Immigrants make you richer.

[Blind groper]

Actually, the governor general example shows that our democracy is better than American democracy, because we have a mechanism in place to dump non performing governments. The USA has to suffer through four years to get a chance to democratically dump a lousy government.

And no, Seth, there was no need to undergo armed revoluton to get democracy. That is what happened in France, and it led to a stunningly bad form of government withexeecutions galore, which was overthrown, not by a democracy, but by an emperor who drove the whole of Europe into a dreadful war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The USA was not much better.

[cronus]

Actually, the governor general example shows that our democracy is better than American democracy, because we have a mechanism in place to dump non performing governments. The USA has to suffer through four years to get a chance to democratically dump a lousy government.

And no, Seth, there was no need to undergo armed revoluton to get democracy. That is what happened in France, and it led to a stunningly bad form of government withexeecutions galore, which was overthrown, not by a democracy, but by an emperor who drove the whole of Europe into a dreadful war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The USA was not much better.

Man is born a warrior. Only the weak kneed fear war. Death will get you anyway. Better to have lived beforehand by fighting for something meaningful.

[Blind groper]

Better to live for something meaningful than die for it. Democracy evolved as the result of the works of living men. Not people fighting and dying.

[piscator]

Like Seth's delusion that owning guns will stop a government being oppressive. I have this image in mind of Seth and his buddies charging a government and military establishment, waving their assorted small arms, until they encounter the heavy weaponry of the military.

Whoops. Bye bye Seth.

Nor is anything like that needed. Over most of the past several thousand years, the common people of Europe have been little better than slaves, and certainly not owning arms. Yet democracy arose, and human rights were invented, and liberty extended to all the peoples of Europe. Firearms in the hands of the common people were not needed.

Jesus fuckin Christ. Are you really this dumb?

You'd still be a serf if America and then France hadn't shoved democracy up your king's ass.

Matter of fact, try pulling an Australia and start making your own decisions. See how long before your Queen's Governor General overrules your Parliament too.

What an absurd post. The American revolution was not a causal factor in the gradual change in political power between crown and parliament in Britain. And the Governor General example has absolutely nothing to do with any imaginary power the crown may have had in Australian political life - it was one of many political moves in a volatile domestic political situation.

So it really didn't mean anything when the Queen's Governor General dismissed your Prime Minister?

Last time a Governor General tried that shit in America, it was he who had to leave, and most expeditiously.


It may well have been the Enlightenment which generally liberated Europe to some semblance of representative democracy, but it was the American Revolution and the French Revolution that put teeth in it and ushered in the Modern Age. From a political perspective, America was and is the Enlightenment.

[JimC]

It meant nothing in terms of British influence on Australian politics - it was a political manoeuvre in a battle between conservative and progressive elements within Australia. The GG was simply a figure head for conservative elements...

[cronus]

Democracy is the most fragile forms of governance and each generation must fight for it anew and rest it from the hands of the strong who would prefer their tyranny. No man wants to fight, most are cowards, so they reject the notion that democracy is a result of a life and death struggle. Ah, but the history books, you don't have to go far back to see where the pacifist mindset fails. Peace in our times, a nice piece of paper full of concessions Mr Putin?

[Seth]

Like Seth's delusion that owning guns will stop a government being oppressive. I have this image in mind of Seth and his buddies charging a government and military establishment, waving their assorted small arms, until they encounter the heavy weaponry of the military.

Whoops. Bye bye Seth.

Nor is anything like that needed. Over most of the past several thousand years, the common people of Europe have been little better than slaves, and certainly not owning arms. Yet democracy arose, and human rights were invented, and liberty extended to all the peoples of Europe. Firearms in the hands of the common people were not needed.

Jesus fuckin Christ. Are you really this dumb?

You'd still be a serf if America and then France hadn't shoved democracy up your king's ass.

Matter of fact, try pulling an Australia and start making your own decisions. See how long before your Queen's Governor General overrules your Parliament too.

What an absurd post. The American revolution was not a causal factor in the gradual change in political power between crown and parliament in Britain.

You don't think that Mad King George getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of savages and louts in the Colonies didn't have an effect on the British citizenry's opinions about the monarchy? Really?

[Seth]

Democracy is the most fragile forms of governance and each generation must fight for it anew and rest it from the hands of the strong who would prefer their tyranny.

That's "wrest"

And yes, maintaining freedom and liberty is an ongoing battle, which makes it necessary and desirable for those who wish to defend their liberties and freedom to be armed and capable of fighting for it against those who prefer tyranny. Thus the 2nd Amendment.

No man wants to fight, most are cowards, so they reject the notion that democracy is a result of a life and death struggle. Ah, but the history books, you don't have to go far back to see where the pacifist mindset fails. Peace in our times, a nice piece of paper full of concessions Mr Putin?

Indeed.

[Seth]

Better to live for something meaningful than die for it. Democracy evolved as the result of the works of living men. Not people fighting and dying.

Actually it's the result of both. Living men willing to fight and die for their freedom. This is because tyrants only understand force. Therefore if you are not prepared to use force to put down a tyrant, the tyrant will rule in perpetuity.

[cronus]

I always leave a little mistake when saying something serious. Rule one, never outshine the master.

[Hermit]

So it really didn't mean anything when the Queen's Governor General dismissed your Prime Minister?

The dismissal had nothing to do with the Queen. She had no knowledge of it until after the fact and she certainly had no part in the decision. The affair was a cunning plan hatched by the arch-conservative leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser and the arch-conservative chief judge of the High Court of Australia to get rid of the incumbent Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam by manipulating a drunkard, the Governor General, John Kerr into announcing the dissolution of parliament and a new election. The dissolution was based on the fact that it could not govern because the funds to do so had been cut off. The reason for the cutting of funds was the Senate, which had the final say on government funding, decided to deny it. The reason why it could come to that decision was that the conservatives had the majority in the Senate since the previous election less than two years earlier.

So, nothing to do do with monarchical shenanigans - all to do with local skulduggery. Furthermore, the Governor General's powers to dissolve parliament had subsequently been removed precisely because of this particular abuse of power by Australian protagonists.

[rainbow]

Like Seth's delusion that owning guns will stop a government being oppressive. I have this image in mind of Seth and his buddies charging a government and military establishment, waving their assorted small arms, until they encounter the heavy weaponry of the military.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Take that paradise of Libertarianism, Somalia. Nearly everyone walks around with an AK47, and there is no Big Government telling people what to do.

You can even be a pirate, if you want.

[piscator]

So it really didn't mean anything when the Queen's Governor General dismissed your Prime Minister?

The dismissal had nothing to do with the Queen. She had no knowledge of it until after the fact and she certainly had no part in the decision. The affair was a cunning plan hatched by the arch-conservative leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser and the arch-conservative chief judge of the High Court of Australia to get rid of the incumbent Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam by manipulating a drunkard, the Governor General, John Kerr into announcing the dissolution of parliament and a new election. The dissolution was based on the fact that it could not govern because the funds to do so had been cut off. The reason for the cutting of funds was the Senate, which had the final say on government funding, decided to deny it. The reason why it could come to that decision was that the conservatives had the majority in the Senate since the previous election less than two years earlier.

So, nothing to do do with monarchical shenanigans - all to do with local skulduggery. Furthermore, the Governor General's powers to dissolve parliament had subsequently been removed precisely because of this particular abuse of power by Australian protagonists.

The events of the Dismissal led to only minor constitutional change. The Senate retained its power to block supply, and the Governor-General the power to dismiss the Government. However, those powers have not been exercised again. Kerr was widely criticised by ALP supporters for his actions, resigned early as Governor-General, and lived much of his remaining life abroad. Though Whitlam and Fraser later reconciled, Kerr, who died in 1991, continues to be reviled in some quarters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Austr ... nal_crisis



The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts[edit]
Although Federation is often regarded as the moment of "independence" of Australia from Britain, legally the Commonwealth was a creation of the British Imperial Parliament, through the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which applied to Australia by paramount force. As a result, since Australia was still legally a colony, there was continued uncertainty as to the applicability of British Imperial laws to the Commonwealth. This was resolved by the Statute of Westminster 1931, adopted by the Commonwealth via the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Statute of Westminster freed the Dominions, including the Commonwealth, from Imperial restrictions. Legally, this is often regarded as the moment of Australia's national independence.

However, due to specific exemptions in the Statute of Westminster, Imperial law continued to be paramount in Australian states. This was altered by the Australia Act 1986, which was passed in substantially the same form by the Commonwealth parliament and the British parliament, at the request of each state. In addition to ending the British Parliament's power to legislate over Australian states, the Australia Act also cut the last avenues of appeal from the Australian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As a symbol of the significance of this legislation, Queen Elizabeth II travelled to Australia to personally sign the proclamation of the law.

For the Constitution, the impact of these two laws is that the Constitution as in force in Australia is now separate from the text in the original Act. While the British Parliament can amend or repeal the Imperial Act, that would not affect Australia. Instead, the Constitution as in force in Australia can only be amended following the referendum mechanisms set out in the Constitution. Conversely, any amendment to the Constitution in Australia following the referendum mechanisms would not affect the text of the Imperial Act as in force in the United Kingdom.

-------------


There is no entrenched law that forms the New Zealand constitution. The Constitution Act 1986 and a collection of statutes (Acts of Parliament), the Treaty of Waitangi, Orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the Courts and unwritten constitutional conventions, comprises only a portion of the uncodified constitution of New Zealand.

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. This system is based on the Westminster system, although that term is increasingly inapt given constitutional developments peculiar to New Zealand. The head of state, the monarch of New Zealand is represented in the Realm of New Zealand by the Governor-General and is the source of executive, judicial and legislative power.

[Seth]

Like Seth's delusion that owning guns will stop a government being oppressive. I have this image in mind of Seth and his buddies charging a government and military establishment, waving their assorted small arms, until they encounter the heavy weaponry of the military.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Take that paradise of Libertarianism, Somalia. Nearly everyone walks around with an AK47, and there is no Big Government telling people what to do.

You can even be a pirate, if you want.

Except it's not a Libertarian culture. Obviously they use force and fraud constantly, therefore they cannot be Libertarian. Nice use of the strawman fallacy though.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

On the history of democracy. Let me repeat, the USA did not make a 'gift' of democracy to the world. Nor did France. Modern democracy began in Britain. A little history.

In 1376, King John signed the Magna Carta. This limited the power of the king, and instituted the idea of 'habeas corpus', meaning that the king could not imprison someone without cause or without a charge being laid.

1376. The first Speaker to the House of Commons was appointed. This gave the people a means by which grievances could be passed on to the monarch.

1688. The Bill of Rights was enacted, restricting the power of the monarch, and passing most power to Parliament. This first affected William of Orange, but King George III, much hated by Americans, was also severely limited in his powers.

Before the American rebellion, the colonists had a House of Assemblies to advise and assist the governors. American colonists voted for these people, under the British form of democracy.

There is a widespread fallacy held by overly chauvinistic Americans that the rebellion was about liberty. Not at all. That is a case of a rationalisation being mistaken for a reason. The real cause of the rebellion was a tiny minority of very rich Americans resenting Britain imposing taxes. However, you cannot get poor people to stick their necks on the chopping block, becoming cannon fodder, in order to reduce the taxes the wealthy pay. So the propaganda machine was used, to make the poor think it was about liberty. In fact, American colonists before the rebellion were just as free as after, if not more so.

Incidentally, the only reason the colonists 'won' their war was due to the fact that Britain at the time was in a 'cold war' with no less than four other nations, and had to keep most of its troops at home. Britain was a far mightier power than the tiddly little colonies at the time. The disparity was seen in the 1812 war, in which the USA, in an act of unjustifiable aggression decided to conquer Canada. Britain was ensconsed in the war with Napoleon at the time, showing that the young USA was cowardly, rebelling and attacking only when their enemy was weakened by other, more powerful enemies. However, in 1814, the war with Napoleon was over, and Britain then made short work of the USA, even occupying Washington DC and burning down the White House. The only success the USA had after 1814 was the Battle of New Orleans. They had to capitulate and get their sorry asses out of Canada.

The early American democracy was not a true democracy. They had a raft of rules about who could and could not vote. In fact, only about 6% of the population in 1787 had the right to vote. So the concept of democracy at that time was a joke!

Both American and British democracies began in a small way, and evolved. Both did not give full voting rights to pretty much everyone until after WWI. In the USA American gave women the vote in 1920, and America could not be called a true democracy till then.

Modern democracy began in Britain, and evolved to its true glory as a British institution. Americans who think it was their gift to the world are wanking themselves.