The US can and has stopped EU corporations from merging too (EU and US have agreements to control multinational corporations and both give eachother the opportunity to screen and block mergers elsewhere).
If the EU should stay out of US business, then US should do the same with EU business.
Personally... I think it's good that they both screen mergers, the multinational corporations are running out of control.
Those things can be had in most industrialized democratic countries, though. But I essentially agree with you; clearly the original message was a flame-bait.
Besides, I get sick of conspiracy-freak, one-world-government types in the U.S., and I hate it when something helps prove them right.
Same here. On this topic I found a very worrying British article about a new GATS agreement in the WTO which could erode away our rights. I urge everyone whose country is a WTO member (that means EU, US and most other industrialized and many developing countries) to read this!
I essentially agree with you. As a Swede and European, I would not want Hague to trample all over my rights either.
The UK lacks a constitution but many of the other European countries have constitutions that while different from the US, are fully comparable in democratic strength. These constitutions surpass the US constitution in some regards, while in other regards the US constitution surpasses them.
The claim that the EU leadership answers to no one is a common misconception, though. While improvements can certainly be made, the EU consists of several internally balancing institutions. Proposals are made by the European Commision, which (like national cabinet members) are appointed as opposed to elected -- in this case by the Council (which consists of the directly elected national leaders) and then approved by the directly elected European Parliament. Proposals made by the commision must be approved by the Council and in many cases also the European Parliament. So EU leaders answer to both the elected MEPs as well as the elected member state governments. It may be perceived as an odd system but works better than most people think, and is reasonable given the history of the EU's development.
How many have so far signed it doesn't really matter -- the important thing is that there is a commitment in governments and parliaments to go through with the treaty, and this is indeed the case with Kyoto (in which 80 nations participate). The European Union for example, has committed itself to ratifying the treaty within two years time and has also committed itself to emissions reductions that go beyond those of Kyoto.
The US government does not have the power to kill Linux. Its decisions mean nothing in the rest of the world. Linux originated in Europe and that remains the place where many, if not most, of the most important Linux related supporters and developers are based.
Rest assured Linux will live on. (Which isn't to say that it will necessarily become a viable desktop competitor for a while yet.)
They're not particularly fragile. US-EU trade is comparatively small, and within that segment the EU exports as much to the US as the US does to the EU.
While I'm not saying you're wrong (since it's entirely a matter of viewpoint), I'd be interested to hear your definition of "free".
It seems to me that some people have a very narrow view of "freedom", restricting its meaning to basically absence of illegitimate force. That is indeed important, but in practice, freedom is about much more. I see it as the abilities put at one's disposal that enable one to pursue one's dreams, goals and desires. That includes universal access to basic services such as education and healthcare, and other "enablers" that give people more control over their destiny.
I made no such claim of perfection - you read that into my post.
My apologies then.
I agree with you to some extent that the US constitution has probably influenced other constitutions. But the US constitution in turn was clearly inspired by other constitutions as well. Many good constitutions are significantly older. While not all of them (and associated laws) included what we today consider basic rights from the start, they laid the groundwork. And modern democracy is really quite young, in any nation. For example, many modern nations did not have universal suffrage until well into the 20th century. (1921 in Sweden and 1947 in the US.)
The Swedish constitutions or "grundlagar" (they are actually four) date back to the 14th century, and many basic principles of democracy have been part of those constitutions for hundreds of years. Two examples are the freedom of press (prohibition of censorship, etc) and offentlighetsprincipen that were both made part of the constitutions of Sweden in 1766, ie 22 years before the US constitution was drafted.
The offentlighetsprincip deserves special attention, since it probably has nothing quite comparable in other constitutions except the Finnish. It guarantees access to most documents and communication at courts, govermental agencies and institutions.
That principle was reason for a dispute with the US Congress a few years ago (acting on behalf of lobby groups with no real national interest in the issue) when Swedish authorities published the Bible of Scientology and made copies available to anyone in the world. It all began after a citizen began sending the Bible to parliament, courts and other institutions. Letters of protest sent by a US congressman and a US commerce agency spokesman also became public, much to their surprise and dismay. All these texts automatically became public according to the constitution, there was no way around it. The principle has been the cause of many politicians' fall, since the media routinely browse new documents and find out things they otherwise would not have.
Moving on to the federal constitution of Switzerland, it is admittedly significantly younger (from 1848, although its democratic traditions are quite old and direct democracy has been an integral part of the country's history for some time. In my opinion, the Swiss constitution is the best overall, despite that the democracy comes with a price: slow decision making.
If anyone wants more info about the Swiss constitution, I whole-heartedly recommend the book "The Referendum - Direct Democracy in Switzerland" by US political scientist, professor Kris Kobach. The following URL can also be useful:
"What is distinct about the US is that the US government's core documents explicitly list some of these rights, the US legal system explicitly claims that if a law attempts to deny them it is not actually a law but only the appearnce of one..."
"And just like here, if enough of you are willing to believe it and risk acting on it, you might make something similar the law of YOUR land.
Or you might die trying.
What you say is incredibly presumptious, since in your text lies an implied assumption that the US holds the perfect or least flawed constitution. This is a perfectly valid opinion, but remember that it is only that -- an opinion.
What you describe is not particularly distinct at all. While not all western nations have constitutions that fulfill the criteria you listed, most do. Although the US constitution is interesting, its concept of granting certain perceived inalienable rights to citizens that lawmakers must abide by is not unique and nor does it take the rights concept most far in all respects. This is important to keep in mind.
Personally, I'm a fan of several constitutions. I love the Swedish and Finnish constitutions for setting out an unprecedented level of transparency through their far-ranging government document accessibility laws, I love the Swiss constitution for being the most democratic one with its direct democracy and citizen's rule laws, and I love the United States constitution for its explicit division of powers that grant power to the federal government (as opposed to state government) only in areas specifically listed.
I'm not sure there is any relevance to this discussion about Americans donating more than anyone else per capita to charity. I doubt that it is even true, but perhaps you have checked it up properly. But since you wanted to bring generosity into the discussion, also remember that the US gives less in foreign aid than any other industrialized country. It was made as low as 0,2 % of the GDP during the Clinton presidency. (Source: Washington Post.)
Given the above, and the fact that universal services are not provided or financed by the US government through taxes, I think a bigger generosity in donating to charity seems only natural and necessary.
As for education, I concur that US universities are probably overall in excellent shape. Whether they are better than elsewhere is difficult to say; after all, courses provided by colleges and universities in the western world are pretty much identical in contents, often even to the point of having the exact same course literature.
With the above in mind, I believe that it is difficult to state with any certainty that US colleges and universities are either substantially better than in other western nations, or substantially worse.
Whether or not the US has a long way to go in "quality of life" is a difficult question. It would probably depend on who you ask -- it is clear that Scandinavia has far less distinct class differences and universally offers basic services, something the US almost uniquely among industrialized nations has chosen not to.
Personally, I firmly believe that the way northern Europe has set up their societies is the better way to go, especially long-term -- the market economy is good but it must not be unregulated, and while economic differences are vital, they can not be allowed to become insanely huge, either. There must be a certain balance or things go out of control and ultimately, individuals suffer.
However, "quality of life" is very difficult to define. It would depend on where you go, what interests you have and what things matter to you -- both practical and philosophical. All countries have their fair share of problems and clearly, neither the US nor the Scandinavian countries are any exceptions.
I do not think any big conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Linux is of Scandinavian origin -- it doesn't really speak in favour of Scandinavia any more than it speaks against it. After all, there are good operating systems of American origin.
The US has higher wages in the software industry than most other places. It also has low taxes for those with a high income. Thus, the US is a good choice for computer people for whom salary is the primary concern. Plus, because of its size and fairly homogenous industrial success, America has an impressive number of companies in the computer business and this can be appealing, too.
It is however very common for people in the industry who work in the US to move back after five years when they want to get settled and perhaps form a family.
The entire American society is based upon increasing the differences between rich and poor further. The system promotes it by powerful lobby groups and corporate interests that finance politicians' campaigns. This excessive division between rich and poor is why salaries can be so high in certain industries -- because the needs of everyone in society are not attended to. In my view, that is not a sustainable system and ultimately harmful to society as a whole. I think the criminality, violence, big prison population and other social problems are a result of this.
"the number of people living in real poverty in the us is lower then almost all the other nations"
I wonder where you got this figure -- it is the first time I have heard it and it sounds like you are doing some interesting table-turning on us. Given that the US has so wide economic differences between the top and bottom classes in society it sounds more likely that the US would have a higher portion of poor among other industrialized nations rather than a lower portion. If you have any statistics or facts to back up what you said, we would be interested in seeing them.
As for taxes, they exist for a purpose -- to guarantee everyone in society a reasonable living standard and access to basic services. They tend to be low for those with a low income, and to say that they themselves cause poverty is a bit far-fetched especially when you take into account the services they finance that one would otherwise have to pay for.
Certain places are more dangerous to enter than others, depending on where you live.
It might never have occured to you that a lot of people take great risks while attempting to enter other industrialized democratic countries as well, such as the EU.
In the specific case of the EU, Sweden and Germany have traditionally taken a lot of the responsibility with several other EU states having higher requirements for granting asylum.
Slashdot Mirror
The US can and has stopped EU corporations from merging too (EU and US have agreements to control multinational corporations and both give eachother the opportunity to screen and block mergers elsewhere). If the EU should stay out of US business, then US should do the same with EU business. Personally... I think it's good that they both screen mergers, the multinational corporations are running out of control.
Those things can be had in most industrialized democratic countries, though. But I essentially agree with you; clearly the original message was a flame-bait.
Well spoken.
Besides, I get sick of conspiracy-freak, one-world-government types in the U.S., and I hate it when something helps prove them right.
Same here. On this topic I found a very worrying British article about a new GATS agreement in the WTO which could erode away our rights. I urge everyone whose country is a WTO member (that means EU, US and most other industrialized and many developing countries) to read this!
I essentially agree with you. As a Swede and European, I would not want Hague to trample all over my rights either. The UK lacks a constitution but many of the other European countries have constitutions that while different from the US, are fully comparable in democratic strength. These constitutions surpass the US constitution in some regards, while in other regards the US constitution surpasses them.
The claim that the EU leadership answers to no one is a common misconception, though. While improvements can certainly be made, the EU consists of several internally balancing institutions. Proposals are made by the European Commision, which (like national cabinet members) are appointed as opposed to elected -- in this case by the Council (which consists of the directly elected national leaders) and then approved by the directly elected European Parliament. Proposals made by the commision must be approved by the Council and in many cases also the European Parliament. So EU leaders answer to both the elected MEPs as well as the elected member state governments. It may be perceived as an odd system but works better than most people think, and is reasonable given the history of the EU's development.
How many have so far signed it doesn't really matter -- the important thing is that there is a commitment in governments and parliaments to go through with the treaty, and this is indeed the case with Kyoto (in which 80 nations participate). The European Union for example, has committed itself to ratifying the treaty within two years time and has also committed itself to emissions reductions that go beyond those of Kyoto.
Rest assured Linux will live on. (Which isn't to say that it will necessarily become a viable desktop competitor for a while yet.)
They're not particularly fragile. US-EU trade is comparatively small, and within that segment the EU exports as much to the US as the US does to the EU.
While I'm not saying you're wrong (since it's entirely a matter of viewpoint), I'd be interested to hear your definition of "free".
It seems to me that some people have a very narrow view of "freedom", restricting its meaning to basically absence of illegitimate force. That is indeed important, but in practice, freedom is about much more. I see it as the abilities put at one's disposal that enable one to pursue one's dreams, goals and desires. That includes universal access to basic services such as education and healthcare, and other "enablers" that give people more control over their destiny.
I made no such claim of perfection - you read that into my post.
My apologies then.
I agree with you to some extent that the US constitution has probably influenced other constitutions. But the US constitution in turn was clearly inspired by other constitutions as well. Many good constitutions are significantly older. While not all of them (and associated laws) included what we today consider basic rights from the start, they laid the groundwork. And modern democracy is really quite young, in any nation. For example, many modern nations did not have universal suffrage until well into the 20th century. (1921 in Sweden and 1947 in the US.)
The Swedish constitutions or "grundlagar" (they are actually four) date back to the 14th century, and many basic principles of democracy have been part of those constitutions for hundreds of years. Two examples are the freedom of press (prohibition of censorship, etc) and offentlighetsprincipen that were both made part of the constitutions of Sweden in 1766, ie 22 years before the US constitution was drafted. The offentlighetsprincip deserves special attention, since it probably has nothing quite comparable in other constitutions except the Finnish. It guarantees access to most documents and communication at courts, govermental agencies and institutions.
That principle was reason for a dispute with the US Congress a few years ago (acting on behalf of lobby groups with no real national interest in the issue) when Swedish authorities published the Bible of Scientology and made copies available to anyone in the world. It all began after a citizen began sending the Bible to parliament, courts and other institutions. Letters of protest sent by a US congressman and a US commerce agency spokesman also became public, much to their surprise and dismay. All these texts automatically became public according to the constitution, there was no way around it. The principle has been the cause of many politicians' fall, since the media routinely browse new documents and find out things they otherwise would not have.
For more info about the Swedish constitution:
ICL - Swedish Constitution
The Finnish-Swedish Offentlighetsprincipen (s.c.nordic FAQ-related texts)
For more (but partly outdated) information about the very fascinating Scientology case in Sweden, these sites are recommended:
Failed US pressure on Sweden
Zenon vs CoS - the A.R.S. Posts
Operation Clamblake: Zenon Panoussis vs. Cult of Scientology
Moving on to the federal constitution of Switzerland, it is admittedly significantly younger (from 1848, although its democratic traditions are quite old and direct democracy has been an integral part of the country's history for some time. In my opinion, the Swiss constitution is the best overall, despite that the democracy comes with a price: slow decision making.
If anyone wants more info about the Swiss constitution, I whole-heartedly recommend the book "The Referendum - Direct Democracy in Switzerland" by US political scientist, professor Kris Kobach. The following URL can also be useful:
Global Ideas Bank - Exporting the Swiss constitution
ICL - Swiss Constitution
"What is distinct about the US is that the US government's core documents explicitly list some of these rights, the US legal system explicitly claims that if a law attempts to deny them it is not actually a law but only the appearnce of one..."
"And just like here, if enough of you are willing to believe it and risk acting on it, you might make something similar the law of YOUR land. Or you might die trying.
What you say is incredibly presumptious, since in your text lies an implied assumption that the US holds the perfect or least flawed constitution. This is a perfectly valid opinion, but remember that it is only that -- an opinion.
What you describe is not particularly distinct at all. While not all western nations have constitutions that fulfill the criteria you listed, most do. Although the US constitution is interesting, its concept of granting certain perceived inalienable rights to citizens that lawmakers must abide by is not unique and nor does it take the rights concept most far in all respects. This is important to keep in mind.
Personally, I'm a fan of several constitutions. I love the Swedish and Finnish constitutions for setting out an unprecedented level of transparency through their far-ranging government document accessibility laws, I love the Swiss constitution for being the most democratic one with its direct democracy and citizen's rule laws, and I love the United States constitution for its explicit division of powers that grant power to the federal government (as opposed to state government) only in areas specifically listed.
I'm not sure there is any relevance to this discussion about Americans donating more than anyone else per capita to charity. I doubt that it is even true, but perhaps you have checked it up properly. But since you wanted to bring generosity into the discussion, also remember that the US gives less in foreign aid than any other industrialized country. It was made as low as 0,2 % of the GDP during the Clinton presidency. (Source: Washington Post.)
Given the above, and the fact that universal services are not provided or financed by the US government through taxes, I think a bigger generosity in donating to charity seems only natural and necessary.
As for education, I concur that US universities are probably overall in excellent shape. Whether they are better than elsewhere is difficult to say; after all, courses provided by colleges and universities in the western world are pretty much identical in contents, often even to the point of having the exact same course literature.
With the above in mind, I believe that it is difficult to state with any certainty that US colleges and universities are either substantially better than in other western nations, or substantially worse.
Whether or not the US has a long way to go in "quality of life" is a difficult question. It would probably depend on who you ask -- it is clear that Scandinavia has far less distinct class differences and universally offers basic services, something the US almost uniquely among industrialized nations has chosen not to.
Personally, I firmly believe that the way northern Europe has set up their societies is the better way to go, especially long-term -- the market economy is good but it must not be unregulated, and while economic differences are vital, they can not be allowed to become insanely huge, either. There must be a certain balance or things go out of control and ultimately, individuals suffer.
However, "quality of life" is very difficult to define. It would depend on where you go, what interests you have and what things matter to you -- both practical and philosophical. All countries have their fair share of problems and clearly, neither the US nor the Scandinavian countries are any exceptions.
I do not think any big conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Linux is of Scandinavian origin -- it doesn't really speak in favour of Scandinavia any more than it speaks against it. After all, there are good operating systems of American origin.
(I am in Östersund, Sweden, EU, by the way.)
The US has higher wages in the software industry than most other places. It also has low taxes for those with a high income. Thus, the US is a good choice for computer people for whom salary is the primary concern. Plus, because of its size and fairly homogenous industrial success, America has an impressive number of companies in the computer business and this can be appealing, too.
It is however very common for people in the industry who work in the US to move back after five years when they want to get settled and perhaps form a family.
The entire American society is based upon increasing the differences between rich and poor further. The system promotes it by powerful lobby groups and corporate interests that finance politicians' campaigns. This excessive division between rich and poor is why salaries can be so high in certain industries -- because the needs of everyone in society are not attended to. In my view, that is not a sustainable system and ultimately harmful to society as a whole. I think the criminality, violence, big prison population and other social problems are a result of this.
"the number of people living in real poverty in the us is lower then almost all the other nations"
I wonder where you got this figure -- it is the first time I have heard it and it sounds like you are doing some interesting table-turning on us. Given that the US has so wide economic differences between the top and bottom classes in society it sounds more likely that the US would have a higher portion of poor among other industrialized nations rather than a lower portion. If you have any statistics or facts to back up what you said, we would be interested in seeing them.
As for taxes, they exist for a purpose -- to guarantee everyone in society a reasonable living standard and access to basic services. They tend to be low for those with a low income, and to say that they themselves cause poverty is a bit far-fetched especially when you take into account the services they finance that one would otherwise have to pay for.
Certain places are more dangerous to enter than others, depending on where you live.
It might never have occured to you that a lot of people take great risks while attempting to enter other industrialized democratic countries as well, such as the EU.
In the specific case of the EU, Sweden and Germany have traditionally taken a lot of the responsibility with several other EU states having higher requirements for granting asylum.