Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (7936)	12/26/2006 5:37:20 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 15987

King George II may not be entirely free during his 8 year sojourn in the White House, but his head rests more lightly on the pillow than someone who came to power via murder and will leave that way, as well. There's a lot to be said for leaving willingly when your time is up, rather than waiting for the long knives. After he leaves, he can go back to making lots of money and having lots of fun, with the occasional stint as Authority and Pundit, which seems to be rather rewarding in and of itself. Nobody yet has assassinated a US ex-president. Doesn't seem much point to it.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (7936)	12/27/2006 10:45:07 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Western democracies are free in most respects compared with places like Iraq [before the conflict, let alone now], but in absolute terms, they are absurdly repressive with citizens as nothing but state serfs. I'm not sure what "in absolute terms" would mean. I guess compared to some ideal standard (although of course we could easily have different ideal standards). By such a measurement, I do think that modern western democracies fall short, but then every nation-state that ever existed has fallen short. I don't think the "citizens as nothing but state serfs" is accurate or reasonable, even if the countries do fall far short of the level of freedom that I would want. The control over issues great and small is too great, but it really isn't as extensive or generally as harsh as it was with serfs. Adolf was voted into power. Hitler came in 2nd in the presidential elections to Hindenburg. Later the Nazi party became the largest party in the Reichstag, but didn't win a majority, and didn't form a government. New elections left them the as the largest party (even though they lost a few seats). When attempts to form a coalition without the Nazis failed, Hindenburg reluctantly appointed Hitler chancellor. Then you had the Reichstag fire, a huge wave of restrictions particularly against the communists, new elections, and an increase in Nazi votes but they still failed to win an absolute majority. The Nazis managed to pass the Enabling Act which allowed Hitler and his cabinet to pass legislation without the approval of the parliament and allowed for deviations from the constitution as long as the deviations did not "affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat." Hitler never won an election to lead Germany directly, and the Nazis didn't win a majority in elections. They did win a lot of support, and they did pass legislation giving them power, but they only managed to get total power after banning other parties and arresting their delegates. It is a peculiar place with a fairly repressive character, The US is not a particularly repressive country. Does it fall short of the libertarian ideal? Yes, far short, but there is generally more concern for liberty in the US then in most other countries.