1946 Time-Life article on post-WW2 European reconstruction
- Thread starter DemoCoder
- Start date
DemoCoder said:
You are probably too busy insulting me to read what I write, cause I cited some of the Patriot Act and discussed it with someone else.
I'm sorry to disappoint you on this, but you should read "Dei Delitti e Delle Pene", an interesting old book about justice and democracy stating that privacy and fair trials are the main characteristics of every Democracy. I would even point you to many European countries having laws which protect individual privacy.
And since you cite power invested in the people, I'd like to remember you that your current president wasn't elected democratically since the majority of americans didn't vote for it.
You should be a bit more informed before telling ignorant to anyone else, only cause he has a different opinion.
Uh, even if the majority (I don't know the exact number of participants of the election) didn't vote, it's still a democratic election. Just because a majority choose not to vote doesn't mean it wasn't democratic. You could actually make an argument that it has more legitimacy than if, lets say, 90% of the population participated. Since if you assume only the people that are interested in the matter voted, the votes that actually counts are made by educated people instead of votes made people who vote based on looks, popularity or any other retarded reason. Of course the argument goes both ways, since there's a possibility that the ones who know what they're doing chose not to vote, for one reason or another.
Anyway, an easy example of this is the EMU election in Sweden, where I had several friends who voted even though they had no actual knowledge of the matter at hand.
RM. Andersson
Newcomer
fek said:
That was a result of how the election system works. Actually, the same thing could happen in alot of democratic countries.
Different regions have different representation compared to the population in them. This is because regions with few people in a country are intended to get some extra political power. Without that they would have almost no chance to get their special interests on the agenda in parliament.
Well, no, that isn't true either. The last president to be elected by a MAJORITY of the votes was George Bush Sr. The last democratic president to be elected by the MAJORITY of the votes was Carter (and that was a very slight majority).fek said:
It is true that the current president was elected without a PLURALITY, but that isn't required by our constitution (but neither is a majority).
You'd might be more persuasive if you knew what you were talking about.
nelg said:fek said:
I think you are to accustomed to Italian politics.
Heheh... that's a good one
Do we want to talk about what happened in Florida? With a large part of the black people not enlisted for voting even if they had the right to do so?
This is the way the italian fascist party won elections in Italy in the 30's.
I think your TV networks are to persuasive even if they dont know what they are talking about.
Aha, but first, lets change the topic...
You do an amazing job of picking up parts of the story and making up the rest.
The supposed infraction was that there were people erroneously removed from the registered voter lists for being convicted felons when they weren't, and that blacks made up a larger portion of that list than they should have. It certainly wasn't "a large part" of the black population.
Shouldn't you take the hint and make sure you have your facts right before sharing? It would make reasoned discourse so much easier.[/code]
You do an amazing job of picking up parts of the story and making up the rest.
The supposed infraction was that there were people erroneously removed from the registered voter lists for being convicted felons when they weren't, and that blacks made up a larger portion of that list than they should have. It certainly wasn't "a large part" of the black population.
You on the other hand, aren't, even though you share the other quality with them.
Shouldn't you take the hint and make sure you have your facts right before sharing? It would make reasoned discourse so much easier.[/code]
Just read up on the story (yes, even Palast's piece will do) and it will point out that your version of the facts was not the correct one.
fek said:
So what? Go read a new Book, David Brin's "The Transparent Society" Transparency is also the main characteristic of democracies, transparency in government, transparency of court records, and transparency in the economy (credit records, publically traded companies) Democracy and capitalism work best if people make informed decisions, and better decisions are made when there is more free-flow of information.
But that is irrelevent, since the word Democracy if you look it up in, or read about the original Greek conception, did not include a notion to protect privacy. And if you want to quibble, the other countries you refer to are technically not Democracies, but Republics.
Whereas freedom of speech is nearly absolute with few restrictions, the notion of "right to privacy" is rather conflicted and complex. Who has a right to privacy? Surely government doesn't. What about corporations? Businesses? Organizations large? Organizations small?
And what exactly do you have a right to keep private? Your income? Oops, there goes taxes and your welfare state. What you buy? Who you call?
Sorry, but I don't buy "privacy" as a fundamental right in league with the other inalienable rights we have. Privacy is really a restriction on what other people, who have interacted with you, have a right to do with such information. If you send me an email or pay me to make you a widget, I might consider that's MY information, not yours.
Yes, and many European countries have other bad laws, and they are about to ratify a constitution riddled with contradictions too. So what?
Yeah, a bit more informed, such as knowing the difference between a Majority and a Plurality, or Democracy and Republic.
Or the difference between Hyperbole and fact. Which, as you recall, this thread started because of your assertion of equivalence between the US and Nazis. That alone is enough to disqualify you from debate in most circles.
Godwin's Law: Plonk.
L233 said:
The 14 (about) Iraq resolutions were passed under chapter 7 of the UN. Chapter 7 CLEARLY allows the use of force to enforce them.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
The second resolution the US tried to get passed was just to appease some of the europeans.
As a side not, have you seen this?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/24/sprj.irq.donors/index.html
"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said Thursday. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."
Germany and France are going to be left out of the new Iraq (businesswise). I will admit this makes me laugh.
Actually, demo, if that's the point you're arguing then you are making fek's case for him, (or her, I don't think I've seen a definate reference).
The situations described actually allow the government to be more opaque in its actions. People can be held for longer periods of time without being charged. People can have their phones tapped without cause. It requires citizens to be be transparent in their actions to government, but not the other way around. That kind of transparency is the exact opposite of what you describe as being healthy for democracy.
The situations described actually allow the government to be more opaque in its actions. People can be held for longer periods of time without being charged. People can have their phones tapped without cause. It requires citizens to be be transparent in their actions to government, but not the other way around. That kind of transparency is the exact opposite of what you describe as being healthy for democracy.
No, both sides need to be transparent. The only really troubling parts of the patriot act are the secrecy provisions and anti-due process, not the roving wire taps, voice mail taps, pen register taps, or third party record searches. These are just upgrades to the law to deal with modern information society and the variety of ways that people "leak" information. Before databases, the government would just use HUMINT to track individuals. It just so happens that's now automatable.
There is nothing anti-freedom or anti-democratic about having someone record data about you. It is how they USE that data against you (e.g. arrest you, harass you) that are anti-freedom.
Our future is a future of ubiquituous computing. As transistors shrink, and computer technology becomes cheaper, more and more computation and recording devices get embedded into our environment.
Already, you are seeing the beginings with camera phones, and soon, camera video recorders. They are limited by battery and storage now, but won't be in the future. In 20 years, it will cost next to $0 to put a micro-minature recording device with long storage capacity into anything you want, clothes, cars, lamps, buildings. There won't be anywhere you can go, except for the privacy of your own home, and perhaps public bathrooms, where you are not subject to people recording your activities or conversation.
In fact, I fully expect "augmented reality" devices to give people their own "personal tivo" that allows them pretty much to record everything they see or hear on a daily basis.
Moreover, as more and more of our transactions become paperless and automated, more and more of our communications and economic behavior will be subject to databasing, analysis, and trading. No matter how many laws you pass, this is irreversable. The EU can enshrine this into their constitution if they want, but nothing will stop people from collecting, analysing, and trading info about other people. At best, laws will prevent large organizations from doing it, but won't prevent "open source" sharing. As the costs for doing these activities goes to near zero, the enforcement goes to next to impossible.
Privacy is not a requirement for an open, fair, democratic, and civil society. In the past, it has been useful, because people were often persecuted for their private behaviors and speech. Restrict the government from using people's information to persecute them, and make sure everything the government does is open (after a reasonable period of time), so that everyone can follow their progress.
The patriot act DOES specify that the government has to divulge information after a period of time, the problem is, it's not specific enough, so Ashcroft has used this leeway to his advantage.
The government should definately not be allowed to hold people without charge and "disappear them" for months or years until the investigation is over.
There is nothing anti-freedom or anti-democratic about having someone record data about you. It is how they USE that data against you (e.g. arrest you, harass you) that are anti-freedom.
Our future is a future of ubiquituous computing. As transistors shrink, and computer technology becomes cheaper, more and more computation and recording devices get embedded into our environment.
Already, you are seeing the beginings with camera phones, and soon, camera video recorders. They are limited by battery and storage now, but won't be in the future. In 20 years, it will cost next to $0 to put a micro-minature recording device with long storage capacity into anything you want, clothes, cars, lamps, buildings. There won't be anywhere you can go, except for the privacy of your own home, and perhaps public bathrooms, where you are not subject to people recording your activities or conversation.
In fact, I fully expect "augmented reality" devices to give people their own "personal tivo" that allows them pretty much to record everything they see or hear on a daily basis.
Moreover, as more and more of our transactions become paperless and automated, more and more of our communications and economic behavior will be subject to databasing, analysis, and trading. No matter how many laws you pass, this is irreversable. The EU can enshrine this into their constitution if they want, but nothing will stop people from collecting, analysing, and trading info about other people. At best, laws will prevent large organizations from doing it, but won't prevent "open source" sharing. As the costs for doing these activities goes to near zero, the enforcement goes to next to impossible.
Privacy is not a requirement for an open, fair, democratic, and civil society. In the past, it has been useful, because people were often persecuted for their private behaviors and speech. Restrict the government from using people's information to persecute them, and make sure everything the government does is open (after a reasonable period of time), so that everyone can follow their progress.
The patriot act DOES specify that the government has to divulge information after a period of time, the problem is, it's not specific enough, so Ashcroft has used this leeway to his advantage.
The government should definately not be allowed to hold people without charge and "disappear them" for months or years until the investigation is over.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Businesses without an inside track into the White House would be denied access, European or otherwise. How else would Halliburton be allowed to import gasoline into Iraq and charge the US taxpayer $1.59 a gallon? And with one of the first executive orders by the US Administration of Iraq privatizing virtually everything at firesale prices, of course they're going to bar European countries. If the Europeans were allowed in, you'd have a bidding war for Iraqi assets and that's the last thing companies like Bechtel want...
The 'exclusion' of European countries by the Americans and their Iraqi subjects doesn't come as any real surprise to anyone. I, and a great many others, actually predicted it before the war started.
That must be why a non US company won the contracts to build the cellular infrastructure.
Willmeister
Newcomer
If I recall, the cellular infrastructure in Iraq will create a 'black hole' in the region since the rest of the region has adopted CDMA (or is it TDMA or GSM or whatever) the Europe and the Middle East use...
Anyway, subcontracting can be legally undertaken by non-US firms since they don't have 'clearance' to get the primary contracts...
Anyway, subcontracting can be legally undertaken by non-US firms since they don't have 'clearance' to get the primary contracts...
Similar threads
- Locked
