[MRRiley]

We could look to them for more than how to deal with foreign aid I think. In many ways they are the better example of how to run a country.

I assume you are referring to Norway with this statement, since it was the last one you cited. Thing is, one can hardly equate the mechanics, requirements and complexity of managing a country with a population of less than 5 million occupying an area of 149,000 square miles (Norway) with one who's population exceeds 317 million spread across an area of 3.8 million square miles (the U.S.).

I can hardly have any faith that Norway's government would do any better than ours does over here if they suddenly found themselves legally and by consent governing all of western Europe.

Mike

[les3547]

Norway very well might do better if they had the power to make the US conform to their style of government, especially as they might affect the distribution of wealth and providing for basic human needs. That would be a huge fix to our system, but it's also true we have problems to face that they have no experience dealing with.

The biggest social problem we have IMO is the legacy of slavery. After it was introduced into this country, and when the newly-formed US didn't end slavery as part of the new government, it became the means to oppress and impoverish Blacks for 200 years. We have never recovered from that because we've never properly helped them get on their feet. If we fixed that problem through a powerful education program that provided them the best schools and the best teachers instead of the worst, then America would have a great many more productive citizens and a lot fewer people in jail.

Of course, Norway has possibly the best education system on the planet, so maybe we should invite them over after all.

[Wheatfield]

I can hardly have any faith that Norway's government would do any better than ours does over here if they suddenly found themselves legally and by consent governing all of western Europe.

Mike

Norway's government is a lot more honest and a lot less mercenary than yours. This, right away, gives them a leg up on good governance.

[audiobomber]

Thing is, one can hardly equate the mechanics, requirements and complexity of managing a country with a population of less than 5 million occupying an area of 149,000 square miles (Norway) with one who's population exceeds 317 million spread across an area of 3.8 million square miles (the U.S.).

Individual States seem to have a lot of autonomy, shouldn't they be more successful at governing?

[bossa]

I assume you are referring to Norway with this statement, since it was the last one you cited. Thing is, one can hardly equate the mechanics, requirements and complexity of managing a country with a population of less than 5 million occupying an area of 149,000 square miles (Norway) with one who's population exceeds 317 million spread across an area of 3.8 million square miles (the U.S.).

I can hardly have any faith that Norway's government would do any better than ours does over here if they suddenly found themselves legally and by consent governing all of western Europe.

Mike

Even a miniature masterpiece is a masterpiece and scale has nothing to do with how worthy something isn't.

More people may not make things more complex but may just add more detail to the overall structure which can still be quite simple I suppose.

Groups of people tend to create their own cultural identity from the ground up and the countries they create manifest their mean set of values as a whole or their tolerance of them. Those people find their own voice through their own governments and institutions thus allowing them to tweak their systems to allow change over time. Obviously smaller systems can change course more quickly, and at less expense, than larger ones but when taking scale into account that expense may be actually no more on a relative scale.

It's not a matter of whether the government of Norway could administer government in the US or Europe from the top down and do any better than the current administrations as that would never happen anyway. The government is not merely a delivery service but a reflection of the collective image of the people and it's up to every political system to find it's own.

[FlashCube]

You should read some history books rather than relying on fiction. The first elected Parliament in Great Britain was formed in 1707, and the last time Royal Assent was withheld was in 1708. The first British Prime Minister was Sir Robert Walpole, in 1721.

Obviously the quip (sarcasm) parted your hair. However, King George III was the key Brit pressing the Revolutionary War against the 13 Colonies. The Charles Dickens comment because of his writings during the Victorian era nearly a century later pointing out the plight of the commoners. By the way, old King George III lived and reigned longer than any previous Monarch (not limiting it to the 1707 date, but English history ).

Edit: BTW, you may want to review your own history and figure out what Sir Robert Walpole's official title was in 1721 because I am fairly certain that the term "Prime Minister" wasn't used at that time even though he is considered the first.

[FlashCube]

Your point is valid, but the smart-ass part of me can't resist pointing out that King George III wasn't king during the Victorian era. Victoria was queen during the Victorian Era; hence the name.

Yeah, I know but that was in response to the poster implying how great things were in London prior to the American Civil War. The Victorian era obviously occurred after the Civil War. For that matter, the Brits were close to backing the Johnny Rebs had Gettysburg not gone badly.

[séamuis]

Edit: BTW, you may want to review your own history and figure out what Sir Robert Walpole's official title was in 1721 because I am fairly certain that the term "Prime Minister" wasn't used at that time even though he is considered the first.

this is true. the title 'Prime Minister' had no recognition in law at the time. so to call him the 'Prime Minister' as a way of saying he was in charge and not the King, is I think completely false. he had great influence with the cabinet, but he was never officially a Prime Minister. this may matter little in terms of remembrance of the history, but it shouldn't be confused when citing facts for discussion.

[lamented bovine]

Gee does it really matter we as a race have been throwing rocks at each other for eons, Just some of us have bigger rocks, as long as rocks are around we will find a way to chuck them further, better, faster. I am aussie my great great grand parents American, kind of puts me on the fence????

[jolepp]

Otoh, even these days the UK prime minister is the head of Her Majesty's Government. Having a prime minister (which is both a role and a formal title) does not equal democracy in the modern sense, nor does having a King/Queen preclude it. With the UK, BTW, it is remarkable how gradual the transition from a monarchy to a (de-facto) democracy has been.

[stevewig]

Otoh, even these days the UK prime minister is the head of Her Majesty's Government. Having a prime minister (which is both a role and a formal title) does not equal democracy in the modern sense, nor does having a King/Queen preclude it. With the UK, BTW, it is remarkable how gradual the transition from a monarchy to a (de-facto) democracy has been.

Actually, I don't understand your point (other than some word smithing of the word 'democracy') - the Prime Minister is elected to that position, by his colleagues and can be unseated (same as Thatcher). Apart from some formal pageantry and symbolism the Royal Family is completely separated from the political process. Yes there is some historical differences to the US democratic system which will probably always exist but how you can state that "Prime Minister does not equal democracy" I do not know - surely you do not mean that Democracy per USA is the only way to get there?

[JavaJoe]

Norway very well might do better if they had the power to make the US conform to their style of government, especially as they might affect the distribution of wealth and providing for basic human needs. That would be a huge fix to our system, but it's also true we have problems to face that they have no experience dealing with.

The biggest social problem we have IMO is the legacy of slavery. After it was introduced into this country, and when the newly-formed US didn't end slavery as part of the new government, it became the means to oppress and impoverish Blacks for 200 years. We have never recovered from that because we've never properly helped them get on their feet. If we fixed that problem through a powerful education program that provided them the best schools and the best teachers instead of the worst, then America would have a great many more productive citizens and a lot fewer people in jail.

Of course, Norway has possibly the best education system on the planet, so maybe we should invite them over after all.

Are you saying then that we blacks aren't as good as the Jews who were enslaved for 210 years? That if someone doesn't do it for us we can't do it? Blacks weren't the first slaves.

[stevewig]

Are you saying then that we blacks aren't as good as the Jews who were enslaved for 210 years? That if someone doesn't do it for us we can't do it? Blacks weren't the first slaves.

How on earth were you able to twist his submission into that interpretation?

[audiobomber]

I'm wondering who exactly qualifies as an "America hater". Obviously anyone who considers America "The Great Satan", El Quaida members, most North Koreans, etc would easily qualify. These people hate America and everything it stands for.

What about someone who considers the US a rogue state for unsanctioned wars? What about someone who thinks the US health care system is irresponsible and inhumane? What about people who don't see the US as the greatest country in the world, possibly not in the top ten? Is this thread in fact aimed at people who don't hate America, but are outspoken and critical about perceived US failings? Honestly I think it is, and the "hater" term is inaccurate. It should be possible to disagree with, or be disappointed in a country, and not be labelled a hater.

[les3547]

Are you saying then that we blacks aren't as good as the Jews who were enslaved for 210 years? That if someone doesn't do it for us we can't do it? Blacks weren't the first slaves.

No one can "do it for" others, that's not what I said. But people can help to make conditions more favorable to learning.

Inner city conditions where children grow up in gang and drug infested areas, and who must attend underfunded and under-equipped schools . . . they need help. And that would true for any child growing up in such conditions, no matter what race.

It isn't an insult, nor a statement about one's potential, to acknowledge how this mess got started in the first place. If you track the path that led to these conditions, it leads directly to kidnapping people from their native tribal culture, treating them first like animals, then as subhuman for another century plus. Growing up in a society that thought so little of you simply because of race can have a powerful impact on self esteem. Black and proud . . . that was a movement meant to help self esteem, which wouldn't have been necessary if there were no problem. So when I add it all up, I still think a much more powerful education program than we now have is needed in inner city areas.