking his life to protect his and his
families lifestyle.
What always puzzles me about class supporters is that they tend to
support freeloaders and oppose innovators or hard workers.
Talk to many British class supporters and they are mortified at the
through of Ozzy Ozborne being regarded as upper class, but are quite
comfortable with his older pretty slimmer daughter being described as
such. (and thousands of other similar such examples).
As for 4 pillars... The US system is based upon a Congress, Senate,
President, Independent Judiciary and a FREE Press. Isn't that 5?
The UK has an appointed / inherited house of "lords" (not surfs),
In my mind the most important piece of legislation is the amendment to
the US constitution is the right to bear arms (helps to keep the
government "of the people").
It's interesting that the US and Switzerland both have an obligation
of an armed citizenry and a high standard of living with a relatively
small degree of autocratic rule (No Poll tax attempts for example :-).
Dictatorships are very averse to the responsible members of society
being armed. Oddly enough, so too are most constitutional Monarchy's
(which results in only criminals and government agents being armed).
At least the US impeaches it person at the top occasionally (we might
even see it again soon). Tends not to happen in Constitutional
monarchies.
It used to be (not sure if it still is) that a member of parliament
couldn't' even be charged with a crime.
I'd write more but I've gotta run.
Long Live the rubber stamper to the elected dictators.
This is 'degenerating' into a major intellectual and political discussion
which will require several glasses of Chateaux Margaux, so I'll just respond
to your first paragraph, which shows that you chose to go down 'your' path
based on only a partial consideration of what I said.
I said long-term, and I said democratic and benign.
China fails on all counts. The USSR/Russia before and after failed/fails on
all counts.
Try 150 - 200 years. Try Sweden, Norway, Denmark, UK, The Netherlands...
Actually, in the context of the time, Prussia (run by an emperor) was not
such an awful place either. In fact, Bismarck in effect invented the
modern social democratic state.
As regards the bearing of arms, any parallel between the USA and CH is a bit
fat-fetched.
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"joe schmoe" <me@virgin.not> wrote in message
news:vd8is1dsfhedjf29ecre9fmjgtgdb4u0n1@4ax.com...
[...]
>
> Ok, I'll bite
>
> China has a stable leadership. The USSR had a stable leadership.
> Through "great" leadership China even recently prevented a coup which
> would have thrown the country potentially into democracy !
[...]
Sorry, not social democratic, I meant social welfare...
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16OdnTo2TPFh5VTeRVnyrg@pipex.net...
> This is 'degenerating' into a major intellectual and political discussion
> which will require several glasses of Chateaux Margaux, so I'll just
> respond to your first paragraph, which shows that you chose to go down
> 'your' path based on only a partial consideration of what I said.
>
> I said long-term, and I said democratic and benign.
>
> China fails on all counts. The USSR/Russia before and after failed/fails
> on all counts.
>
> Try 150 - 200 years. Try Sweden, Norway, Denmark, UK, The Netherlands...
>
> Actually, in the context of the time, Prussia (run by an emperor) was not
> such an awful place either. In fact, Bismarck in effect invented the
> modern social democratic state.
>
> As regards the bearing of arms, any parallel between the USA and CH is a
> bit fat-fetched.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "joe schmoe" <me@virgin.not> wrote in message
> news:vd8is1dsfhedjf29ecre9fmjgtgdb4u0n1@4ax.com...
> [...]
>>
>> Ok, I'll bite
>>
>> China has a stable leadership. The USSR had a stable leadership.
>> Through "great" leadership China even recently prevented a coup which
>> would have thrown the country potentially into democracy !
> [...]
>
>
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> It is interesting to observe that in Europe among the most stable,
> democratic and long-benign countries it is the monarchies that stand out.
>
> And in Spain it was the king who personally (at great risk to his life)
> stood up to rioting generals in parliament and prevented a coup and
> reversion to right-wing dicatorship from happening.
That is a fine example of the stabilizing force a monarch can effect.
It is a good thing to have a governmental component that has a very
long
term interest in the welfare of the state and does not have to beg for
the
position every few years.
There are a few American Presidents who would have benefited from
someone looking over their shoulder.
joe schmoe wrote:
>
>
> As for 4 pillars... The US system is based upon a Congress, Senate,
> President, Independent Judiciary and a FREE Press. Isn't that 5?
> The UK has an appointed / inherited house of "lords" (not surfs),
>
Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer.
The USA and most pure democracies have a 3 pillar system -
executive, legislative and judicial. The USA legislative branch is the
Senate and House of Representatives.
A constitutional monarchy is a 4 pillar system - monarch,
executive, legislative and judicial. The UK legislative branch
consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The monarch is a stabilizing force that is there if needed but
does not normally exert much control.
The House of Lords is our 'Supreme Court' as well although there has been
talk of a reform.
Unfortunately we now have something very 'un-British' and sinister, an
equivalent to a department/ministry of justice (Department for
Constitutional Affairs)
However, a separate supreme court for the whole of the UK may not be such a
bad idea, given the grip any prime minister has on the country.
I don't know if you have heard the epithet used to describe the UK system:
elected dictatorship
If the Lords disagree with the government (e.g. throwing out the
government's identity card proposals three times in the past week) the
government can (and does) ultimately override the Lords. Ok, the Lords are
not elected (not even indirectly), but that could be dealt with, but an
independent court could be a good thing.
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"greek_philosophizer" <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137518675.720215.113530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
[...]
>
> Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer.
>
> The USA and most pure democracies have a 3 pillar system -
> executive, legislative and judicial. The USA legislative branch is the
> Senate and House of Representatives.
>
> A constitutional monarchy is a 4 pillar system - monarch,
> executive, legislative and judicial. The UK legislative branch
> consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
>
> The monarch is a stabilizing force that is there if needed but
> does not normally exert much control.
>
> .
>
> .
>
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> The House of Lords is our 'Supreme Court' as well although there has been
> talk of a reform.
>
> Unfortunately we now have something very 'un-British' and sinister, an
> equivalent to a department/ministry of justice (Department for
> Constitutional Affairs)
>
> http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/supremecourt/
>
> However, a separate supreme court for the whole of the UK may not be such a
> bad idea, given the grip any prime minister has on the country.
>
> I don't know if you have heard the epithet used to describe the UK system:
> elected dictatorship
>
> If the Lords disagree with the government (e.g. throwing out the
> government's identity card proposals three times in the past week) the
> government can (and does) ultimately override the Lords. Ok, the Lords are
> not elected (not even indirectly), but that could be dealt with, but an
> independent court could be a good thing.
>
> The Lords objected to the Supreme Court
> http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...8&id=274072004
Nice links.
Since I am not British my opinion is not relevent but from what
little
I understand of the subject there is a widespread belief that the
current
system works fine and I would hope that they are cautious and avoid
making
things worse out of some desire to conform to a foreign ideal.
On 17 Jan 2006 09:05:59 -0800, "greek_philosophizer"
<greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>There are a few American Presidents who would have benefited from
>someone looking over their shoulder.
>
I think that a system of recall (like the State of California has)
would be very beneficial for keeping the politicians focused upon whom
the boss is.
Or copying the French lead during their revolution. However in that
system be headings have to occur at least 1x per generation to prevent
any notions of invulnerability
It depends on who you ask and what he/she knows as to how fine the system
works.
It may interest you to know that an increasing number of cases, particularly
human rights ones, are referred to the European Court, i.e. outside the UK,
but the UK government has to abide by its decisions.
The problem is not always in the present, but in the future. Tony Blair and
some of his ministers have great dictatorial tendencies and have, e.g., used
"9/11" to introduce draconian measures that can have nasty effects on
personal liberty (I realise this is not confined to Britain). It took
massive effort to get sunset clauses introduced. Thus we need systems to
protect us from a prime minister who might turn nasty.
Now we have the identity card business. We don't have any and now the
government wants one which will probably also wind up being compulsory. One
of the arguments is security and fraud reduction, but I have not seen any
evidence where this really works. Any criminal can forge ID cards. Indeed,
some years ago I read in Germany that the ID card there was worse than
useless. Admittedly, technology has moved on and, I suppose, such a card
can be made harder to forge. And will I have to show my address? If so,
why the heck should I have to tell anybody when I move and to where I move?
Enough authorities need to know this already. And no, I don't want a
central database, thank you...
Compulsory cards that maybe you have to have on your person at all times
(like in some European and other countries) I personally find an appalling
concept. Right now I even have 5 days (or is it 7?) in which to produce my
car driving licence and insurance note. The other documents needed -- the
proof of having paid the annual vehicle excise duty (the payment for keeping
a vehicle on public roads) -- needs to be available at all times but it is
stuck to the windscreen so it is visible (and I don't have to carry it).
One of the problems with the House of Lords (the upper house of parliament)
is that the present government started a reform which, in itself, was quite
worthy but was started in a half-baked manner and never completed. They
don't even have a plan on how to continue. Almost all the hereditary peers
were booted out but not replaced with anybody. In the meantime there are
twice(?)-yearly appointments of people who may be worthy but many of whom
are just political time-servers.
Whilst I recognise that you can't have two equally-elected chambers you
would think they could devise a system taking ideas, for example, from the
USA or Germany. We have regional and local government; why not produce
delegates to an Upper House from that, at least in part? Now that we have a
Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament, why can't they elect some
delegates? Etc etc.
Here endeth the rant.
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"greek_philosophizer" <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137521909.575612.316220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>
> Nice links.
>
> Since I am not British my opinion is not relevent but from what
> little
> I understand of the subject there is a widespread belief that the
> current
> system works fine and I would hope that they are cautious and avoid
> making
> things worse out of some desire to conform to a foreign ideal.
>
> I could use an SLR.
>
> .
>
Linear Mode
