7 ms·

Germany doesn’t exactly have a good record when it comes to new governments. Nor does France. Very odd to use them as positive examples. As flawed as the Ameri

Germany doesn’t exactly have a good record when it comes to new governments. Nor does France. Very odd to use them as positive examples. As flawed as the American government may be, the Constitution is still a more solid foundation than pretty much anything that has come out of Europe since.

hef19898 5y ago
Well, the 5th French Republic is going well since the 50s, isn't it? As is the post-war BRD in Germany. Both used to have an Emperor at some point, Italy went from Kingdom to Facist regime to democracy. So yes, if the situation changes you can change your government form. Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. Especially as it is more the interpretation of what the authors thought, and might think today, based on these writings. Just my outside opinion.
- disneygibson 5y ago
  No, it isn’t weird, it’s simply rejecting the frankly naive notion that you should change everything all the time according to the whims of the populace. History and human nature didn’t begin in 1950. Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. That’s likely a consequence of a constitutional government with limited powers. The United Kingdom is in a very similar situation, although their specific version is different. —- Editing because apparently I am “posting too fast” and can’t reply. What a passive aggressive move. Responding to your comment: The American Revolution preceded the French one by a decade plus. Your chronology is backwards. The French Revolution also didn’t pave the way for much at all. It failed, led to Napoleon, that failed, led to other monarchic systems until WWW1, another disaster, which led to fascism and WW2, an even bigger disaster. And the US isn’t a democracy and never has been. The founders set it up as a representative republic for a specific reason. My thesis still stands that the US is infinitely more stable and has been in comparison to Europe, largely due to its adherence to the original constitution and legal setup.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. Google the Three-Fifth compromise some day. Or whip out your copy of the US Constitution and closely read Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It took a civil war that almost tore apart the nation to rectify. That's what those - infallible to some - founding fathers compromised on.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      You work with what you have. In the time you exist.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        In the case some founding fathers, quite literally. Or rather who you own works for you as long as they exist.
        disneygibson 5y ago
        If the anti-slavery states hadn’t compromised with the slave ones, the Revolution would have failed. Slavery would have likely existed longer because the British would end up being allied to the slave states (likely still colonies.) Nothing is more nauseating that modern people looking upon the past with moral superiority.
        hef19898 5y ago
        Didn't the British abolish slavery before the US?
        disneygibson 5y ago
        The British could abolish slavery because they no longer had any real economic incentive to keep it, as they had lost their colonies. They also then proceeded to exploit labor in India in barely better conditions. If Britain retained its American colonies (because the slave holding ones didn’t join the revolution) then abolition might not have happened at all.
- pvg 5y ago
  Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. The Napoleonic Code is about the same vintage as the US Bill of Rights and remains a foundational influence on the legal systems of not just France but many other countries.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Sure, which I pointed out firther down the thread. I have yet to see someone bringing up Napoleon, or his Code Civil, to promote or justify any proposed legislation today.
    - pvg 5y ago
      People do all the time, since, as I mentioned, it's still the basis of the French legal system. For something straight out of the 18th century, the very first sentence of the current French constitution begins: Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l’Homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu’ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789 [...] It's just a strange argument to make about two states that were effectively founded right around the same time, espousing broadly similar principles and continue to do so, claiming them as fundamental to their systems of government. Both have had a couple of hundred years' worth of significant reinterpretations of these principles.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        And yet I have yet to hear, even a French politician, say things like "as Napoleon wanted for the French people...". That's my point. Plus, the Code Napoleon dates to 1804, not the original revolution.
        pvg 5y ago
        The president of France giving a speech just a couple of days ago in front of an 18th century French revolutionary slogan: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b24157621977bd4ff3fd790731e6cdff63617d26/0_147_3967_2380/master/3967.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=ec688a5354c8f5496a94aead55d82ae1 https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b24157621977bd4ff3fd790731e6c...
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > the 5th French Republic is going well since the 50s, isn't it? Is it going well, though? There's never been so much inequality, industrial pollution is spreading everywhere (is there even a single river left you can drink in France?!), political corruption has been adopted as governing principle (see also: Jacques Foccart and the Françafrique scandals), law enforcement is plagued by nazism (French police was never denazified after WWII), and the social services De Gaulle was forced (by popular power) to implement have either been dismantled or rendered painful for both workers and users (healthcare/education/housing). > Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. I agree in principle, but it's important to realize that the most important social issues we face today (including depletion of resources and pollution) have been fought against for centuries. We have a lot of lessons to learn from the past.
- netcan 5y ago
  It is weird in the context of "modern thought," which is ironic perhaps, but it's not unusual... historically speaking. Once you have generations of commentary, commentary on commentary, past crisis-resolution precedents, etc.... At this point you have a body of "jurisprudence." This is a lot like jewish torah, or most major schools of islamic jurisprudence. A rich one will contain enough examples, rationalisations and counter rationalisations that a very wide range of arguments can be made within the framework. We like to think of ourselves as rational and rationalistic. rational principles with rational conclusions. The generation of America's founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries was particularly hubristic in this regard. Peak Enlightenment, rar! But real life society doesn't work this way. We evolve. We make judgements instinctively, incorporating lots of conflicting anecdotes, principles and half principles. We create exception cases etc. A body of jurisprudence can act as a formal, social version of this. It's like a history of ideas.

hef19898 5y ago

Well, the 5th French Republic is going well since the 50s, isn't it? As is the post-war BRD in Germany. Both used to have an Emperor at some point, Italy went from Kingdom to Facist regime to democracy. So yes, if the situation changes you can change your government form. Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. Especially as it is more the interpretation of what the authors thought, and might think today, based on these writings. Just my outside opinion.

disneygibson 5y ago
No, it isn’t weird, it’s simply rejecting the frankly naive notion that you should change everything all the time according to the whims of the populace. History and human nature didn’t begin in 1950. Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. That’s likely a consequence of a constitutional government with limited powers. The United Kingdom is in a very similar situation, although their specific version is different. —- Editing because apparently I am “posting too fast” and can’t reply. What a passive aggressive move. Responding to your comment: The American Revolution preceded the French one by a decade plus. Your chronology is backwards. The French Revolution also didn’t pave the way for much at all. It failed, led to Napoleon, that failed, led to other monarchic systems until WWW1, another disaster, which led to fascism and WW2, an even bigger disaster. And the US isn’t a democracy and never has been. The founders set it up as a representative republic for a specific reason. My thesis still stands that the US is infinitely more stable and has been in comparison to Europe, largely due to its adherence to the original constitution and legal setup.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. Google the Three-Fifth compromise some day. Or whip out your copy of the US Constitution and closely read Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It took a civil war that almost tore apart the nation to rectify. That's what those - infallible to some - founding fathers compromised on.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    You work with what you have. In the time you exist.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      In the case some founding fathers, quite literally. Or rather who you own works for you as long as they exist.
      - disneygibson 5y ago
        If the anti-slavery states hadn’t compromised with the slave ones, the Revolution would have failed. Slavery would have likely existed longer because the British would end up being allied to the slave states (likely still colonies.) Nothing is more nauseating that modern people looking upon the past with moral superiority.
        hef19898 5y ago
        Didn't the British abolish slavery before the US?
        disneygibson 5y ago
        The British could abolish slavery because they no longer had any real economic incentive to keep it, as they had lost their colonies. They also then proceeded to exploit labor in India in barely better conditions. If Britain retained its American colonies (because the slave holding ones didn’t join the revolution) then abolition might not have happened at all.
pvg 5y ago
Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. The Napoleonic Code is about the same vintage as the US Bill of Rights and remains a foundational influence on the legal systems of not just France but many other countries.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Sure, which I pointed out firther down the thread. I have yet to see someone bringing up Napoleon, or his Code Civil, to promote or justify any proposed legislation today.
  - pvg 5y ago
    People do all the time, since, as I mentioned, it's still the basis of the French legal system. For something straight out of the 18th century, the very first sentence of the current French constitution begins: Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l’Homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu’ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789 [...] It's just a strange argument to make about two states that were effectively founded right around the same time, espousing broadly similar principles and continue to do so, claiming them as fundamental to their systems of government. Both have had a couple of hundred years' worth of significant reinterpretations of these principles.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      And yet I have yet to hear, even a French politician, say things like "as Napoleon wanted for the French people...". That's my point. Plus, the Code Napoleon dates to 1804, not the original revolution.
      - pvg 5y ago
        The president of France giving a speech just a couple of days ago in front of an 18th century French revolutionary slogan: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b24157621977bd4ff3fd790731e6cdff63617d26/0_147_3967_2380/master/3967.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=ec688a5354c8f5496a94aead55d82ae1 https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b24157621977bd4ff3fd790731e6c...
southerntofu 5y ago
> the 5th French Republic is going well since the 50s, isn't it? Is it going well, though? There's never been so much inequality, industrial pollution is spreading everywhere (is there even a single river left you can drink in France?!), political corruption has been adopted as governing principle (see also: Jacques Foccart and the Françafrique scandals), law enforcement is plagued by nazism (French police was never denazified after WWII), and the social services De Gaulle was forced (by popular power) to implement have either been dismantled or rendered painful for both workers and users (healthcare/education/housing). > Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. I agree in principle, but it's important to realize that the most important social issues we face today (including depletion of resources and pollution) have been fought against for centuries. We have a lot of lessons to learn from the past.
netcan 5y ago
It is weird in the context of "modern thought," which is ironic perhaps, but it's not unusual... historically speaking. Once you have generations of commentary, commentary on commentary, past crisis-resolution precedents, etc.... At this point you have a body of "jurisprudence." This is a lot like jewish torah, or most major schools of islamic jurisprudence. A rich one will contain enough examples, rationalisations and counter rationalisations that a very wide range of arguments can be made within the framework. We like to think of ourselves as rational and rationalistic. rational principles with rational conclusions. The generation of America's founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries was particularly hubristic in this regard. Peak Enlightenment, rar! But real life society doesn't work this way. We evolve. We make judgements instinctively, incorporating lots of conflicting anecdotes, principles and half principles. We create exception cases etc. A body of jurisprudence can act as a formal, social version of this. It's like a history of ideas.