3 ms·

> Britain has long relied on the > presumed benevolence of the > government Yes. That's what parliamentary sovereignty actually means. We don't have an

> Britain has long relied on the > presumed benevolence of the > government Yes. That's what parliamentary sovereignty actually means. We don't have an actual constitution. In fairness, we've been at it for 90 years longer than the US has had a constitution, and so far it works. Most of the worst excesses of US politics seem to go back to deep mistrust of government and people taking about their "rights".

wallace_f 9y ago
>Most of the worst excesses of US politics seem to go back to deep mistrust of government and people taking about their "rights". And what would those be?
- derefr 9y ago
  Presumably something to do with heavy resistance to even very watered-down gun-control laws.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    Every month goes by and the hood in Chicago kills more people than died in Las Vegas, and no one says anything about gun control. Probably because most of the people in the hood already have illegal guns. Anyways it is very rare to die by illegitimate gunfire (not from the state). You are more likely to die in falls, slips, choking, drowning, cars, motorcycles... The list is never ending. In the West we are conditioned to be terrified of guns and terrorists, but it is incredibly rare to die of either, especially if you stay out the hood. Why not campaign against something that kills more people but which doesn't serve an arguably necessary purpose? Why try to jump for one of the highest and most questionable fruits on the tree? Tyrants always will seek to consolidate power. If your intention is altruism, try to save lives by an easier means.
- libeclipse 9y ago
  Gun control is the elephant in the room.
- peteretep 9y ago
  I think it would be a struggle to argue that the US's positions towards health care, free speech, guns and policing compare favourably to those of the majority of other rich Western democracies.
  - fish_fan 9y ago
    I did not expect to see “free speech” in there, but I most definitely compare US free speech laws favorably to any and all other countries.
    - peteretep 9y ago
      In practice, are Americans better off for having the US idea of free speech than Western Europeans whose rights generally aren't as well guaranteed? It's a right that Americans are very proud of, but the edge cases when contrasted to what other countries have in practice seem to all be net negatives.
      - fish_fan 9y ago
        First of all, I have literally never heard a critique about the negatives of american free speech. Could you help me understand the negatives? Second, I do think americans are majorly better off than western europeans for free speech. Consider efforts to ban wearing clothing: that is not how you build a healthy, supportive, productive society, though it is perhaps how you let a culture stagnate. Or, perhaps consider this very article: it is not illegal to read something. (Possesion and distribution are another thing entirely.) Finally, for better or worse, american free speech has plenty of bounds. Critically, those bounds are typically nowhere near politics or morals, except perhaps reflected in hate speech.
        peteretep 9y ago
        > I have literally never heard a critique > about the negatives of american free > speech Off the top of my head, I consider Citizens United, marketing of pharmaceuticals directly to consumers, and unregulated TV news to be negatives. > I do think americans are etc It remains legal to read this article in all Western European countries. As to banning clothing, there are plenty of places in the US where you can't cover your face. What are actual examples in practice of how us Euros are worse off?
pjc50 9y ago
I think this is a misinterpretation: we do have a constitution, it's just not all in one place and not regularly invoked by laypersons. This makes it difficult to work out how constitutional crises will play out. Is the Sewel Convention legally binding for example? More importantly, does the ECHR function as a constitutional guarantee of rights above Parliament? For the past couple of decades the answer has been yes, which has mostly greatly improved UK law. Most of the weirdness of US politics goes back to slavery, and the contortions invoked in order to give rights only to certain people.
- peteretep 9y ago
  > we do have a constitution, it's > just not all in one place and not > regularly invoked by laypersons I remain comfortable describing that as not an "actual" constitution as most people would understand it. > This makes it difficult to work > out how constitutional crises will > play out That's circular. By definition a constitutional crisis is difficult to predict the outcome of, or it wouldn't be a crisis. The Americans also seem to have plenty of difficulty working out the application of their constitution. > Is the Sewel Convention legally > binding for example? The UK parliament retains ultimate authority, and I've not seen any sensible argument to suggest otherwise... > does the ECHR function as a > constitutional guarantee of rights > above Parliament Ah, an excellent and interesting question, but in practice: parliament is able to withdraw from the jurisdiction of ECHR. Because it's sovereign. I will happily agree ECHR has been a massive win for the UK, but it's easily argued that in practice parliament has simply chosen to delegate some of its power to ECHR, as they maintain the authority to withdraw from it.

wallace_f 9y ago

>Most of the worst excesses of US politics seem to go back to deep mistrust of government and people taking about their "rights". And what would those be?

derefr 9y ago
Presumably something to do with heavy resistance to even very watered-down gun-control laws.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Every month goes by and the hood in Chicago kills more people than died in Las Vegas, and no one says anything about gun control. Probably because most of the people in the hood already have illegal guns. Anyways it is very rare to die by illegitimate gunfire (not from the state). You are more likely to die in falls, slips, choking, drowning, cars, motorcycles... The list is never ending. In the West we are conditioned to be terrified of guns and terrorists, but it is incredibly rare to die of either, especially if you stay out the hood. Why not campaign against something that kills more people but which doesn't serve an arguably necessary purpose? Why try to jump for one of the highest and most questionable fruits on the tree? Tyrants always will seek to consolidate power. If your intention is altruism, try to save lives by an easier means.
libeclipse 9y ago
Gun control is the elephant in the room.
peteretep 9y ago
I think it would be a struggle to argue that the US's positions towards health care, free speech, guns and policing compare favourably to those of the majority of other rich Western democracies.
- fish_fan 9y ago
  I did not expect to see “free speech” in there, but I most definitely compare US free speech laws favorably to any and all other countries.
  - peteretep 9y ago
    In practice, are Americans better off for having the US idea of free speech than Western Europeans whose rights generally aren't as well guaranteed? It's a right that Americans are very proud of, but the edge cases when contrasted to what other countries have in practice seem to all be net negatives.
    - fish_fan 9y ago
      First of all, I have literally never heard a critique about the negatives of american free speech. Could you help me understand the negatives? Second, I do think americans are majorly better off than western europeans for free speech. Consider efforts to ban wearing clothing: that is not how you build a healthy, supportive, productive society, though it is perhaps how you let a culture stagnate. Or, perhaps consider this very article: it is not illegal to read something. (Possesion and distribution are another thing entirely.) Finally, for better or worse, american free speech has plenty of bounds. Critically, those bounds are typically nowhere near politics or morals, except perhaps reflected in hate speech.
      - peteretep 9y ago
        > I have literally never heard a critique > about the negatives of american free > speech Off the top of my head, I consider Citizens United, marketing of pharmaceuticals directly to consumers, and unregulated TV news to be negatives. > I do think americans are etc It remains legal to read this article in all Western European countries. As to banning clothing, there are plenty of places in the US where you can't cover your face. What are actual examples in practice of how us Euros are worse off?

pjc50 9y ago

I think this is a misinterpretation: we do have a constitution, it's just not all in one place and not regularly invoked by laypersons. This makes it difficult to work out how constitutional crises will play out. Is the Sewel Convention legally binding for example? More importantly, does the ECHR function as a constitutional guarantee of rights above Parliament? For the past couple of decades the answer has been yes, which has mostly greatly improved UK law. Most of the weirdness of US politics goes back to slavery, and the contortions invoked in order to give rights only to certain people.

peteretep 9y ago
> we do have a constitution, it's > just not all in one place and not > regularly invoked by laypersons I remain comfortable describing that as not an "actual" constitution as most people would understand it. > This makes it difficult to work > out how constitutional crises will > play out That's circular. By definition a constitutional crisis is difficult to predict the outcome of, or it wouldn't be a crisis. The Americans also seem to have plenty of difficulty working out the application of their constitution. > Is the Sewel Convention legally > binding for example? The UK parliament retains ultimate authority, and I've not seen any sensible argument to suggest otherwise... > does the ECHR function as a > constitutional guarantee of rights > above Parliament Ah, an excellent and interesting question, but in practice: parliament is able to withdraw from the jurisdiction of ECHR. Because it's sovereign. I will happily agree ECHR has been a massive win for the UK, but it's easily argued that in practice parliament has simply chosen to delegate some of its power to ECHR, as they maintain the authority to withdraw from it.