Modern democracy (was: COVID-19 freakout thread)

[Caravan Ray]

All of the key founding fathers of the USA wrote something to the effect of, "a moral populace is required to maintain a free republic".

But unfortunately - all of the key founding fathers of the USA were rich old white dudes - the majority slave owners - who simply found a way to exploit the ongoing the war between Britain and France as a way of avoiding paying tax.

Not really the role models the USA of 2020 needs? I think you need to throw their rulebook away and write a new one.

In Australia, many of us think that our Constitution should contain a preamble where it is acknowledged that our continent was inhabited for 80,000 years before the UK declared it 'terra nulls' and took it. We hope that that may happen and are working towards it. It is a minor thing. But at least it tells an honest story.

Perhaps your Constitution should erase that "we consider all men to be equal" line that the slave owner wrote. And be a bit more honest about your national story?

[Caravan Ray]

This country was founded on the freedom of the individual, with the idea that eventually people will figure out how to do it right

Yep. How is that working for you? Those of us outside your bubble are a little concerned.

[grumpymike]

Yep. How is that working for you? Those of us outside your bubble are a little concerned.

I know it seems crazy, but we're doing pretty well by our historical standard. You know, we had a Civil War in the 1860s, and somehow we didn't need to toss our Constitution for that.

Side-note: if our citizens used guns like you thought they did, we would have a much bigger mess on our hands right now.

But unfortunately - all of the key founding fathers of the USA were rich old white dudes - the majority slave owners - who simply found a way to exploit the ongoing the war between Britain and France as a way of avoiding paying tax.

You are smart enough to know that's an over-simplification not worth debating. To say their theory of human self-governance is invalid due to circumstance or motivation is a logical fallacy. The Greeks and Romans invented modern government, but they had slaves. If you dismiss every idea that came from someone who wasn't perfect, then we would have no ideas except to love each other as ourselves, which isn't very prescriptive for practical government structure.

In Australia, many of us think that our Constitution should contain a preamble where it is acknowledged that our continent was inhabited for 80,000 years before the UK declared it 'terra nulls' and took it.

I know Australian English isn't the same as American English, so you must not be familiar with what a "rule book" is. It is a book of rules - not a historical document. Most of our students and citizens don't actually know much about the Constitution except for the Bill of Rights, which is even more perfect than the Constitution as a whole.

We all know our ugly history because our school curriculum tells us about it. Putting it in the Constitution would probably have the opposite effect of what you want.

We hope that that may happen and are working towards it. It is a minor thing. But at least it tells an honest story.

This is the sort of token gesture that just makes guilty people feel better without doing a single thing of consequence. The fact of the matter is: you cannot undo the horrific wrongs. All you can do is to be better people.

It seems like your country wants to place the indigenous people in a real-life museum so you don't have to share society with them, because that is difficult. That is such a British thing to do. As long as you have a two-track justice system - one that allows people to be consensually beaten and stabbed, and the other that follows Western protocol - you will never have an integrated populace. Yes, we have a de-facto two-track justice system too, but we don't fetishize it and are ashamed of it.

Further, by your own logical standard, in 20 years you'll find out that one of the people who wrote that preamble is guilty of something, so you'll have to throw it out. In 100 years, you'll have evidence that those people weren't living in a peaceful utopia before the white man, and actually murdered the poor original indigenous people 300,000 years ago, so you'll have to add that to the preamble.

Where does this end? It ends when resources get scarce - then the token gestures suddenly mean nothing and you have whites versus non-whites again because they are living in separate societies on the same land. History tells us that when life gets hard, separate tribes inhabiting the same geographic region don't treat each other well. The American Way is to hate ourselves in times of peace so that we can come together in times of difficulty.

Perhaps your Constitution should erase that "we consider all men to be equal" line that the slave owner wrote.

That's the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution starts, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union". It doesn't say "In order to be perfect immediately" or "in order to cement our perfection in history" or "in order to be a separate but okay people".

We murdered countless of each other in an incredibly bloody Civil War in order to further the goals of that union. Pray-tell, what real sacrifice have Australians made to further equality?

[Pigfarmer Jr]

I'm having a lull where I'm not yet seeing any hope of us coming out of this mess on a better path.

I'm actually the opposite. I've seen signs of actual change for the first time in decades.
1) In cities all across the U.S. there are police officers standing, marching and, here in our own town, kneeling with protesters.
2) Multiple police chiefs and policemen have publicly made statements that support firing/prosecuting police officers who are involved in these types of abuses of power. (Nashville police chief told officers who don't see anything wrong with the George Floyd death to turn in their badges. Fellow cops in Minneapolis and other places are saying the cops who stood around are complicit in the crime.)
3) There has (finally) been some push back on Police unions who protect guilty cops from any punishment, much less firing or prosecution.
4) There has been real talk of revoking laws (and supreme court rulings) protecting cops from prosecution. In effect, revoking their qualified immunity. Which should never have been law since they are mainly the result of court rulings that goes right against legislation passed in the 1800.

If your point is that there are still a huge number of instances where police are shooting, beating, pepper spraying, tear gassing, tazing (sp?), arresting etc., protesters for standing up for injustice I would just say, that's been the status quo for decades. It's not getting worse. But finally there are signs that the so called "good" cops are doing something about the "bad apples." Now let's see if it sticks.

[crumpart]

Note for everyone please: when writing about Australian Aboriginal people, please use a capital A.

[crumpart]

An added note: today is the anniversary of the Mabo High Court land rights decision that determined the declaration of “terra nullius” by British invaders upon landing in Australia was a straight up lie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_ ... and_(No_2)

[Lunkhead]

BTW - you linked to "The Australian". Can you see that over there? It is behind a firewall here - I can't see your link. Not that I want to - The Australian is owned by that American fellow - Mr Rupert Murdoch. There are still a few proper journalists who write news there - but mainly it is just a rogues gallery of dribbling racist nut job "opinion writers" screaming about the global warming hoax and Asian invasion.

Yeesh, gross. Forget that then. Today I learned, thanks.

[Lunkhead]

We all know our ugly history because our school curriculum tells us about it.

This is the sort of token gesture that just makes guilty people feel better without doing a single thing of consequence.

The fact of the matter is: you cannot undo the horrific wrongs.

We absolutely do not all know our ugly history because of what we learned in school here. There is a great book "The People's History of the United States" that at this point has been around a long time. Maybe because of that book things have changed, but, when I read it it was all new to me. Like the Tulsa race massacre (the annihilation of "Black Wall Street" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre ) for example. It only just recently came into much wider familiarity with Americans, not because of primary education, but because of a pay cable comic book superhero TV show ffs. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

"you cannot undo" of course. Nobody is saying that. But how are people supposed to go about their lives in a society that doesn't even speak about or acknowledge what was done to them and their ancestors? That's basically gaslighting. The point has nothing to do with "making guilty people feel better". Imagine you are a survivor or descendent of a survivor of the Tulsa Massacre, for example. Would you prefer that Americans generally knew about what had happened to you and/or your family members? Or would you prefer that people thought you were making it up if you told them about it? So while it may seem like a token gesture to you, because of course it doesn't change the past and isn't a policy change, officially acknowledging these things is a step toward ending the systemic erasure of the suffering of oppressed people, and it's a step toward trying to create an environment in which there is any chance for accountability and change. I think there are probably a lot of people for whom it would be a meaningful gesture, if only a gesture.

[Lunkhead]

I thought this article was an interesting analysis, which may help folks who are not Americans better understand how we've gotten where we are, starting from the counter-cultural revolution of the 60s.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ind/534231

[grumpymike]

Nobody is saying that. But how are people supposed to go about their lives in a society that doesn't even speak about or acknowledge what was done to them and their ancestors?

If I’m arguing anything, it is that there is a difference between permanently commemorating wrongs and acknowledging them, hopefully with justice served.

Justice served would be paying reparations, which I’m starting to come around to the idea of, though practically probably won’t happen.

[Caravan Ray]

BTW - you linked to "The Australian". Can you see that over there? It is behind a firewall here - I can't see your link. Not that I want to - The Australian is owned by that American fellow - Mr Rupert Murdoch. There are still a few proper journalists who write news there - but mainly it is just a rogues gallery of dribbling racist nut job "opinion writers" screaming about the global warming hoax and Asian invasion.

Yeesh, gross. Forget that then. Today I learned, thanks.

"The Australian" is probably fine if it just a news story. I am just surprised that you have access to it, but Uncle Rupe paywalls it here.

[crumpart]

BTW - you linked to "The Australian". Can you see that over there? It is behind a firewall here - I can't see your link. Not that I want to - The Australian is owned by that American fellow - Mr Rupert Murdoch. There are still a few proper journalists who write news there - but mainly it is just a rogues gallery of dribbling racist nut job "opinion writers" screaming about the global warming hoax and Asian invasion.

Yeesh, gross. Forget that then. Today I learned, thanks.

"The Australian" is probably fine if it just a news story. I am just surprised that you have access to it, but Uncle Rupe paywalls it here.

I get paywalled in Ireland (if I ever accidentally click a link before realising it’s The Goddamn Australian). I’m not sure if it’s because my browser still gets confused and thinks I’m in Australia though.

[crumpart]

I have to say I was super happy when News Corp brought in the paywall because it forced me to stop giving Andrew Bolt hate clicks.

[Caravan Ray]

Yep. How is that working for you? Those of us outside your bubble are a little concerned.

I know it seems crazy, but we're doing pretty well by our historical standard. You know, we had a Civil War in the 1860s, and somehow we didn't need to toss our Constitution for that.

Side-note: if our citizens used guns like you thought they did, we would have a much bigger mess on our hands right now.

Yes. Guns are just a bit of fun. I get that

But unfortunately - all of the key founding fathers of the USA were rich old white dudes - the majority slave owners - who simply found a way to exploit the ongoing the war between Britain and France as a way of avoiding paying tax.

You are smart enough to know that's an over-simplification not worth debating.

Yup. No point debating simple historical fact. The USA was created by the privileged few who wanted to avoid paying tax, so they wrote their own rule book. And surprise surprise! Here we are 250 years later, with the same rulebook - the privileged few who don't want to pay tax are still running the joint. The only difference is that amongst the original rich dudes and slave owners, there were some genuine intellectuals. Nowadays we talk about injecting bleach.

In Australia, many of us think that our Constitution should contain a preamble where it is acknowledged that our continent was inhabited for 80,000 years before the UK declared it 'terra nulls' and took it.

I know Australian English isn't the same as American English, so you must not be familiar with what a "rule book" is. It is a book of rules - not a historical document.

A good Rule Book has an Introduction. The Introduction to a Rule Book sets out the purpose for which the rules are being made, the scope of the activities to which the rules apply, and any background information which may clarify or provide context as to why the rules are being set.

Many Aboriginal people in Australia have indicated that they would like a Preamble to our Constitution which acknowledges the original owners, because they believe that it may heal old wounds and promote inclusivity in our society. As the Uluru Statement from the Heart says, Aboriginal sovereignty of the land has never been ceded or extinguished, but co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. It is a simple statement that simply gives our Constitution context. It does no harm to anyone - and if it makes others feels more part of our society - seems like a no-brainer.

Particularly as Crumpart posted earlier about the anniversary of the Mabo decision. That decision led to the Native Title Act which put into legislation that very idea - that European settlement did not automatically extinguish Aboriginal sovereignty.

This is the sort of token gesture that just makes guilty people feel better without doing a single thing of consequence. The fact of the matter is: you cannot undo the horrific wrongs. All you can do is to be better people.
It seems like your country wants to place the indigenous people in a real-life museum so you don't have to share society with them, because that is difficult.

Acknowledging the previous owners of our continent in our Constitution is placing "the indigenous people in a real-life museum so you don't have to share society with them".....

Ok...we seem to be entering "old man shouts at cloud" territory here.

That is such a British thing to do. As long as you have a two-track justice system - one that allows people to be consensually beaten and stabbed, and the other that follows Western protocol - you will never have an integrated populace. Yes, we have a de-facto two-track justice system too, but we don't fetishize it and are ashamed of it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Sure - consensual beatings can be fun between an international recording artist and his special friends when whipped cream is involved - but I'm not sure why this conversation moved onto Caravan Ray's leisure time?

Further, by your own logical standard, in 20 years you'll find out that one of the people who wrote that preamble is guilty of something, so you'll have to throw it out. In 100 years, you'll have evidence that those people weren't living in a peaceful utopia before the white man, and actually murdered the poor original indigenous people 300,000 years ago, so you'll have to add that to the preamble.

Evidence of homo sapiens in Australia 300,000 years ago would be astonishing news of international importance, not just Australia. So yes - it probably would be worth adding to the preamble. Documents are not set in stone. They can be improved.

The American Way is to hate ourselves in times of peace so that we can come together in times of difficulty.

No. The American Way is for the privileged to exploit the downtrodden. The USA's history is a history of slavery. This must be acknowledged. You cannot gloss over it by trying to pretend that Jefferson and Franklin etc were gentlemen of the enlightenment. The USA was built on slavery. Admit it. Own it. For you to claim anything else's is simply obscene.

That's the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution starts, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union". It doesn't say "In order to be perfect immediately" or "in order to cement our perfection in history" or "in order to be a separate but okay people".

Yep. My bad. Mixed up my old privileged slave-owner written documents. Easy thing to do. They all use flowery language about how cool and woke they all are - yet it probably all sounds pretty hollow nowadays to the decsendants of their slaves - wondering why, 250 years later - there is still one system of justice for some, but a different one for others.

We murdered countless of each other in an incredibly bloody Civil War in order to further the goals of that union. Pray-tell, what real sacrifice have Australians made to further equality?

"We murdered countless of each other in an incredibly bloody Civil War in order to further the goals of that union"
That is truly the stupidest excuse for mass murder I have ever seen.

OK - but lets get back to the initial crux of this conversation.

The USA has issues at the moment.
I suggested that some of this issues relate to an out of date Constitution.

Yesterday - as I understand it - your President threatened to use US Military in Washington DC..

How on earth can one man have that power? The Queen cannot order troops in anywhere. The Governor General of Australia cannot direct troops. If you live in a country where one fat orange man can say where troops go. You have a really big fucking problem.

You need a new constitution.

[Caravan Ray]

I have to say I was super happy when News Corp brought in the paywall because it forced me to stop giving Andrew Bolt hate clicks.

I have a horrible confession to make.

I give Andrew Bolt clicks.

I post on his blog. I know it is wrong. I like to pose as one of his acolytes and agree with everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is. It amuses me - and infuriates them.

I am a bitter old man with few hobbies.

[Caravan Ray]

But finally there are signs that the so called "good" cops are doing something about the "bad apples." Now let's see if it sticks.

Yes. I am seeing that too. Lets hope.

[Caravan Ray]

Yeesh, gross. Forget that then. Today I learned, thanks.

"The Australian" is probably fine if it just a news story. I am just surprised that you have access to it, but Uncle Rupe paywalls it here.

I get paywalled in Ireland (if I ever accidentally click a link before realising it’s The Goddamn Australian). I’m not sure if it’s because my browser still gets confused and thinks I’m in Australia though.

You're in Ireland. When are we getting more Derry Girls? I want more Derry Girls!!!!!

[crumpart]

"The Australian" is probably fine if it just a news story. I am just surprised that you have access to it, but Uncle Rupe paywalls it here.

I get paywalled in Ireland (if I ever accidentally click a link before realising it’s The Goddamn Australian). I’m not sure if it’s because my browser still gets confused and thinks I’m in Australia though.

You're in Ireland. When are we getting more Derry Girls? I want more Derry Girls!!!!!

I don’t know, but as someone who’s mother converted from Protestant to Catholic when she married my father, but still insists on keeping the toaster in the cupboard, I’m also looking forward to more. I’ll suggest Moone Boy in the meantime.

[Pigfarmer Jr]

Yesterday - as I understand it - your President threatened to use US Military in Washington DC..

How on earth can one man have that power? The Queen cannot order troops in anywhere. The Governor General of Australia cannot direct troops. If you live in a country where one fat orange man can say where troops go. You have a really big fucking problem.

You need a new constitution.

The argument could be made, and I personally agree, if we were following the constitution then we wouldn't have the abuses of power that are leading to the militarization of the police force, a standing army with nearly 1000 military bases strewn across the world, the expanded power of the executive branch and a host of other ills. We may need a new constitution, but it won't matter if it's not adhered to (just like the present one.)

You keep claiming that the revolution was so old, rich, white, slave-owning men wouldn't have to pay taxes. The slogan was actually "No taxation without representation." As the flurry of taxes enacted in our nation's infancy proves. The whiskey rebellion comes to mind as another instance of Americans objecting to pure taxation (enacted by those old, rich, white, often slave-owning men.) I'm not sure how anyone can support taxation without representation or criticize anyone for objecting to it. (I won't even get into the implicit support of the British Empire in your assertion. The same British Empire that is so strenuously objected to with regard to Australian history.)

Your criticism of the difference between what the constitution (and Declaration of Independence) says and the reality that it didn't apply to "all men" is appropriate. There is no justification for slavery. Period. But the problem isn't the constitution or our form of government. It's with the exclusion of women and entire races. The fight now is to make sure it applies equally to all citizens. An appropriate and continuous fight that obviously isn't finished.

[grumpymike]

Ah yes, I get it now. I came here to try to sincerely answer your questions, but your line of calm and reasoned Socratic questioning has helped me see the error in my ways.

You are right that if any within a group has sinned, we should throw out all of their ideas, and that good ideas only come from perfect or downtrodden people.

You are right that "tribal payback" is a sustainable model that will in no way cause rifts between peoples inside a united nation.

You are right that the following is the most racist and fiendish thing to ever be written:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And that this is the most mean-spirited and selfish thing to ever be written:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We should tear both of them up and start from scratch.

You are right that we shouldn't have formed a country if we couldn't get things perfect from the start.

You are right that the northern United States shouldn't have sacrificed any lives to free the slaves; that slavery should have just ended magically.

You are correct that America bad, Australia smart.

My Polish heritage was not allowing me to see clearly. Luckily, I have a friend of more sophisticated heritage to point things out to me.

Is there anything more I can do to help validate you today, sir?

[Lunkhead]

I wonder if maybe folks are talking at odds? CR, when you refer to the US Constitution needing to be tossed, are you referring to the part that's just a declaration of principles? Or are you talking about the part that lays out how the federal government works (the three branches, checks and balances, yadda yadda yadday)? Or both/all? It almost seems to me like you're maybe talking about the "how the federal government works" part" but Mike you're maybe talking about the principles part?

[Caravan Ray]

I wonder if maybe folks are talking at odds? CR, when you refer to the US Constitution needing to be tossed, are you referring to the part that's just a declaration of principles? Or are you talking about the part that lays out how the federal government works (the three branches, checks and balances, yadda yadda yadday)? Or both/all? It almost seems to me like you're maybe talking about the "how the federal government works" part" but Mike you're maybe talking about the principles part?

Yes - there do seem to be some tangents being taken!

I am talking about "how the federal government works". And probably more specifically. How does a President work. And probably - "what is the actual point of a President"?

Since your most recent Pres took the job. It has raised questions. Clearly he is unsuited for the job. That he is still there is not the fault of the Constitution - there is a means to remove him. But his party has chosen to support him and not use that means. I don't know why - but that is their problem.

The concerning thing is that those of us outside the USA are now seeing the real extent of powers that a President has. And it is frightening. Maybe I am getting it wrong. Maybe our press is reporting it wrong. But everyday we wake up to new news..."President cuts funding to WHO"..."President calls for troops to DC"..."President bans Chinese nationals on flights"......"President pulls USA out of Paris Accord"...and I'm thinking - does this one person really hold this unilateral power to do this stuff?!?!?

So - that is why I am picking on your Constitution. The thing that defines what a "President" is. And I am wondering - why do you even have a President? 250 years ago - as your Founding Fathers wrote their documents (which I do agree are probably the finest achievement of the Enlightenment and all Americans should take pride in those achievements - cheers Grumpy!) they were replacing a monarchy - so I guess they felt they needed a "Crown" figure in the mix. Now - the world has moved on. Yet the USA still elects a single person with a power of veto and, it seems, the power to do all sorts of weird shit.

This is why I think you need a new Constitution. Don't put power in the hands of one person. Because the day may come when a person may abuse that power.

But I may be wrong. I really still don't get - With the backdrop of Covid and now the BLM stuff - things don't seem to be going well over there. How much of that is actually the fault of the President? Is he simply a buffoon figurehead with no real power, like my Queen? If so - lets just ignore him and carry on. But if he actually has power to do stuff - that is a big problem.

I am not as well versed in American history obviously as others here. How does this compare to the Warren G Harding days? It is my understanding he may be the closest analog to the current dude?