I am not from the UK but live in another country with gun control. I have never been exposed to a crime that involved a gun, nor have ever heard from a friend or relative that they had made any such experience. You hear about it only on the national news a couple of times a year, because they are such rare incidents and always get a lot of media attention. The public reaction to crimes involving guns, is always the same: The polls show that people want even tighter gun control.
As I was pointing out in my earlier posting I don't think that gun control could work in the USA because in the USA there are already to many guns in circulation. Fortunately for my society we have not crossed that line and hopefully never will. So as far as I am concerned live happily ever after with your guns. I am just glad that I don't need one in my hometown in order to feel save no matter where, or at what time, in whatever neighborhood.
The USA was founded by a bunch of 'nuts' who carefully crafted its constitution to prevent that very same government from becoming the same sort of tyranny(s) that they fled before. And for that, I thank them
There is no doubt that these "nuts" deserve the greatest praise, having shown the world that a more free, secularly organized society can function on the greatest scale. Yet, I can not help but feel that the process how a president gets elected could need some adjustment. I think it doesn't make all that much sense anymore, that the importance of your weight entirely depends on where you live. It is like the USA were the first to implement a working system for a democratic society, lets say v1.0. Most other civilized countries are now running version 5.x with lots of cool new features but the USA never bothered to update.
I really should get back working on my project, so I'll try to keep this reply fairly short.
In electoral demographics, your electorate looks much the same as the US - large blocs, with a swing component. I wonder how much of this is due to the 1-choice election system that we share.
Actually I simplified a bit, there are after all two more smaller blocks the liberal/libertarian party (more libertarian than liberal but not 100%) and the Greens, both hover around 10% and one of them is always in the government. I think a party system like this gives the electorate more influence to determine the political agenda. When the Green for the first time got into the parliament in the 80s this was quite a shock for the established parties and all of a sudden they all started to pay lip service to ecological issues.
In a representative system like in the US or the UK you do not get this kind of dynamics. That is why there are actually many politicians in the UK advocating to adopt a proportional election system as well.
I very much sympathize with libertarian ideas. Personal freedom is what I value the most, but I recognize that society has to be allowed to establish borders for personal freedom and ecological issues provide a good example why. Let's pick a simple example, government regulations of toxic substances. I think there are many substance where a warning label is not good enough.
So yes, I think there are areas were the society through government as a proxy should enforce certain rules. Banking services are a gray area. It reminds me of a discussion I had with our gardener when I was a kid. My father is a physician and always argued that all health insurance should be organized like the private health insurances (if you earn above a certain threshold or are self-employed you are free to chose a free health insurance instead of a governmental program). The private health insurance does not process the billing rather you pay the doctor's bills and collect the money at the end of the year from your insurance. The governmental insurances on the other hand also takes care of the billing process i.e. the patient just receives the treatment and does not have to worry a bit about billing and paying. The logic behind this - that is what our gardener pointed out to me - is that the affluent and educated are smart enough to take care of this themselves, but he said he knew a lot of people who while being great garden laborers are simply to disorganized to be trusted to process such a billing and reclaiming process for themselves.
So our government indeed assumes the role you described: Takes care of them as a doctor or a nurse would, and without their consent if they are unqualified to give it.
From my point of view the key is to find the right balance i.e. when am I qualified enough to make my own decisions? As an academic I don't have much reason to complain, but this country is certainly much more of a regulatory hell for somebody who doesn't hold these kind of degrees, and our economy could benefit immensely if we thru a lot of those out.
But coming back to your banking example I must admit that I'd not be very comfortable if I had to ask every time I open an account if they are governmental certified. If I open a checking account I very much like the idea that my balance is governmental guaranteed no questions asked.
Taxes are of course a touchy issue: inherent to the notion of taxes is the idea that society has a right to your property (land tax) and the fruits of your labor (income tax, sales tax from the seller's perspective).
Property tax is actually unconstitutional in Germany, so we don't have that one. The other taxes are all "hidden" i.e. the sales tax is already included in the price tag, the income tax in deducted from you paycheck before the cash is electronically transferred to your checking account. If you are employed your are in tax filling heaven, because you do not have to file anything, if
Thanks for such a long elaborate posting. I did enjoy reading it, although I feel I may have misled you a little bit by my choice of words. When I wrote "raison d'etre" I didn't literally mean that this is how governments came into being rather than how I think a good government should think of itself (as well as how citizens should approach their government in a democratic society: As being the ultimate sovereign blessed with birth-rights that the government has to live up to).
Regarding your questions:
1) I split this up in two chunks, because there is the form that a government takes and then there is the regular election process. The latter of course happens quite regularly, but the former is fundamentally more important.
a) Our current form of government in Germany was determined by an assembly that tried very hard to make sure that the 2nd republic wouldn't fail as miserably as the 1st one. Since then there were some slight adjustments, regarding the size of the parliament for instance, and clarifications regarding the balance of power between German states and the federal government. But there has been one overarching most important process: More and more power has been going to the EU and its institutions (the EU commission and parliament). This process has been progressing steadily over many years, so than many people still do not realize how much power has been stripped from the federal government and now lies with the EU.
b) Our last elected German government came to pass as the typical mix of different stances of competing parties were evaluated by the people who bothered to vote. The last German election was especially interesting, because it was clear that it'll be a tight race. Every vote counts the same (no such thing as an electorate college) and goes to the party of choice. It was quite clear that we were to get a coalition government (e.g. two parties have to combine to get a majority in the parliament). I traditionally vote for one of the smaller outfits, the party with the kind of political agenda closest to mine, so that they can serve as strong corrective elements in the government. For the last election our chancellor Schroeder played the Iraq war trump card quite skillfully (the war was and still is hugely unpopular in my country). That probably gave him the critical percentages that the governing coalition needed.
2) This also falls into two categories: Administrative and political government.
a) When talking about serving the people in the context of an ID card, this refers to the former. Functions that should be monopolized (i.e. several competing ID card vendors pretty much defeat the purpose of an ID card), as well as tightly monitored and democratically legitimized naturally fall into the domain of governmental administration. (If you can not trust the governmental administration to follow strict privacy laws you are already in deep trouble and may want to look for a place to emigrate to).
Contrary to popular believe I think governmental agencies can be run efficiently if proper incentive and monitoring systems are used as well as private companies employed whenever possible after having gone through a competitive bidding process. A demanding citizen should not content with anything less than such an efficient administration - after all we pay for it.
b) The executive part of government is the truly political one and follows a political agenda. When voting you decide what agenda you want to see followed through. I.e. if you are against nuclear energy and pro energy saving you vote for the Green Party, if you are pro trade union and pro-welfare you vote for the Socialists etc. Usually your political profile will not coincide 100% with any party, so you try to optimize. Then there are swing voters like me who also factor in tactical considerations. And then there are those who hear Mr. Schroeder warn that there will be a war and promise that he will do all he can to prevent this war, and make their vote accordin
This logic holds for the US where there are so many guns, that out-lawing them will only strip law abiding citizens of guns.
It does not hold for the UK or any other country were it is very hard to get a gun. Even if you are a criminal who really would like to have one it is not easy to come by i.e. it'll cost you a fortune. That is why mugging in such countries is usually accomplished by use of a knive. (That is, it only works if the intended mugging victim isn't like my sister. When a guy tried to mug her with a knive she just kicked him in the nuts and went on with her business. She didn't even turn him in. She is a very busy woman and felt she didn't have time for this.)
In Germany we do have national ID cards as well, but I usually don't carry mine on me. I have never been asked by police to present it (traffic cops ask for the driver licence).
It happened to me once that I drove and had neither ID nor driver's licence on me. The cop just wrote down my license plate and asked me to turn up at a police station within the next 14 days to present my driver's licence.
So you may ask what is the national ID good for? It gives me a single token to prove my ID. For instance when opening up a bank account or when going to the polls.
I think of the ID as a service that the government provides. After all impartially serving the citizens is the sole raison d'etre of a government in the first place.
As you pointed out they do have a lot of nuclear energy and maintaining an army is costly.
I still stand by my case that Japan is far better of without an army in a world ruled by free trade. Japan has the potential in terms of innovative and superior products to always buy what it needs. There is no need for them to steal it.
Frankly I also don't think that Japan would ask anybody for approval if they wanted to arm themselves. Quite to the contrary I believe they are wise enough to understand that any such move on their part goes against their interest because it'll escalate the already volatile North Korea crisis even further.
As it stand I take it we have some very different assumptions about what Japan wants to do and why it does what it does, but I don't think that we have any means to prove them.
I think at this point it is irrelevant how bad or evil Saddam is. The only thing that matters is: Will the Iraqi rather stick with him and fight the invading army or will they feel liberated any time soon?
My gut feeling from the very beginning was that Arab nationalism and hate for America will weigh more than hate for Saddam.
Bush/Blair already lost their case in the diplomatic realm of the UN. I fear they will also lose the fight for the heart and minds of the Iraqis.
At this point it is rather irrelevant how bad or evil Saddam is. The only thing that matters is: Do the Iraqi rather stick with him and fight the invading army or will they feel liberated any time soon?
My gut feeling from the very beginning was that Arab nationalism and hate for America will weigh more than hate for Saddam.
Bush/Blair already lost their case in the diplomatic realm of the UN. I fear they will also lose the fight for the heart and minds of the Iraqis.
Living in Germany I can back this up. My wife is American and I very much like and love the American culture. That is why it pains me to see how America is now viewed by my many of my fellow Germans as pretty much a country gone crazy.
I need to constantly remind people that there are Americans opposing this war and that GWB didn't even get the popular vote.
We most certainly do have a constitution. It is a pretty good one. You can read up on it here.
I figure your comment was going for "funny". If not than I am all the more glad that Mr. Rumsfeld does not want to redeploys US troops back to Germany once this war is over. We very much enjoy living in peace and we have an army capable of defending ourselves. We really do not want to get involved in America's post-colonial adventures. Having US troops here make terror attacks on German soil much likelier. I do not think we should tolerate this risk any longer. That is why fully support Mr. Rumsfeld in his initiative to pull American troops out of Germany to station them in Eastern European countries. But than again I always like to support my American friends if they are not completely unreasonable.
I think they are supportive of the US because the need the US military presence to keep North Korea in check.
Exactly what natural resources does China have that Japan could want? Not Oil as far as I know.
Japan did just fine economically after the war without access to natural resources. Nowadays it is really the intellectual potential of a country that determines its economic strength.
What really surprises me is that everybody seems to have forgotten Vietnam. It is such an overused phrase "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" but I've never seen this phrase more applicable than now.
Relax, his statement about the International community was a joke. I certainly had to chuckle reading it.
The problem is that the USA at this point simply does not want to be part of the International community. The world would love to see a USA taking the lead in reforming the UN and leading by example, but the current administration has unfortunately decided that America does not need the UN.
German soldiers aren't spend that cheaply. We've got a draft. No government in my country would survive even 5 min spending the lives of our youth that cheaply.
Seeing on TV yesterday how young many of the British troopers are made me sick.
Slashdot Mirror
Words of a truely sophisticated mind.
Mod parent up. He got the science right.
Copy and pasted the link, but it seems to be broken.
Care to support this with a link to a statistic?
I am not from the UK but live in another country with gun control. I have never been exposed to a crime that involved a gun, nor have ever heard from a friend or relative that they had made any such experience. You hear about it only on the national news a couple of times a year, because they are such rare incidents and always get a lot of media attention. The public reaction to crimes involving guns, is always the same: The polls show that people want even tighter gun control.
As I was pointing out in my earlier posting I don't think that gun control could work in the USA because in the USA there are already to many guns in circulation. Fortunately for my society we have not crossed that line and hopefully never will. So as far as I am concerned live happily ever after with your guns. I am just glad that I don't need one in my hometown in order to feel save no matter where, or at what time, in whatever neighborhood.
The USA was founded by a bunch of 'nuts' who carefully crafted its constitution to prevent that very same government from becoming the same sort of tyranny(s) that they fled before. And for that, I thank them
There is no doubt that these "nuts" deserve the greatest praise, having shown the world that a more free, secularly organized society can function on the greatest scale. Yet, I can not help but feel that the process how a president gets elected could need some adjustment. I think it doesn't make all that much sense anymore, that the importance of your weight entirely depends on where you live. It is like the USA were the first to implement a working system for a democratic society, lets say v1.0. Most other civilized countries are now running version 5.x with lots of cool new features but the USA never bothered to update.
I really should get back working on my project, so I'll try to keep this reply fairly short.
In electoral demographics, your electorate looks much the same as the US - large blocs, with a swing component. I wonder how much of this is due to the 1-choice election system that we share.
Actually I simplified a bit, there are after all two more smaller blocks the liberal/libertarian party (more libertarian than liberal but not 100%) and the Greens, both hover around 10% and one of them is always in the government. I think a party system like this gives the electorate more influence to determine the political agenda. When the Green for the first time got into the parliament in the 80s this was quite a shock for the established parties and all of a sudden they all started to pay lip service to ecological issues.
In a representative system like in the US or the UK you do not get this kind of dynamics. That is why there are actually many politicians in the UK advocating to adopt a proportional election system as well.
I very much sympathize with libertarian ideas. Personal freedom is what I value the most, but I recognize that society has to be allowed to establish borders for personal freedom and ecological issues provide a good example why. Let's pick a simple example, government regulations of toxic substances. I think there are many substance where a warning label is not good enough.
So yes, I think there are areas were the society through government as a proxy should enforce certain rules. Banking services are a gray area. It reminds me of a discussion I had with our gardener when I was a kid. My father is a physician and always argued that all health insurance should be organized like the private health insurances (if you earn above a certain threshold or are self-employed you are free to chose a free health insurance instead of a governmental program). The private health insurance does not process the billing rather you pay the doctor's bills and collect the money at the end of the year from your insurance. The governmental insurances on the other hand also takes care of the billing process i.e. the patient just receives the treatment and does not have to worry a bit about billing and paying. The logic behind this - that is what our gardener pointed out to me - is that the affluent and educated are smart enough to take care of this themselves, but he said he knew a lot of people who while being great garden laborers are simply to disorganized to be trusted to process such a billing and reclaiming process for themselves.
So our government indeed assumes the role you described: Takes care of them as a doctor or a nurse would, and without their consent if they are unqualified to give it.
From my point of view the key is to find the right balance i.e. when am I qualified enough to make my own decisions? As an academic I don't have much reason to complain, but this country is certainly much more of a regulatory hell for somebody who doesn't hold these kind of degrees, and our economy could benefit immensely if we thru a lot of those out.
But coming back to your banking example I must admit that I'd not be very comfortable if I had to ask every time I open an account if they are governmental certified. If I open a checking account I very much like the idea that my balance is governmental guaranteed no questions asked.
Taxes are of course a touchy issue:
inherent to the notion of taxes is the idea that society has a right to your property (land tax) and the fruits of your labor (income tax, sales tax from the seller's perspective).
Property tax is actually unconstitutional in Germany, so we don't have that one. The other taxes are all "hidden" i.e. the sales tax is already included in the price tag, the income tax in deducted from you paycheck before the cash is electronically transferred to your checking account. If you are employed your are in tax filling heaven, because you do not have to file anything, if
Thanks for such a long elaborate posting. I did enjoy reading it, although I feel I may have misled you a little bit by my choice of words. When I wrote "raison d'etre" I didn't literally mean that this is how governments came into being rather than how I think a good government should think of itself (as well as how citizens should approach their government in a democratic society: As being the ultimate sovereign blessed with birth-rights that the government has to live up to).
Regarding your questions:
1) I split this up in two chunks, because there is the form that a government takes and then there is the regular election process. The latter of course happens quite regularly, but the former is fundamentally more important.
a) Our current form of government in Germany was determined by an assembly that tried very hard to make sure that the 2nd republic wouldn't fail as miserably as the 1st one. Since then there were some slight adjustments, regarding the size of the parliament for instance, and clarifications regarding the balance of power between German states and the federal government. But there has been one overarching most important process: More and more power has been going to the EU and its institutions (the EU commission and parliament). This process has been progressing steadily over many years, so than many people still do not realize how much power has been stripped from the federal government and now lies with the EU.
b) Our last elected German government came to pass as the typical mix of different stances of competing parties were evaluated by the people who bothered to vote. The last German election was especially interesting, because it was clear that it'll be a tight race. Every vote counts the same (no such thing as an electorate college) and goes to the party of choice. It was quite clear that we were to get a coalition government (e.g. two parties have to combine to get a majority in the parliament). I traditionally vote for one of the smaller outfits, the party with the kind of political agenda closest to mine, so that they can serve as strong corrective elements in the government. For the last election our chancellor Schroeder played the Iraq war trump card quite skillfully (the war was and still is hugely unpopular in my country). That probably gave him the critical percentages that the governing coalition needed.
2) This also falls into two categories: Administrative and political government.
a) When talking about serving the people in the context of an ID card, this refers to the former. Functions that should be monopolized (i.e. several competing ID card vendors pretty much defeat the purpose of an ID card), as well as tightly monitored and democratically legitimized naturally fall into the domain of governmental administration. (If you can not trust the governmental administration to follow strict privacy laws you are already in deep trouble and may want to look for a place to emigrate to).
Contrary to popular believe I think governmental agencies can be run efficiently if proper incentive and monitoring systems are used as well as private companies employed whenever possible after having gone through a competitive bidding process. A demanding citizen should not content with anything less than such an efficient administration - after all we pay for it.
b) The executive part of government is the truly political one and follows a political agenda. When voting you decide what agenda you want to see followed through. I.e. if you are against nuclear energy and pro energy saving you vote for the Green Party, if you are pro trade union and pro-welfare you vote for the Socialists etc. Usually your political profile will not coincide 100% with any party, so you try to optimize. Then there are swing voters like me who also factor in tactical considerations. And then there are those who hear Mr. Schroeder warn that there will be a war and promise that he will do all he can to prevent this war, and make their vote accordin
This logic holds for the US where there are so many guns, that out-lawing them will only strip law abiding citizens of guns.
It does not hold for the UK or any other country were it is very hard to get a gun. Even if you are a criminal who really would like to have one it is not easy to come by i.e. it'll cost you a fortune. That is why mugging in such countries is usually accomplished by use of a knive. (That is, it only works if the intended mugging victim isn't like my sister. When a guy tried to mug her with a knive she just kicked him in the nuts and went on with her business. She didn't even turn him in. She is a very busy woman and felt she didn't have time for this.)
There is something very wrong in the overall picture if you can not trust your own government to not abuse a national ID card.
Can't blame you though, I wouldn't trust it either. Pretty sad state of affairs.
In Germany we do have national ID cards as well, but I usually don't carry mine on me. I have never been asked by police to present it (traffic cops ask for the driver licence).
It happened to me once that I drove and had neither ID nor driver's licence on me. The cop just wrote down my license plate and asked me to turn up at a police station within the next 14 days to present my driver's licence.
So you may ask what is the national ID good for? It gives me a single token to prove my ID. For instance when opening up a bank account or when going to the polls.
I think of the ID as a service that the government provides. After all impartially serving the citizens is the sole raison d'etre of a government in the first place.
As you pointed out they do have a lot of nuclear energy and maintaining an army is costly.
I still stand by my case that Japan is far better of without an army in a world ruled by free trade. Japan has the potential in terms of innovative and superior products to always buy what it needs. There is no need for them to steal it.
Frankly I also don't think that Japan would ask anybody for approval if they wanted to arm themselves. Quite to the contrary I believe they are wise enough to understand that any such move on their part goes against their interest because it'll escalate the already volatile North Korea crisis even further.
As it stand I take it we have some very different assumptions about what Japan wants to do and why it does what it does, but I don't think that we have any means to prove them.
I think at this point it is irrelevant how bad or evil Saddam is. The only thing that matters is: Will the Iraqi rather stick with him and fight the invading army or will they feel liberated any time soon?
My gut feeling from the very beginning was that Arab nationalism and hate for America will weigh more than hate for Saddam.
Bush/Blair already lost their case in the diplomatic realm of the UN. I fear they will also lose the fight for the heart and minds of the Iraqis.
My "<" had been swallowed. I find this very offensive. Here's the corrected version:
As another poster was already pointing out, this kind of blacklist has always been around and it only affect kids (< 18yrs).
In Germany we are much more sensetive to exposing kids to violence while being much more relaxed about pornography in comparison.
As another poster was already pointing out, this kind of blacklist has always been around and it only affect kids (18yrs).
In Germany we are much more sensetive to exposing kids to violence while being much more relaxed about pornography in comparison to the states.
On what levels does your mind opertate? How can you be a Bush man and come up with that kind of stuff?
At this point it is rather irrelevant how bad or evil Saddam is. The only thing that matters is: Do the Iraqi rather stick with him and fight the invading army or will they feel liberated any time soon?
My gut feeling from the very beginning was that Arab nationalism and hate for America will weigh more than hate for Saddam.
Bush/Blair already lost their case in the diplomatic realm of the UN. I fear they will also lose the fight for the heart and minds of the Iraqis.
Living in Germany I can back this up. My wife is American and I very much like and love the American culture. That is why it pains me to see how America is now viewed by my many of my fellow Germans as pretty much a country gone crazy.
I need to constantly remind people that there are Americans opposing this war and that GWB didn't even get the popular vote.
We most certainly do have a constitution. It is a pretty good one. You can read up on it
here.
I figure your comment was going for "funny". If not than I am all the more glad that Mr. Rumsfeld does not want to redeploys US troops back to Germany once this war is over. We very much enjoy living in peace and we have an army capable of defending ourselves. We really do not want to get involved in America's post-colonial adventures. Having US troops here make terror attacks on German soil much likelier. I do not think we should tolerate this risk any longer. That is why fully support Mr. Rumsfeld in his initiative to pull American troops out of Germany to station them in Eastern European countries. But than again I always like to support my American friends if they are not completely unreasonable.
I think they are supportive of the US because the need the US military presence to keep North Korea in check.
Exactly what natural resources does China have that Japan could want? Not Oil as far as I know.
Japan did just fine economically after the war without access to natural resources. Nowadays it is really the intellectual potential of a country that determines its economic strength.
What really surprises me is that everybody seems to have forgotten Vietnam. It is such an overused phrase "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" but I've never seen this phrase more applicable than now.
Relax, his statement about the International community was a joke. I certainly had to chuckle reading it.
The problem is that the USA at this point simply does not want to be part of the International community. The world would love to see a USA taking the lead in reforming the UN and leading by example, but the current administration has unfortunately decided that America does not need the UN.
Why is this not moderated "funny"?
Some really smart people argue against your assesment for instance this Oxford professor.
Our army is for self-defense. Iraq did not attack us nor the USA or any other NATO ally.
German soldiers aren't spend that cheaply. We've got a draft. No government in my country would survive even 5 min spending the lives of our youth that cheaply.
Seeing on TV yesterday how young many of the British troopers are made me sick.