Beer Bellies Banned?

AnyOldIron II said:
Luxembourg and Ireland have many times less of a population than Britian and are quite much better off than you are financially, actually. I guess you guys just think they're too liberal? Have to impose your authoritarian lack of ANY civil rights on them?

Much better off? Are you sure, when we have the 4th / 5th largest economy in the world?

Lack of any civil rights? We virtually invented the idea. Imagine the US Bill of Rights without the Magna Carta?

Our unwritten constitution has enshrined civil rights to the extent that the comparison between the English notion of personal freedom has been contrasted to continental tyranny since the Civil war...
Click to expand...

Any, do you realize how stupid a statistical statement your first point is? You have several times the economy with 20 times more people. WOOT! What really matters is per capita. You have a bunch of money, but far more people to split it amongst than they do. Ireland makes 10K more per a person than your average British citizen, and Luxembourg makes like 30K more. Luxembourg even makes more per a person than the US.

Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

You don't have an "unwritten constitution", you have no constitution. If you want a constitution, write it down. Even you have to admit, it at least can't hurt.
 
I mean, Any, by your definition the average Chinese citizen is MUCH better off than the average British citizen, being that their TOTAL economy is 4 times bigger.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Probably, being that practically all political philosophers were French at the time. There was Tom Locke. But he was British AND a founding father.

Yup, French and British philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Paine....
Click to expand...

Rousseau was an idiot. He had no effect on our constitiuon. His greatest effect was causing the followers of his philosophy to turn France into a virtual dictatorship. You can't be "forced to be free".

Paine was an American.

Locke died before America came into existence.

Good thing we had the pragmatism to enshrine their ideas into a definite, written constitution, rather than leaving it as a vague "unwritten constitution" that can be overriden at any time for whatever reason the legislature feels necessary.
 
Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

And what prevents the US government from acting unconstitionally, aside from the threat of an uprising of the people?
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

And what prevents the US government from acting unconstitionally, aside from the threat of an uprising of the people?
Click to expand...

It would be far, far more inconvenient, and has so far happened much more rarely.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

And what prevents the US government from acting unconstitionally, aside from the threat of an uprising of the people?
Click to expand...
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.
 
Paine was an American.

No, he was British, born in Thetford, Norfolk..

He travelled to the colonies, wrote 'Common Sense' inspired the revolution, fell out with the new US leadership, went to revolutionary France, fell out with the leadership, was imprisoned, released and came back to the US to die...

Locke died before America came into existence.

Does that prevent him being an inspiration to the US?

Rousseau was an idiot. He had no effect on our constitiuon. His greatest effect was causing the followers of his philosophy to turn France into a virtual dictatorship. You can't be "forced to be free".

He wasn't an idiot even though you might disagree with parts of his writing. His notion that sovereignty can only be held by the people was an inspiration for the overturning of autocratic rule of kings that France had, for so long been known for.

All violent revolutions lead to tyranny, it is in the nature of violent revolutions.
 
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

And we have checks and balances too, but the underlying fact that prevents any authoritarian rule is the threat of an uprising of the people. Checks and balances are pointless unless the people enforce them. They can simply be brushed aside if the people aren't vigilent.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

And we have checks and balances too, but the underlying fact that prevents any authoritarian rule is the threat of an uprising of the people. Checks and balances are pointless unless the people enforce them. They can simply be brushed aside if the people aren't vigilent.
Click to expand...

Yep. Which is why we need our guns and free speech. Any adulteration of these rights is an act of hostility against the people.
 
Yep. Which is why we need our guns and free speech. Any adulteration of these rights is an act of hostility against the people.

Guns won't help.

What use will you be with your small arms against a fully trained and armed modern army?

Only power of numbers can do it...
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Yep. Which is why we need our guns and free speech. Any adulteration of these rights is an act of hostility against the people.

Guns won't help.

What use will you be with your small arms against a fully trained and armed modern army?

Only power of numbers can do it...
Click to expand...
The fully trained and modern army are part of the populace, it would be difficult indeed to get all of them on the same side.
 
The fully trained and modern army are part of the populace, it would be difficult indeed to get all of them on the same side.

Instant civil war....
 
AnyOldIron II said:
The fully trained and modern army are part of the populace, it would be difficult indeed to get all of them on the same side.

Instant civil war....
Click to expand...
And?

Another larger point, you can already see how arms and patience can make a difference with a lesser-armed group. Time and again we have seen it. In VN, in Iraq...
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Paine was an American.

No, he was British, born in Thetford, Norfolk..

He travelled to the colonies, wrote 'Common Sense' inspired the revolution, fell out with the new US leadership, went to revolutionary France, fell out with the leadership, was imprisoned, released and came back to the US to die...

Locke died before America came into existence.

Does that prevent him being an inspiration to the US?

Rousseau was an idiot. He had no effect on our constitiuon. His greatest effect was causing the followers of his philosophy to turn France into a virtual dictatorship. You can't be "forced to be free".

He wasn't an idiot even though you might disagree with parts of his writing. His notion that sovereignty can only be held by the people was an inspiration for the overturning of autocratic rule of kings that France had, for so long been known for.

All violent revolutions lead to tyranny, it is in the nature of violent revolutions.
Click to expand...

France was better off under Louis the dictator than Robespierre and the reign of terror Rousseau inspired, honestly.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

And we have checks and balances too, but the underlying fact that prevents any authoritarian rule is the threat of an uprising of the people. Checks and balances are pointless unless the people enforce them. They can simply be brushed aside if the people aren't vigilent.
Click to expand...

What checks? What balances? Anything the government wants, it gets.

In America, it's difficult to get something unconstitutional passed, even if a vast majority of the populace want it (there is actually a large amount of people that think that free speech goes "too far"). Not so in Britian.
 
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?
 
Watermark said:
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?
Click to expand...

Just out of interest is there much preventing Bush using his "wartime powers" to suspend the Constitution and assume executive power on a sine die basis?

There seem to be an awful lot of political coves jibber-jabbering about it on the internets.
 
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?

You are assuming here that because protections are written down they are more strongly held convictions.

The protections of individual rights (something Britain has been reknowned for for centuries in comparison to continental tyranny) is conducted by a complex system of common law, case history, parliamentary checks and balances, but ultimately, in both cases, what really protects individual rights is the determination and indignation of the people.


Whether the protection is codified or not, the duty to uphold and protect always lies with the people.
 
France was better off under Louis the dictator than Robespierre and the reign of terror Rousseau inspired, honestly.

Hardly. The reign of terror was something the French had to endure to release itself from centuries of absolute monarchy to become the free secular Republic it is today...

Similar things occurred during our civil war the century before, where we rejected absolute monarchy and killed the absolute monarch and his friends...
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?

You are assuming here that because protections are written down they are more strongly held convictions.

The protections of individual rights (something Britain has been reknowned for for centuries in comparison to continental tyranny) is conducted by a complex system of common law, case history, parliamentary checks and balances, but ultimately, in both cases, what really protects individual rights is the determination and indignation of the people.


Whether the protection is codified or not, the duty to uphold and protect always lies with the people.
Click to expand...
For centuries? Yeah.... So what was that Ghandi Fellow all upset about then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top