I think he's over selling his case. Germany, even victorious in World One could not have become a great power rival and an ideological threat to American democracy in the same way that Soviet Union did after 1945, or a victorious Nazi Germany could have been.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/world-war-i-legacy-democracy/394616/
QuoteWhat If the Allies Had Lost World War I?
To understand the conflict's legacy, consider what might have been.
An early morning attack by British forces on the Western Front in 1917AP
842 109
DAVID FRUM 7:15 AM ET
In the spring of 2015, my undergraduate son and I drove the length of the 1914-1918 Western Front, from the British battlefields in Flanders through the French zone in Champagne and Lorraine to the American cemeteries and monuments: Chateau-Thierry, St. Quentin, Belleau Wood, the Argonne. The nearer we approached the American sector, the fewer tourists shared the sites with us. Under the Menin gate at Ypres—a massive memorial to Britain's lost—we were jostled among half a thousand men and women, boys and girls. In the overwhelming Meuse-Argonne cemetery, the largest American military burying place in all Europe, we stood alone.
A Twitter follower offered me a memorable explanation of the weak hold of the First World War upon the American consciousness. "Americans prefer the sequel: better villains, bigger explosions." There's something to that. But if this earlier war has faded from national memory, its aftermath shapes American culture.
In the United States, the First World War is a rare example—George W. Bush's Iraq War is another—of a war that became more unpopular after the fact than while it was being waged. The First World War's horrific human and economic costs, the disappointment of hopes that the war would somehow reform or redeem society, the failure to achieve an enduring peace, the subsequent Great Depression that indicted the liberal world order for which so many Americans believed they had fought, the ensuing collapse of democracy in so many European countries, the slide toward a second world war—the experience of the two decades after the war systematically made mockery of every ideal and hope and promise for which Americans imagined they had joined the fight in April 1917.
Somebody had to carry the blame. But who?
That question would dominate the political debate of the interwar years. The response offered by many postwar critics of President Woodrow Wilson's war leadership would slow the U.S. response to the rise of Adolf Hitler—and cast an influence over foreign-policy debates into our own time. The criticism continues to this day. From 1918 through the Iraq War, "Wilsonian" is the only word in the American foreign-policy lexicon that remains both a proud boast and a cutting insult.
In the interwar era, blame for U.S. entry into the now-reviled First World War was sometimes assigned to the sinister wiles of British intelligence, sometimes to the financiers at the Morgan Bank, sometimes to the profit-seeking of the U.S. armaments industry, sometimes to the inherent violence of capitalism itself. Between 1934 and 1936, a congressional committee chaired by Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota gained headlines by its investigations of banks, munitions makers, and other so-called "merchants of death." In their greed, these businessmen and bankers (it was alleged) had unscrupulously duped the good and trusting American people into treading "the road to war," the title of an accusatory bestseller of the same period.
The former merchants of death got an image overhaul when President Franklin Roosevelt renamed America's military industries "the arsenal of democracy." Yet the conspiratorial way of thinking about the origins of wars remained alive. "He lied us into war," Clare Boothe Luce bitterly remarked of Roosevelt's policy in 1939-41, although the people who repeated her accusation often overlooked the second half of her sentence, which acknowledged the war's necessity "because he did not have the courage to lead us into war."
The conspiratorial account of the First World War was temporarily overwhelmed by the attack on Pearl Harbor. A journalist who lived through both the first and second world wars, Frederick Lewis Allen, marveled that the United States went to war in 1941 "with no enthusiasm and no dissent." Only cranks now question the necessity to fight and defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. But as the United States settled into the long Cold War against the Soviet Union, the isolationist themes of the interwar era were periodically revived. War and conflict were unnecessary—imposed by self-interested coteries and cliques upon a United States that otherwise had no reason to fight.
To understand why the U.S. fought in 1917, begin by considering the outcome if the United States had not fought. Minus U.S. reinforcements on land and sea, it's difficult to imagine how the Allies could have defeated a Germany that had knocked revolutionary Russia out of the war.
By the summer of 1917, the Western Allies had exhausted their credit in U.S. financial markets. Without direct U.S. government-to-government aid, they could not have afforded any more offensives in the West. The exhausted Allies would have had to negotiate some kind of settlement with Central Power forces occupying almost all of what is now Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic republics in the east; most of Romania and Yugoslavia in Southern Europe, as well as a bit of Italy; and almost all of Belgium and most of northeast France. Even if the Germans had traded concessions in the West to preserve their gains in the East, the kaiser's Germany would have emerged from such an outcome as the dominant power on the continent of Europe. The United States would have found itself after such a negotiated peace confronting the same outcome as it faced in 1946: a Europe divided between East and West, with the battered West looking to the United States for protection. As in 1946, the East would have been dominated by an authoritarian regime that looked upon the liberal and democratic Anglo-American West not just as a geopolitical antagonist, but as an ideological threat.
But unlike in 1946, when the line was drawn on the Elbe and the West included the wealthiest and most developed regions of Europe, this imaginary 1919 line would have been drawn on the Rhine, if not the Scheldt and the Meuse, with the greatest concentration of European industry on the Eastern side. Unlike in 1946, the newly dominant power in Eastern Europe would not have been Europe's most backward major nation (Russia), but its most scientifically and technologically advanced nation (Germany). In other words, the United States would have gotten an early start on the Cold War, and maybe a second hot war, supported by fewer and weaker allies against a richer and more dangerous opponent—and one quite likely to have developed the atomic bomb and the intercontinental ballistic missile first.
Some "euroskeptic" readers might snort: a German-dominated Europe? That's what exists now. But while that's funny to say, it's not quite true—nor is Angela Merkel's Germany any kind of equivalent of the kaiser's. Germany leads Europe today by consent, not coercion. It is a reliable member of, and leading partner in, the larger Western alliance, not a rival and competitor against that alliance. It is a status-quo power, not the jumpy, reckless challenger to the status quo that troubled the peace of Europe from the 1860s to the 1940s. Today's Europe earnestly seeks to fulfill the vision offered by Wilson in his great "peace without victory" speech of January 22, 1917:
Only a peace between equals can last. ... The equality of nations upon which peace must be founded if it is to last must be an equality of rights; ... between big nations and small, between those that are powerful and those that are weak. ... And there is a deeper thing involved than even equality of right among organized nations. No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property.
That was not the kind of peace on offer from the Kaiserreich in 1917 and 1918.
Like George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life, I contemplate these might-have-beens to gain a better appreciation for what actually happened.
The question confronting the United States in 1917 was the same question that confronted Americans in 1941, and again after World War II, and now again as China rises: Who will shape world order? The United States and its liberal democratic traditions? Or challengers impelled by aggressive authoritarian ideologies of one kind or another?
American popular memory usually draws a sharp distinction between World War II, on the one side, and the First World War and Cold War on the other. Popular memory emphasizes World War II's moral attributes, not its strategic purposes. But the popular memory is vulnerable to obvious counter-argument. A struggle against totalitarian dictatorship undertaken in alliance with Joseph Stalin? A fight for freedom that left half of Europe under communist rule? A battle against genocide that ended with the indiscriminate atomic bombing of two Japanese cities? What about the Bengal famine? The internment of Japanese Americans? Racial segregation in the U.S. armed forces? World War II is typically morally validated by inscribing at the war's center the Jewish Holocaust, a horror in which few of the Allied leaders showed much interest at the time. Many might wish now that the United States and Great Britain had fought to stop the Holocaust, but they didn't. And they would have fought Hitler just as hard if his racial ideology had somehow not fixated on the Jews.
Americans are susceptible to the belief that their country is somehow not a state like other states: It is either something purer and higher, or something unforgivably worse. If it's not fighting "to end war," in the rash phrase often (mistakenly) attributed to Wilson, then it's fighting for J.P. Morgan and the munitions makers. Yet there was one of Wilson's genuine phrases that did aptly describe what the issue was in 1917, and what it has been ever since. In his April 2 speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war on Germany, Wilson insisted that the "world must be made safe for democracy."
Not "democratic"—"safe for democracy." Wilson wasn't promising to impose democracy on Imperial Germany. He was promising to defend democracy from Imperial Germany. The First World War had not begun as a conflict between democracy and authoritarianism. Great Britain was not a democracy in August 1914. Tsarist Russia certainly was not. Ditto Japan, Italy, and Romania—all fought for the Entente, none had governments elected by more than a small fraction of the population. Even in France, the most democratic of the original Allies, elected leaders did not fully control the government (never mind that the Third Republic ruled over a vast colonial empire and denied the vote to women).
By the time Wilson delivered his "safe for democracy" war message, however, the war had taken a new form. Britain would emerge from the war as a country in which all adult men voted, and soon adult women too. Russia was racked by a revolution that would overthrow the tsar. The smaller, neutral nations of Europe—notably Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden—democratized during and after the First World War. The nations that gained independence as a result of the war—the Baltic republics, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland—were organized as democracies at least at the start. The British dominions—Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—already had universal male suffrage; after the war, the dominions gained the full sovereignty that confirmed them as self-ruling governments. Italy and Japan too would experiment—tragically briefly—with liberal democracy in the early 1920s. Newly republican China would declare war on Germany in August 1917.
Meanwhile, the Central Powers receded from democracy during the war. Before 1914, Germany and the Habsburg Empire could display elected national legislatures, but these legislatures exerted little control over the actions of government and during the war years lost what little influence they had. Where the Central Powers organized new governments—notably in Ukraine—they instituted authoritarian or military regimes. Most notoriously, the German authorities subsidized Vladimir Lenin in exile, and then provided him safe conduct to destroy Russia's brief experiment with democracy in the spring and summer of 1917.
Had the Western Allies lost the First World War, European democracy would have failed the test that American democracy surmounted in the Civil War: the test of survival in the competition between nations and regimes.
The United States too was a very imperfect democracy in 1917. In particular, black Americans lived under a system of caste oppression and routinized violence not very different from that meted out to German Jews in the first four or five years of Hitler's rule. Racist ideologies held sway not only in the rural and ill-educated South but on the faculties of prestigious universities, in the upper reaches of the federal civil service, in learned societies. Racist ideas were contested, but it was not foreordained that they would be rejected.
Human beings admire winners. In the year 1940, when democracy looked a loser, Anne Morrow Lindbergh hailed German fascism as "the wave of the future." Had Imperial Germany prevailed in 1918, there would have been many to argue that Otto von Bismarck's vision of the future—"iron and blood"—had decisively triumphed over Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
The great American hope is that the country can win a final victory over dangerous enemies and then never think about the external world ever again. When that hope is balked, when the Armistice does not deliver eternal peace and self-balancing security, many Americans blame themselves: If the external world is recalcitrant, America must have provoked it. Self-accusation is as American as self-assertion—and as based on illusions. America has acted as it has over the past century not because it is so good or so bad, but because it is so rich, so visible, and so strong. America's strength sways world politics even when it is not exerted: Any aggressive illiberal power must fear the United States as the ultimate potential check on its aspirations. So it was with Germany in 1917. So it is with Iran today.
The kaiser's generals reckoned that the planet was not big enough both for their ambitions and American power. Americans for a long time hoped otherwise, but their adversaries saw more clearly—and forced the issue. That has happened again and again in the century since. It is happening again now, and will continue to happen so long as the American state holds the power advantage it has held since 1917.
Not always fully consciously, not always perfectly presciently—but consciously and presciently enough—the best American minds of a century ago perceived what was at stake in 1917. They imagined a better world—and the hostile world they would confront if they failed. Their efforts went largely wrong in the years after 1918. The ensuing frustration brought odium on the whole project. But those of us alive today have the advantage of knowing more of how the story developed. We should have more sympathy for the difficulties faced by those who had to start the job without guide or precedent, including the guide or precedent of somebody else's previous errors.
At present, too, many worry whether this world is safe for democratic societies challenged by the aggressive and illiberal. Today, too, American motives are mixed, as human motives usually are. A better understanding of history can at least emancipate Americans from the isolationist polemics that caricatured the why and the how of U.S. entry into the First World War. Such understanding will protect Americans from the dangerous illusions that such polemics inculcated in the 1930s, after Vietnam, and now once more again.
Is it really right to call any side in WWI "allies"? The allies vs the axis were the parties in the WWII. The WWI was about the entente cordiale vs the central alliance.
The thing is, European mainland was already Germany-dominated in 1914. Hell, even a really big chunk of Britain's imports for its own needs in artillery used to come from... Germany.
Frum is extremely deluded about the European Powers' view of America's power and prestige in 1917, let alone in 1914. The only reason Kaiser Wilhelm gave a fuck about the US is that it meant another reserve of fresh, untapped fodder that would unbalance the attrition meatgrinder against Germany, hence why he bargained a very rough deal to the Bolsheviks for the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Also, it depends when Germany wins the war. Had they veered toward Paris in 1914, rather than in front of it, and won at the Marne we wouldn't even have a USSR. Perhaps Russia would be a Constitutional Monarchy, France would been forced to renounce to Alsace-Lorraine in perpetuity and a bunch of its colonies, and the US wouldn't have become the industrial-based world power it became after 1917.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2015, 11:06:56 PM
Is it really right to call any side in WWI "allies"? The allies vs the axis were the parties in the WWII. The WWI was about the entente cordiale vs the central alliance.
Technically, you are right. Except is Central Powers. Triplice refers strictly to the alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
In practice, since the Allied partners are almost rigourously the same as in WWII the term "Allies" is used in parlance.
Quote from: Drakken on June 04, 2015, 12:08:45 AM
The thing is, Europe was already a Germany-dominated in 1914.
Frum is extremely deluded about the European Powers' view of America's power and prestige in 1917, let alone in 1914. The only reason Kaiser Wilhelm gave a fuck about the US is that it meant another reserve of fresh, untapped fodder that would unbalance the attrition meatgrinder against Germany, hence why he bargained a very rough deal to the Bolsheviks for the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Also, it depends when Germany wins the war. Had they veered toward Paris in 1914, rather than in front of it, and won at the Marne we wouldn't even have a USSR. Perhaps Russia would be a Constitutional Monarchy, France would been forced to renounce to Alsace-Lorraine in perpetuity and a bunch of its colonies, and the US wouldn't have become the industrial-based world power it became after 1917.
:huh:
The US had already surpassed Britain as the World's largest economy by the point.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2015, 12:15:35 AM
The US had already surpassed Britain as the World's largest economy by the point.
True, albeit from numbers I've seen they were close to parity per head by 1914, and the US's GDP significantly expanded after their entry into the war in 1917. However, the US's power projection capability was nothing compared to Britain, even in 1917.
QuoteHad the Western Allies lost the First World War, European democracy would have failed the test that American democracy surmounted in the Civil War: the test of survival in the competition between nations and regimes.
wut
Quote from: Drakken on June 04, 2015, 12:25:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2015, 12:15:35 AM
The US had already surpassed Britain as the World's largest economy by the point.
True, albeit from numbers I've seen they were close to parity per head by 1914, and the US's GDP significantly expanded after their entry into the war in 1917. However, the US's power projection capability was nothing compared to Britain, even in 1917.
It was inevitable that it surpass it. They had a far greater population and resource base, while having an educated population and technological equality.
QuoteMeanwhile, the Central Powers receded from democracy during the war. Before 1914, Germany and the Habsburg Empire could display elected national legislatures, but these legislatures exerted little control over the actions of government and during the war years lost what little influence they had.
Just like in Britain foreign policy, even before the war was deliberately kept within the "charmed circle" of the cabinet by Sir Edward Grey and never presented to any oversight by the House of Commons? Some cabinet members were not even in the know that Britain had signed up to new elements added to its 1912 renewal of the Entente Cordiale - most notably that France, if it found itself at war, would patrol the Mediteranean while the British would patrol the Channel... and as Paul Cambon was so eager to point out, if Britain wouldn't join the Channel would totally be open to Germany's High Sea Fleet.
This argument is disingenuous. I would defy him to present any country among the Entente Cordiale and its allies that allowed its war policy to be directly influenced by their legislatures - except for the voting of war credits. On that, even Germany's Reichtag had a say, and Bethmann Holwegg had to convince the SPD to get their agreement.
QuoteWhere the Central Powers organized new governments—notably in Ukraine—they instituted authoritarian or military regimes. Most notoriously, the German authorities subsidized Vladimir Lenin in exile, and then provided him safe conduct to destroy Russia's brief experiment with democracy in the spring and summer of 1917.
In the Kaiser's own words, he did that with the greatest reluctance. In one of his rare moments of clarity he foresaw that sending Lenin to Russia to provoke a Bolshevik revolt, if successful, could spell a real threat to Germany in the future. But the Bolsheviks were the only faction that wanted peace at any cost, and with the entry of America he really needed the men to offset the imbalance and so Russia needed to be out. Had Kerensky and the Mensheviks had been more open to a separate peace with Germany, it is probable its experiment with democracy would have been more enduring.
Oh, it's The Atlantic.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2015, 11:06:56 PM
Is it really right to call any side in WWI "allies"? The allies vs the axis were the parties in the WWII. The WWI was about the entente cordiale vs the central alliance.
Entente cordiale refers to a series of agreements between France and the UK, settling some colonial questions paving the way for an eventual alliance. The alliance in WW1 is more accurately described as Triple-Entente, as opposed to the Triplice, or Central Powers.
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 12:52:41 AM
Oh, it's The Atlantic.
Since when does The Atlantic have bad reputation here?
It doesn't have nearly the depth the Pacific has.
If the Allies lost WW1, we would have a half-functioning united European economical zone dominated by Germany and hindered by various national petty differences and half-baked policies.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2015, 11:06:56 PM
Is it really right to call any side in WWI "allies"? The allies vs the axis were the parties in the WWII. The WWI was about the entente cordiale vs the central alliance.
Yep.
In WW1 it was the allies vs the entente.
The allies did lose WW1 (so did the entente really but... You know)
Quote from: Tyr on June 04, 2015, 04:16:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2015, 11:06:56 PM
Is it really right to call any side in WWI "allies"? The allies vs the axis were the parties in the WWII. The WWI was about the entente cordiale vs the central alliance.
Yep.
In WW1 it was the allies vs the entente.
The allies did lose WW1 (so did the entente really but... You know)
As was already noted though, in practice, it generally isn't the Central Powers that one is talking about when one says the Allies of WW1.
If the Central Powers win in 1917 I would have bet you still get a re-run mid-century.
Austria-Hungary still falls apart, only on a different timeline.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2015, 03:10:50 AM
If the Allies lost WW1, we would have a half-functioning united European economical zone dominated by Germany and hindered by various national petty differences and half-baked policies.
That's probably very close to the truth.
Niall Ferguson edited a book about counter-factual history. The title escapes me.
The article about "Mitteleuropa" after a German victory in WW I in typical British fashion sees it as almost an early EU. I think that's probably well too optimistic.
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
If the Central Powers win in 1917 I would have bet you still get a re-run mid-century.
Austria-Hungary still falls apart, only on a different timeline.
An uglier, bloodier, more drawn-out timeline.
As to the re-run, I wonder what would have happened to the likelihood of that if WWI had ended before it went chemical.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 04, 2015, 06:36:18 AM
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
If the Central Powers win in 1917 I would have bet you still get a re-run mid-century.
Austria-Hungary still falls apart, only on a different timeline.
An uglier, bloodier, more drawn-out timeline.
As to the re-run, I wonder what would have happened to the likelihood of that if WWI had ended before it went chemical.
The nasty war propaganda was full swing well before the gas attacks.
That re-run would probably had seen a nazi-ish humiliated France trying and magnificently failin to take revenge on Germany, while nazi-ish Britain looked at it with neutrality.
France would probably burn itself out in a brutal civil war with the left and the right blaming each other for the sufferings of the war and defeat. I see no reason the the right would necessarily win and even if it did Fascist Italy would be more similar to it than Nazi Germany.
France goes through political turmoil even as a victor; no reason Germany wouldn't either.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2015, 07:16:25 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 04, 2015, 06:36:18 AM
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
If the Central Powers win in 1917 I would have bet you still get a re-run mid-century.
Austria-Hungary still falls apart, only on a different timeline.
An uglier, bloodier, more drawn-out timeline.
As to the re-run, I wonder what would have happened to the likelihood of that if WWI had ended before it went chemical.
The nasty war propaganda was full swing well before the gas attacks.
That re-run would probably had seen a nazi-ish humiliated France trying and magnificently failin to take revenge on Germany, while nazi-ish Britain looked at it with neutrality.
I don't think Britain really has room for fascism.
Wait. They had Thatcher. ;)
Yes, people, this time it was a joke.
:ultra:
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2015, 03:10:50 AM
If the Allies lost WW1, we would have a half-functioning united European economical zone dominated by Germany and hindered by various national petty differences and half-baked policies.
And millions of dead Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians. And then as the cold war with the US heats up, Germany would inevitably go further down the Pan-Germanic route to Nazism until you end up with much of the apparatus of the Third Reich, only they're already firmly entrenched across all of Europe.
Nope. Just nope. The Hapsburg Empire was a rotten carcass that deserved to be torn apart, and the Ottoman Empire was hampered in its proto-Nazi ambitions only by its incompetence. I am infinitely fascinated by and love Imperial Germany, but it's really the only worthwhile state in the entire Central Powers.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2015, 09:04:47 AM
I am infinitely fascinated by and love Imperial Germany
Why? It is just a modern state hamstrung by archaic nonsense.
QuoteThe Hapsburg Empire was a rotten carcass that deserved to be torn apart
Deserving has nothing to do with anything. It represented the hope for a united and prosperous multi-national state. The Habsburgs needed to be made powerless figureheads though. Weird that you attack the Ottomans for their crazy nationalist ambitions but you support them in the case of the Habsburg Empire.
On the plus side, we don't get Sykes-Picot, and my work today is a lot easier :p
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 09:09:31 AM
On the plus side, we don't get Sykes-Picot, and my work today is a lot easier :p
Maybe. As in maybe your work today is easier not that you still might get Sykes-Picot :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2015, 09:07:15 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2015, 09:04:47 AM
I am infinitely fascinated by and love Imperial Germany
Why? It is just a modern state hamstrung by archaic nonsense.
Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2015, 01:47:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 12:52:41 AM
Oh, it's The Atlantic.
Since when does The Atlantic have bad reputation here?
Yes, why pay attention to what happens on the board? :rolleyes: 10 years ago Yi's splooging over The Atlantic made me take out a subscription. I ended up with an article by Bernard-Henri Lévy that sucked ass. "What the hell am I reading?". I concluded that unlike my favorite mag The Economist The Atlantic is a crapshoot with no internal quality assurance. "May contain nuggets." I don't think The Atlantic doesn't contain good stuff, but I certainly think that The Atlantic isn't in itself proof of quality. I bear no ill will towards Yi over this and my occasional comments on The Atlantic are mostly for "fun".
Imperial Germany. :wub:
Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2015, 09:11:39 AM
Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."
The fascination part I get. The love part is odd. But maybe I don't know what you get by love. I mean I have a fascination with revolutionary France but I don't want to live there or wish it was still around.
Tim regards any society that does not allow women to vote to be a slave society.
Also it's a TRUE FACT that Great Britain in 1914 did not allow Puerto Rico to become a state.
I think that's Frum's statement, not Timorican's. Didn't the UK have a property requirement in 1914?
Imperial Germany was a strange concoction. Not only was it the most modern country in the world and had industry that put everyone else's to shame, but it also had the Reichstag. Which had no power.
I think imperial Germany eventually would have reformed and that it was hamstrung by Wilhelm II. By all accounts, he seems like the archetype of a bumbling buffoon.
Tim and Frum are about on the same level. Though that's probably an insult to Tim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 11:25:30 AM
I think that's Frum's statement, not Timorican's. Didn't the UK have a property requirement in 1914?
Yeah, that's from Frum. If you want to compare them to modern-day democracies with universal suffrage, then I suppose you could define them away from being a democracy, but...then what would you define them as? A halfway-house democracy?
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 09:11:51 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2015, 01:47:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 12:52:41 AM
Oh, it's The Atlantic.
Since when does The Atlantic have bad reputation here?
Yes, why pay attention to what happens on the board? :rolleyes: 10 years ago Yi's splooging over The Atlantic made me take out a subscription. I ended up with an article by Bernard-Henri Lévy that sucked ass. "What the hell am I reading?". I concluded that unlike my favorite mag The Economist The Atlantic is a crapshoot with no internal quality assurance. "May contain nuggets." I don't think The Atlantic doesn't contain good stuff, but I certainly think that The Atlantic isn't in itself proof of quality. I bear no ill will towards Yi over this and my occasional comments on The Atlantic are mostly for "fun".
BHL is the problem I think though if the Atlantic accepts his articles then it's pretty telling as well. BHL has got connections though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 11:25:30 AM
I think that's Frum's statement, not Timorican's. Didn't the UK have a property requirement in 1914?
It's complicated.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 04, 2015, 11:33:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 11:25:30 AM
I think that's Frum's statement, not Timorican's. Didn't the UK have a property requirement in 1914?
Yeah, that's from Frum. If you want to compare them to modern-day democracies with universal suffrage, then I suppose you could define them away from being a democracy, but...then what would you define them as? A halfway-house democracy?
I think the point he is making is that they weren't by any means perfect examples of democracy, yet they were still a damn site better than the alternative.
I don't really understand the need to pick out singular comments a writer makes and tear them apart outside the context he is making the comment in. Frum's particular point here is perfectly valid. None of these European powers were particularly good democracies, even by the standards of the US at that time, so the idea that the US fought to protect "democracy" in the form of France and the UK is a little bit thin. Russia was not a democracy at all, and both France and the UK compared to the US were not great.
He is saying that the US fought to protect the idea of democracy, moreso than the particular not so democratic states in the Entente. There is much to debate with THAT point, of course.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2015, 11:31:00 AM
Tim and Frum are about on the same level. Though that's probably an insult to Tim.
:huh:
I don't always agree with him, but I always like David Frum.
A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.
The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.
After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.
QuoteThe size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate
That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2015, 11:31:00 AM
Tim and Frum are about on the same level. Though that's probably an insult to Tim.
:huh:
I don't always agree with him, but I always like David Frum.
I don't always agree with him, but I usually like Tim.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 11:56:20 AM
A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.
The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.
After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.
QuoteThe size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate
That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
I disagree. A property qualification that allows 60% to vote makes it a democracy IMO.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 11:56:20 AM
A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.
The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.
After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.
QuoteThe size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate
That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
The only two countries that had women voting prior to WWI were Finland and Norway, I think.
Not that it matters much. However, WWI did wonders for womens' rights in several countries. It also did a lot for poetry. Without it, a beauty like "The Wasteland" would not have been written.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 12:00:36 PM
I disagree. A property qualification that allows 60% to vote makes it a democracy IMO.
How is that a democracy?
A property qualification is usually there for the exact opposite reason of allowing democratic rule.
It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.
But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.
After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 12:04:55 PM
How is that a democracy?
A property qualification is usually there for the exact opposite reason of allowing democratic rule.
If you accept that logic then it seems to me age requirements mean no country is democratic.
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 12:06:04 PM
It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.
But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.
After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.
Agreed.
The US had male only suffrage in 1917 didn't it? And de facto restrictions on suffrage of black males.
It doesn't seem radically more of a democracy in 1917 than the UK was.
Yep. It is not an all or nothing type thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 12:06:04 PM
It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.
But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.
After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.
Agreed.
I don't disagree, but I also don't disagree with the notion that pre-1918 it is fair to say that the UK was not much of a democracy. Both fall into the range of reasonable arguments.
Quote from: Gups on June 04, 2015, 12:07:34 PM
The US had male only suffrage in 1917 didn't it? And de facto restrictions on suffrage of black males.
It doesn't seem radically more of a democracy in 1917 than the UK was.
Radically? Probably not - but there was a pretty fundamental difference between largely universal voting rights that in a practical sense meant only the wealthy could vote, and hence only their interests would be represented, and on where even though sufferage is far from universal, it still allowed for the bulk of the citizen classes to vote, hence forcing politicians to cater to their views.
Again, the point here is that Frum's position is not ridiculous if you take it in the context he is making it - the 1918 Act made a HUGE difference in the maeup of the voting population in the UK. Tripling the number of voters is not a difference in just scale, but in kind.
It's not a ridiculous statement by any means but I do feel it commits the sin of anachronistically using a modern nuance .
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 12:06:04 PM
It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.
But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.
After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.
Agreed.
I don't disagree, but I also don't disagree with the notion that pre-1918 it is fair to say that the UK was not much of a democracy. Both fall into the range of reasonable arguments.
But as far as pre-1918 democracies go it was one of the best. Which is very different from the point Frum is trying to make.
Calling a country where a minority of adults have a vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong in some particular context, but it's not obviously correct and it is a bit misleading.
We still call ancient Athens a democracy and got the word from there. I honestly doubt they had a bigger percentage of the population voting than 1914 Britain did.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2015, 12:27:13 PM
We still call ancient Athens a democracy and got the word from there. I honestly doubt they had a bigger percentage of the population voting than 1914 Britain did.
And in the ancient context it's OK.
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 12:23:05 PM
Calling a country where a minority of adults have a vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong in some particular context, but it's not obviously correct and it is a bit misleading.
Ok, calling a country which allows some of its regions to create laws limiting the ability of the vast majority of one race to vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong either, but would you really suggest the US was not a democracy until the late 1960s.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 12:19:50 PM
Quote from: Gups on June 04, 2015, 12:07:34 PM
The US had male only suffrage in 1917 didn't it? And de facto restrictions on suffrage of black males.
It doesn't seem radically more of a democracy in 1917 than the UK was.
Radically? Probably not - but there was a pretty fundamental difference between largely universal voting rights that in a practical sense meant only the wealthy could vote, and hence only their interests would be represented, and on where even though sufferage is far from universal, it still allowed for the bulk of the citizen classes to vote, hence forcing politicians to cater to their views.
Again, the point here is that Frum's position is not ridiculous if you take it in the context he is making it - the 1918 Act made a HUGE difference in the maeup of the voting population in the UK. Tripling the number of voters is not a difference in just scale, but in kind.
60% of British men were not wealthy. At the previous elections in 1906 and 1910, a radical Liberal Government had been elected which introduced pensions and unemployment benefits precipitating a constitutional crisis when these were blocked by the wealthy (the House of Lords0
Back of an envelope calculations. Assuming a 50/50 male/female split in both the UK and the US and 90/10 white/black in the US. We have 30% of the UK population enfranchised and 45% of the US population.
Yeah. 60% means you have to own a pair of shoes to vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 12:06:32 PM
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 12:04:55 PM
How is that a democracy?
A property qualification is usually there for the exact opposite reason of allowing democratic rule.
If you accept that logic then it seems to me age requirements mean no country is democratic.
No, it doesn't.
Most countries have an age limit for when you become a citizen with full rights. But not a property qualification.
I think it's interesting and something I never really considered that if Germany and its allies had won WWI then how different Europe may have looked. Going by the author's thoughts, it's mostly how different the political systems might have been given that the countries that came out of it as sovereign nations may not have done so, or if they did may not have developed some sort of democracy, and kept some sort of similar govt. as Germany/Austria had. There's more to it as would Russia have been able to go Communist? Maybe a victorious Germany would have sent the troops and weapons to help fight against the Communist side and do more than what was actually done by the US, UK, and others who did get involved since it would be right on Germany's border and seen as quite threatening.
Would France have recovered well enough after the defeat and loss of territory to retain its form of government? And would they be totally over shadowed by a victorious and larger Germany which also has more influence?
It all really opens up some good pondering on what Europe would have looked like twenty years later, and what the next hot or cold war might have been like given that Germany may have been able to progress even more so in economy, technology, nukes, and weapons of war.
I wonder if in this alternative universe whether it's the French who come up with the stab-in-the-back myth.
For the Jews, it would've been good news.
The French would never have trains running on time.
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 12:45:22 PM
I wonder if in this alternative universe whether it's the French who come up with the stab-in-the-back myth.
a slug in the back I guess
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 12:41:23 PM
No, it doesn't.
Most countries have an age limit for when you become a citizen with full rights. But not a property qualification.
If we're going to go with the "what most countries do" definition of democracy, then I imagine the UK in 1914 passes, no?
Actually, come to think of it, that's something I know nothing about.
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 11:30:38 AM
Imperial Germany was a strange concoction. Not only was it the most modern country in the world and had industry that put everyone else's to shame, but it also had the Reichstag. Which had no power.
I think imperial Germany eventually would have reformed and that it was hamstrung by Wilhelm II. By all accounts, he seems like the archetype of a bumbling buffoon.
My understanding was that the Reichstag did have power over the budget.
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 12:06:32 PM
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 12:04:55 PM
How is that a democracy?
A property qualification is usually there for the exact opposite reason of allowing democratic rule.
If you accept that logic then it seems to me age requirements mean no country is democratic.
No, it doesn't.
Most countries have an age limit for when you become a citizen with full rights. But not a property qualification.
As I read it the UK between 1884 and 1918 didn't exactly have a property qualification. You could rent and be a voter. It's just you had to have a stable residence for a number of months, which still disenfranchised those who were more transient.
It seems the advancement of women's suffrage and the devolution of enfranchisement to the lowest of classes should be understood as part of the empire's decline onset by the war- part of the enormous cost that was paid, and the sun setting on undisputed European hegemony.
As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won. The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 11:56:20 AM
A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.
The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.
After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.
QuoteThe size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate
That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
The US enfranchised women in 1920, and some states retained what amounted to a property qualification in the form of "poll taxes" and "literacy tests" for far longer than the UK.
QuoteFrom 1890 to 1908, ten of the eleven former Confederate states completed political suppression and exclusion of these groups by ratifying new constitutions or amendments which incorporated provisions to make voter registration more difficult. These included such requirements as payment of poll taxes, complicated record keeping, complicated timing of registration and length of residency in relation to elections, with related record-keeping requirements; felony disenfranchisement focusing on crimes thought to be committed by African Americans,[31] and a literacy test or comprehension test.
Prospective voters had to prove the ability to read and write the English language to white voter registrars, who in practice applied subjective requirements. Blacks were often denied the right to vote on this basis. Even well-educated blacks were often told they had "failed" such a test, if in fact, it had been administered. On the other hand, illiterate whites were sometimes allowed to vote through a "grandfather clause," which waived literacy requirements if one's grandfather had been a qualified voter before 1866, or had served as a soldier, or was from a foreign country. As most blacks had grandfathers who were slaves before 1866 and could not have fulfilled any of those conditions, they could not use the grandfather clause exemption. Selective enforcement of the poll tax was frequently also used to disqualify black and poor white voters. As a result of these measures, at the turn of the century voter rolls dropped markedly across the South. Most blacks and many poor whites were excluded from the political system for decades. Unable to vote, they were also excluded from juries or running for any office.
In Alabama, for example, its 1901 constitution restricted the franchise for poor whites as well as blacks. It contained requirements for payment of cumulative poll taxes, completion of literacy tests, and increased residency at state, county and precinct levels, effectively disenfranchised tens of thousands of poor whites as well as most blacks. Historian J. Morgan Kousser found, "They disfranchised these whites as willingly as they deprived blacks of the vote."[32] By 1941, more whites than blacks in total had been disenfranchised.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Milestones_of_national_franchise_extension
Not seeing the argument that democracy in the US was 'more democratic' than democracy in the UK during or after WW1. One would have to add up all the disenfranchisement features of each country to compare - and note, allegedly more poor Whites were disenfranchised by such measures than Blacks.
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won. The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)
Agreed - I can't imagine a CP victory in a short war could possibly have proved worse than what actually happened. After a long war, that would depend on how it came about.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 12:19:50 PM
Again, the point here is that Frum's position is not ridiculous if you take it in the context he is making it - the 1918 Act made a HUGE difference in the maeup of the voting population in the UK. Tripling the number of voters is not a difference in just scale, but in kind.
Yeah well we had exams and poll taxes and didn't let women vote. So if we were to go by what Frum is saying Democracy was invented in 1907 by Finland. That does not strike me as reasonable.
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won. The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)
A CP victory at any point would mean a German dominated Continent Britain could never have allowed. That alone suggests a very grim future.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2015, 09:11:39 AM
Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."
Mahler and Schoenberg. Klimt, Schiele, and Kokoscha. Frank and Loos. Preminger, Lang, von Stroeheim, Billy Wilder. Wittengenstein and Husserl. Buber. Popper. Otto Neurath. The entire Austrian school - Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, von Mises, and Schumpeter. Johnny von Neumann AND Oskar Morgenstern. Kurt Godel. Freud. And Adler. And Frankl. Joseph Roth. Robert Musil.
All Habsburg born and raised.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 12:28:47 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 12:23:05 PM
Calling a country where a minority of adults have a vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong in some particular context, but it's not obviously correct and it is a bit misleading.
Ok, calling a country which allows some of its regions to create laws limiting the ability of the vast majority of one race to vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong either, but would you really suggest the US was not a democracy until the late 1960s.
I don't follow.
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2015, 01:25:14 PM
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won. The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)
Agreed - I can't imagine a CP victory in a short war could possibly have proved worse than what actually happened. After a long war, that would depend on how it came about.
Depends on what the terms of the peace and how reasonable the CP would be. Everyone expected the war would be short. If all that occurs is A-H gets to punish Serbia in some way and France gets humiliated again then, I agree with Valmy, the stage gets set for the next conflict between the Great Powers. But it would be an interesting question of how they would align themselves in the next go round.
This thread reminds me of the back cover of Twilight:2000, which claimed that the war of 1812 was fought between democracies.
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2015, 01:53:10 PM
This thread reminds me of the back cover of Twilight:2000, which claimed that the war of 1812 was fought between democracies.
Twilight: 2000 :wub:
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 11:56:20 AM
A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.
The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.
After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.
QuoteThe size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate
That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918)
Based on that criterion alone, Germany was more of a democracy than Britain before the war. The 1912 Reichstag election had about 14.4 million people with voting rights, which corresponds to 22% of the total population of Germany at the time. The 7.7 million in Britain are just 17% of the total population.
Of course Germany was a neo-absolutist monarchy.
Quote from: Zanza on June 04, 2015, 02:29:28 PM
Of course Germany was a neo-absolutist monarchy.
Which goes to Warspite's point. It is the form of government, not necessarily the percentage of the population who can vote, which defines a democracy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2015, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2015, 09:11:39 AM
Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."
Mahler and Schoenberg. Klimt, Schiele, and Kokoscha. Frank and Loos. Preminger, Lang, von Stroeheim, Billy Wilder. Wittengenstein and Husserl. Buber. Popper. Otto Neurath. The entire Austrian school - Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, von Mises, and Schumpeter. Johnny von Neumann AND Oskar Morgenstern. Kurt Godel. Freud. And Adler. And Frankl. Joseph Roth. Robert Musil.
All Habsburg born and raised.
He has some strange hatred of the Habsburgs. I don't see why Austria-Hungaria is more damned or deserving to fall apart then Russia in 1914.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2015, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2015, 09:11:39 AM
Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."
Mahler and Schoenberg. Klimt, Schiele, and Kokoscha. Frank and Loos. Preminger, Lang, von Stroeheim, Billy Wilder. Wittengenstein and Husserl. Buber. Popper. Otto Neurath. The entire Austrian school - Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, von Mises, and Schumpeter. Johnny von Neumann AND Oskar Morgenstern. Kurt Godel. Freud. And Adler. And Frankl. Joseph Roth. Robert Musil.
All Habsburg born and raised.
You forgot Kafka, Bruno Schulz, Hasek and Mucha.
As I was writing this I started writing a list and I kept accidentally including Austrians. Point granted. Between Schiele, Billy Wilder, Schulz and Kafka that's four of my favorite people who ever lived off the bat.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 04, 2015, 12:06:04 PM
It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.
But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.
After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.
Agreed.
I don't disagree, but I also don't disagree with the notion that pre-1918 it is fair to say that the UK was not much of a democracy. Both fall into the range of reasonable arguments.
But as far as pre-1918 democracies go it was one of the best. Which is very different from the point Frum is trying to make.
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2015, 01:38:51 PM
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won. The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)
A CP victory at any point would mean a German dominated Continent Britain could never have allowed. That alone suggests a very grim future.
maybe, or maybe things might have gone rather well with Britain no longer in the position to play it's Balance of Power games at the expense of others. We'll never know.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 04, 2015, 03:01:16 PM
maybe, or maybe things might have gone rather well with Britain no longer in the position to play it's Balance of Power games at the expense of others. We'll never know.
The expansive hegemon obviously loses, but you seem to suggest others do as well.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Well the trouble with British democracy is that the vote did not extend to the many millions of brown people under its control in the colonies...
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Well the trouble with British democracy is that the vote did not extend to the many millions of brown people under its control in the colonies...
Sure. I am not arguing the voter participation rate was what it should have been. But it had voters and a participation rate we can argue about. Claiming it was not a democracy seems odd. Particularly given the context of the other democracies to choose from at the time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Canada, Australia and New Zealand weren't independent countries at the time.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Well the trouble with British democracy is that the vote did not extend to the many millions of brown people under its control in the colonies...
As opposed to the US, where the vote did not extend to many millions of brown people right at home. ;)
Incidentally, I think David Frum is a Canadian. Also the Grandson of a god in Micronesia.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2015, 04:22:48 PM
Incidentally, I think David Frum is a Canadian. Also the Grandson of a god in Micronesia.
Yes, the Son of a much beloved CBC News personality. Barbara Frum.
David Frum is smitten with his particular view of what the US represents. For reference you can read some of his work when he was a speech writer for Bush.
Oh, I remember. I remember him back from the 1990's.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2015, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Canada, Australia and New Zealand weren't independent countries at the time.
Uhm? What?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2015, 04:22:48 PM
Incidentally, I think David Frum is a Canadian. Also the Grandson of a god in Micronesia.
He's badly mis-named. Although Jewish, he is not actually frum.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Why would you have to explain it away, at least in comparison to the UK (not sure about the Dominions), as even with "all the restrictions", a larger percentage of the US population was eligible to vote?
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 05:50:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Why would you have to explain it away, at least in comparison to the UK (not sure about the Dominions), as even with "all the restrictions", a larger percentage of the US population was eligible to vote?
Because that is the way Frum describes it. For Frum, and the position Berkut is defending, the US was a shining beacon of democracy compared to the alternatives. If the US had a larger percentage of adults who were allowed to vote, it wasn't by much of a percentage.
Put another way, only a US audience would buy the fact that Britain was not a democracy during WWI.
dps, did you miss the Civil Rights Movement? I'd have thought you and grumbler were old enough to actually experience it.
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 05:56:37 PM
dps, did you miss the Civil Rights Movement? I'd have thought you and grumbler were old enough to actually experience it.
Careful now. I am old enough to remember at least parts of it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 05:56:37 PM
dps, did you miss the Civil Rights Movement? I'd have thought you and grumbler were old enough to actually experience it.
Careful now. I am old enough to remember at least parts of it.
The civil rights movement is still a work in progress. If you're posting here, you're still living through it.
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 06:04:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2015, 05:56:37 PM
dps, did you miss the Civil Rights Movement? I'd have thought you and grumbler were old enough to actually experience it.
Careful now. I am old enough to remember at least parts of it.
The civil rights movement is still a work in progress. If you're posting here, you're still living through it.
This is more like v 2.0 or perhaps 3.0
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 05:53:41 PM
Because that is the way Frum describes it. For Frum, and the position Berkut is defending, the US was a shining beacon of democracy compared to the alternatives. If the US had a larger percentage of adults who were allowed to vote, it wasn't by much of a percentage.
Put another way, only a US audience would buy the fact that Britain was not a democracy during WWI.
Oh, I imagine a French audience might be receptive to that idea as well. Now that I think of it, an Indian audience might agree with that sentiment, Actually most of the former British colonies would be inclined to agree.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2015, 06:17:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 05:53:41 PM
Because that is the way Frum describes it. For Frum, and the position Berkut is defending, the US was a shining beacon of democracy compared to the alternatives. If the US had a larger percentage of adults who were allowed to vote, it wasn't by much of a percentage.
Put another way, only a US audience would buy the fact that Britain was not a democracy during WWI.
Oh, I imagine a French audience might be receptive to that idea as well.
You have a good imagination :)
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2015, 03:10:50 AM
If the Allies lost WW1, we would have a half-functioning united European economical zone dominated by Germany and hindered by various national petty differences and half-baked policies.
So, the EU?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20121204135112%2Ftrollpasta%2Fimages%2F1%2F13%2FThats_the_joke.jpg&hash=7155324b43da075996b5d3751b651f096d1a91b2)
Quote from: Zanza on June 05, 2015, 01:30:55 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20121204135112%2Ftrollpasta%2Fimages%2F1%2F13%2FThats_the_joke.jpg&hash=7155324b43da075996b5d3751b651f096d1a91b2)
:lol: Right after I had read that post, I thought of putting in the same pic, but decided against it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
NO, if I want to say the US I have to simply point out that a vastly larger percentage of the "ought to be able to vote" population could in fact vote in the US compared to the UK.
Considering that in the UK, the voting population in 1917 was 1/3rd what it was in 1918, it doesn't seem like a difficult argument to make.
Yes, there was plenty of disenfranchisement in the US, but the scale was very different.
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2015, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).
What democracy would you rate as better than that of the democracy found in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand during that period of time? If you want to answer the US, as Frum thinks, then you will have to explain away all the restrictions the US Federal and State governments put on the Franchise until about the 1960s :P
Well the trouble with British democracy is that the vote did not extend to the many millions of brown people under its control in the colonies...
As opposed to the US, where the vote did not extend to many millions of brown people right at home. ;)
Except that by and large that actually is not true, at least, not true in the sense that you are stating it.
There were southern states that passed laws intending to disenfranchise black voters, and of course in those places it worked to varying degrees. But it is still only in those places, which was a minority of the US overall. The most populous parts of the country, the industrial northeast, Chicago, etc., had no such restrictions, and of course blacks there voted freely.
This cannot compare to the UK, where the rules restricting the poor from voting, for example, were universal and applied with perfect effect. All such restrictions were long since done away with in the US I think (IIRC) after the Civil War at the latest.
Again, I am hardly trying to excuse the blot on the US that was Jim Crow laws, but I suspect you would radically have to exaggerate their effects to conclude that it resulted in anything like 40% of the "ought to vote" public from being able to vote, which is what the property ownership laws in the UK did.
It would appear that North Carolina was the last state to abandon property ownership as a requirement for voting. In 1856.
A little more research:
1920 saw federal women's suffrage in the US, but prior to that it was decided on a state by state basis. And in fact, even before 1920 a significant majority of states allowed women to vote in some fashion or another - since it was decided on a state by state basis, of course there was considerable variance. But in 16 states there was full suffrage, and that included New York, California, and Illinois, which I would guess would have been the most populous states. There were only 11 states by then that still had nearly complete disenfranchisement for women (mostly in the South of course - why didn't we just let them go in 1861?).
So again, going back to 1914, if you include women in the "ought to be able to vote" category, then the US was very far ahead of the UK in total percentage allowed to vote who "ought" to be allowed to vote. It is hard to find exact numbers though, since there was no seminal point where a huge enfranchisement happened to compare to, like in 1918 in the UK.
I am not making this argument out of some "Rah rah Go US!" stance though - it is a moot point from an emotional level, since I think Jim Crow laws and such give the US no place to feel much pride in our enfranchisement. But from the standpoint of Frum's point, his argument is certainly defensible, if you look at it WITHOUT some emotional need to "defend" the UK.
New Jersey had women's suffrage around the time of the American Revolution but then quashed it shortly after.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2015, 11:42:54 AM
New Jersey had women's suffrage around the time of the American Revolution but then quashed it shortly after.
Sort of. Only for widowed land owners. It such a tiny number that there is no record of a reaction when the law was changed. Quashed kind of sounds like they set out to overturn but really they kind of did so by accident I think, not even being aware women could previously vote if they were members of this very specific demographic.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2015, 11:34:32 AM
A little more research:
1920 saw federal women's suffrage in the US, but prior to that it was decided on a state by state basis. And in fact, even before 1920 a significant majority of states allowed women to vote in some fashion or another - since it was decided on a state by state basis, of course there was considerable variance. But in 16 states there was full suffrage, and that included New York, California, and Illinois, which I would guess would have been the most populous states. There were only 11 states by then that still had nearly complete disenfranchisement for women (mostly in the South of course - why didn't we just let them go in 1861?).
So again, going back to 1914, if you include women in the "ought to be able to vote" category, then the US was very far ahead of the UK in total percentage allowed to vote who "ought" to be allowed to vote. It is hard to find exact numbers though, since there was no seminal point where a huge enfranchisement happened to compare to, like in 1918 in the UK.
I am not making this argument out of some "Rah rah Go US!" stance though - it is a moot point from an emotional level, since I think Jim Crow laws and such give the US no place to feel much pride in our enfranchisement. But from the standpoint of Frum's point, his argument is certainly defensible, if you look at it WITHOUT some emotional need to "defend" the UK.
The issue is this: were the differences in enfranchisement and disenfranchisement between the US and UK really differences of degree, or were they differences of kind?
I think the better answer by far were that they were differences of degree and not of kind.
Sure, the UK had property restrictions and did not extend the franchise to women. Both factors were, however, also true in the US - only to a lesser degree, as such rules went by state and some states were more liberal than others: notably, the Northern states as you say. No-one, however, ever argues that the States were 'not a democracy' because of Jim Crow laws or lack of woman's sufferage, only that the democrasy they had wasn't perfect - it was however evolving towards universal sufferage -- just like the democracy in the UK (and in fact, the UK's evolution took less time - Jim Crow was still around after WW2).
This makes it slightly absurd to take the Frum position. 'The US had real democracy totally unlike the UK! Well, at least, they did in Illinois'.
women shouldn't have the vote
You gonna begrudge Senora Spiess getting a new pair of shoes every couple years? :(
Shit, after her recent trip to NYC she owes me about 10 elections-worth of votes.
Quote from: MalthusThis makes it slightly absurd to take the Frum position. 'The US had real democracy totally unlike the UK!
No, the Frum position is that if you had to pick a point in both their histories where you would say "This is the point after which we can reasonably say that the country in question is a democracy" then that point for the US happened far earlier than 1918, and that point for the UK was with 1918 Act.
Again, I think it is a debatable point, but hardly absurd.
If you had to nail me down, I would put that point for the US to be after the 15th Amendment, for the most part. That is when you say the radical change at one particular point similar to what we saw in the UK in 1918.
I think the best counter argument to that would be to say the point was 1918 for the UK, but 1920 for the US, since that is when the US saw full and formal women's suffrage. But that I think makes the common mistake of thinking that in the US women's suffrage was a binary thing, as it was in the UK. In reality the 1920 date was more of a formality, albeit a very important one. Women had (mostly) had the right to vote throughout the majority of the country already.
QuoteWell, at least, they did in Illinois'.
I pointed out that the US saw women's suffrage throughout the majority of the population, and you turn that into they had it in Illinois? Apparently this cannot be a non-emotive discussion.
I think the problem is that Berkut gets to cherry pick amongst US states that have better sufferage coverage than Britain and ignore the ones that were worse. Britain is a Unitary state and so you take the good with the bad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2015, 01:29:53 PM
I think the problem is that Berkut gets to cherry pick amongst US states that have better sufferage coverage than Britain and ignore the ones that were worse. Britain is a Unitary state and so you take the good with the bad.
I am not cherry picking anything, I am looking at the country as a whole. How is that a "problem", and how do I "get to" do that? The facts are not susceptible to my cherry picking or ignoring of anything, and of course specifically stating that some states had sufferage and others did not is hardly "ignoring" those that do not anymore than it is ignoring those that do.
It is incredible the lengths you will go to avoid a simple "Hey, looks like you were right..."
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: MalthusThis makes it slightly absurd to take the Frum position. 'The US had real democracy totally unlike the UK!
No, the Frum position is that if you had to pick a point in both their histories where you would say "This is the point after which we can reasonably say that the country in question is a democracy" then that point for the US happened far earlier than 1918, and that point for the UK was with 1918 Act.
Again, I think it is a debatable point, but hardly absurd.
If you had to nail me down, I would put that point for the US to be after the 15th Amendment, for the most part. That is when you say the radical change at one particular point similar to what we saw in the UK in 1918.
I think the best counter argument to that would be to say the point was 1918 for the UK, but 1920 for the US, since that is when the US saw full and formal women's suffrage. But that I think makes the common mistake of thinking that in the US women's suffrage was a binary thing, as it was in the UK. In reality the 1920 date was more of a formality, albeit a very important one. Women had (mostly) had the right to vote throughout the majority of the country already.
QuoteWell, at least, they did in Illinois'.
I pointed out that the US saw women's suffrage throughout the majority of the population, and you turn that into they had it in Illinois? Apparently this cannot be a non-emotive discussion.
The issue isn't simply women's sufferage though - it is also Jim Crow.
Britain's trajectory towards full sufferage is different from the US' - as you would expect, it being a unitary state. However, they are clearly more similar to each other than they are different.
Frum's balck-and-white distinction (and the one you are attempting to make) simply doesn't work. The differences between sufferage in the US and UK are far more 'differences of degree' than they are 'differences in kind'.
The crack about Illinois is 'about' your, uh, selectivity towards the evidence - the glass is always half-full when you look to the states, and half-empty when you look outside it. Rather endearing, really. :D
It was all about women's suffrage right up until the point that I proved that in fact women's suffrage in the US was further advanced than it was in the UK. Then suddenly that didn't matter anymore.
Of course. It was just Illinois, because *I* am being selective about the data.
QuoteIt was all about women's suffrage right up until the point that I proved that in fact women's suffrage in the US was further advanced than it was in the UK. Then suddenly that didn't matter anymore.
Wait was the discussion about the question of the UK being more democratic than the US? I thought the argument was that the UK was no democracy at all. And is being more democratic than the US in 1914 the ultimate determiner of something being a democracy or not? Otherwise I do not see the relevance of the US being slightly further along in any particular area.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2015, 02:14:00 PM
It is incredible the lengths you will go to avoid a simple "Hey, looks like you were right..."
Its funny, you seem to be doing exactly that. Did you actually read the posts between yours?
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2015, 02:48:39 PM
QuoteIt was all about women's suffrage right up until the point that I proved that in fact women's suffrage in the US was further advanced than it was in the UK. Then suddenly that didn't matter anymore.
Wait was the discussion about the question of the UK being more democratic than the US? I thought the argument was that the UK was no democracy at all. And is being more democratic than the US in 1914 the ultimate determiner of something being a democracy or not? Otherwise I do not see the relevance of the US being slightly further along in any particular area.
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2015, 02:48:39 PM
QuoteIt was all about women's suffrage right up until the point that I proved that in fact women's suffrage in the US was further advanced than it was in the UK. Then suddenly that didn't matter anymore.
Wait was the discussion about the question of the UK being more democratic than the US? I thought the argument was that the UK was no democracy at all. And is being more democratic than the US in 1914 the ultimate determiner of something being a democracy or not? Otherwise I do not see the relevance of the US being slightly further along in any particular area.
:yes:
You said it better than I did.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2015, 02:48:39 PM
QuoteIt was all about women's suffrage right up until the point that I proved that in fact women's suffrage in the US was further advanced than it was in the UK. Then suddenly that didn't matter anymore.
Wait was the discussion about the question of the UK being more democratic than the US? I thought the argument was that the UK was no democracy at all. And is being more democratic than the US in 1914 the ultimate determiner of something being a democracy or not? Otherwise I do not see the relevance of the US being slightly further along in any particular area.
I didn't bring up that comparison, they did.
I was perfectly content to note that prior to 1918, 40% of men and no women in the UK were allowed to vote, and after the 1918 Act the number of people allowed to vote tripled. That suggests that that particular moment was a pretty reasonable point to decide as the cutover between "democracy" and "budding democracy".
*Others* than insisted that if that criteria was used, then the US could not be a democracy at that time either, based on our lack of knowledge about what exactly the status was for US citizens pre-WW1.
Now that it turns out that in actual fact voting rights in the US for everyone were vastly further along than they were in the UK at that time, suddenly the comparison doesn't matter anymore.
Which is fine with me - I am perfectly happy to go right back to the observation that in 1918 the UK tripled the number of voters allowed to vote, and that is a pretty radical change, making the argument that it is a definitional tipping point perfectly reasonable - and certainly not "absurd".
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2015, 03:10:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2015, 02:48:39 PM
QuoteIt was all about women's suffrage right up until the point that I proved that in fact women's suffrage in the US was further advanced than it was in the UK. Then suddenly that didn't matter anymore.
Wait was the discussion about the question of the UK being more democratic than the US? I thought the argument was that the UK was no democracy at all. And is being more democratic than the US in 1914 the ultimate determiner of something being a democracy or not? Otherwise I do not see the relevance of the US being slightly further along in any particular area.
I didn't bring up that comparison, they did.
:huh:
Berkut, that is exactly the claim Frum made that you have been defending.
Quote
*Others* than insisted that if that criteria was used, then the US could not be a democracy at that time either, based on our lack of knowledge about what exactly the status was for US citizens pre-WW1
I call bullshit. Others insisted that we wouldn't say the US is not a democracy even though it was little better and it would be foolish to say Britain was not a democracy.
You are just making stuff up now.
Fuck is all this shit now? :huh:
I was hoping for some nice Turtledove-like plotlines when I opened this thread up. :(
"If Germany won WWII they would invent a time machine and go back in time and give the Confederates AK-47s and then Thomas Edison would president of the United Communist States of America lolololol"
Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2015, 03:36:13 PM
Fuck is all this shit now? :huh:
I was hoping for some nice Turtledove-like plotlines when I opened this thread up. :(
"If Germany won WWII they would invent a time machine and go back in time and give the Confederates AK-47s and then Thomas Edison would president of the United Communist States of America lolololol"
Except it would be
Telsa who was President. :P
[ducks, runs]
I think the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk sabotage their time machine and they end up arming Sulla's army with AK-47s during the Mithrodatic Wars.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2015, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2015, 03:36:13 PM
Fuck is all this shit now? :huh:
I was hoping for some nice Turtledove-like plotlines when I opened this thread up. :(
"If Germany won WWII they would invent a time machine and go back in time and give the Confederates AK-47s and then Thomas Edison would president of the United Communist States of America lolololol"
Except it would be Telsa who was President. :P
[ducks, runs]
:mad:
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2015, 03:38:45 PM
Except it would be Tesla who was President. :P
[ducks, runs]
The sign says "Long-haired freaky people need not apply".
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
I think the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk sabotage their time machine and they end up arming Sulla's army with AK-47s during the Mithrodatic Wars.
Except Sulla is Tesla
:mad:
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that both the US and UK have been democracies long enough that the War of 1812 was, in fact, a war between democracies. OTOH, I would argue that the US generally was more democratic all through the 19th Century.
Quote from: dps on June 05, 2015, 08:27:11 PM
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that both the US and UK have been democracies long enough that the War of 1812 was, in fact, a war between democracies.
I see.
I would say that not every person in a country must have franchise for it to be a democracy. People in Guam can't vote in US federal elections yet we still consider the US a democracy. You can be born in France and live your entire life there and not have citizenship and thus wouldn't be able to vote, yet France is still a Democracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 03:07:54 AM
You can be born in France and live your entire life there and not have citizenship and thus wouldn't be able to vote, yet France is still a Democracy.
Wrong. Jus soli country, with some jus sanguinis added as a bonus. It's pretty much automatic. The only way to avoid French citizenship is to refuse at age 18. Very easy to pick it before for people coming from the former French colonies.
Besides, EU citizens can vote in local and European elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law#Birth_in_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law#Birth_in_France)
QuoteFrench nationality law is historically based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"), according to Ernest Renan's definition, in opposition to the German definition of nationality, Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood"), formalized by Johann Gottlieb Fichte.
The 1993 Méhaignerie Law required children born in France of foreign parents to request French nationality at adulthood, rather than being automatically accorded citizenship. This "manifestation of will" requirement was subsequently abrogated by the Guigou Law of 1998,[1] but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.
So in the past, for a mere five years, you were not totally wrong.
PS: jus soli pretty was pretty much enshrined by the Third Republic.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 06, 2015, 03:21:40 AM
So in the past, for a mere five years, you were not totally wrong.
He's still not totally wrong, as one's entire life may be less than 18 years. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 06, 2015, 03:28:08 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 06, 2015, 03:21:40 AM
So in the past, for a mere five years, you were not totally wrong.
He's still not totally wrong, as one's entire life may be less than 18 years. :contract:
I never thought the US mortality rates were so high.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 06, 2015, 03:21:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 03:07:54 AM
You can be born in France and live your entire life there and not have citizenship and thus wouldn't be able to vote, yet France is still a Democracy.
Wrong. Jus soli country, with some jus sanguinis added as a bonus. It's pretty much automatic. The only way to avoid French citizenship is to refuse at age 18. Very easy to pick it before for people coming from the former French colonies.
Besides, EU citizens can vote in local and European elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law#Birth_in_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law#Birth_in_France)
QuoteFrench nationality law is historically based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"), according to Ernest Renan's definition, in opposition to the German definition of nationality, Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood"), formalized by Johann Gottlieb Fichte.
The 1993 Méhaignerie Law required children born in France of foreign parents to request French nationality at adulthood, rather than being automatically accorded citizenship. This "manifestation of will" requirement was subsequently abrogated by the Guigou Law of 1998,[1] but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.
So in the past, for a mere five years, you were not totally wrong.
PS: jus soli pretty was pretty much enshrined by the Third Republic.
QuoteChildren born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).
A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship:[3]
at birth, if stateless.
at 18, if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
between 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
between 13 and 16 upon request by the child's parents and if resident in France continuously since age 8.
if born in France of parents born before independence in a colony/territory in the past under French sovereignty.
at birth, if born in France before January 1, 1994.
at age 18, if born in France on or after January 1, 1994.
A child who was born abroad and who has only one French parent can repudiate his French nationality during the six months prior to his or her reaching the age of majority, or in the year which follows it (article 19-4 of the Civil Code).
That seems rather complicated and does indicate you can be born in France and not be a citizen.
P.S. I thought you were on Republic number five now.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 04:19:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 03:07:54 AM
You can be born in France and live your entire life there and not have citizenship and thus wouldn't be able to vote, yet France is still a Democracy.
That seems rather complicated and does indicate you can be born in France and not be a citizen.
Even more complicated when moving goal posts. Five years of residence is not exactly to achieve when you're born and live in the same country till 18 years old of age.
In practice, most people born in France end up French, this accounts for the low percentage of foreign citizens when compared to similar other EU countries.
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
Since the law which determines when a person magically transforms from a child to an adult is entirely arbitrary would you agree with the proposition that no democracies exist according to your definition. After all 100% of people under the age of majority cannot participate in the elections of the people in power who set the majority and a large number of other laws which affect everyone under the age of majority.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2015, 08:18:12 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
Since the law which determines when a person magically transforms from a child to an adult is entirely arbitrary would you agree with the proposition that no democracies exist according to your definition. After all 100% of people under the age of majority cannot participate in the elections of the people in power who set the majority and a large number of other laws which affect everyone under the age of majority.
No, since the only requisite for accession to franchise is just to get old, which will happen to everybody but the most unfortunate.
And I'm amenable to discuss where the barrier should be, but ultimately it has to be set at some point unless we want toddlers voting.
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 08:21:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2015, 08:18:12 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
Since the law which determines when a person magically transforms from a child to an adult is entirely arbitrary would you agree with the proposition that no democracies exist according to your definition. After all 100% of people under the age of majority cannot participate in the elections of the people in power who set the majority and a large number of other laws which affect everyone under the age of majority.
No, since the only requisite for accession to franchise is just to get old, which will happen to everybody but the most unfortunate.
But laws are being created which govern the conduct of people without the franchise. Doesn't that run contrary to your definition of democracy? Put a different way, what if the age limit for voting was set at 50 instead of 18 or whatever it is in your country? Again the only requirement for voting would be getting to that age.
You edited your post after I saw it.
QuoteAnd I'm amenable to discuss where the barrier should be, but ultimately it has to be set at some point unless we want toddlers voting.
But now you are talking about determining competence to vote which is a different matter.
But the voting age isn't set at 50, but 18. With that, our societies are trying to maximize the franchise, not restrict it. So I don't think it goes against my belief that a democracy has to seek the participation of the maximum amount of people possible.
We can discuss if 18 is the best choice, or if setting a catch all age for everybody is the best choice (I think it's an imperfect compromise, since deciding who or who is competent to vote on an individual basis is a very dangerous practice). But I think our democracies for the most part are maximizing the amount of people that can participate in the political process*.
*I'm of the opinion that any legal resident should be allowed to vote, regardless of nationality, but I guess we'll cross that bridge eventually.
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 08:37:47 AM
But the voting age isn't set at 50, but 18. With that, our societies are trying to maximize the franchise, not restrict it. So I don't think it goes against my belief that a democracy has to seek the participation of the maximum amount of people possible.
We can discuss if 18 is the best choice, or if setting a catch all age for everybody is the best choice (I think it's an imperfect compromise, since deciding who or who is competent to vote on an individual basis is a very dangerous practice). But I think our democracies for the most part are maximizing the amount of people that can participate in the political process*.
*I'm of the opinion that any legal resident should be allowed to vote, regardless of nationality, but I guess we'll cross that bridge eventually.
But your point seems to be that no system of government can be called a democracy if any of its citizens who should be eligible to vote are restricted from voting. Essentially the same claim Frum is making.
But isn't your concession that the voting age might be something lower than 18 also an admission that people who should be eligible to vote are no restricted from voting?
I agree that the ideal democratic model is one which has the highest possible participation. But that does not mean that a democratic form of government is not obtained until that goal is achieved.
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 08:37:47 AM
*I'm of the opinion that any legal resident should be allowed to vote, regardless of nationality, but I guess we'll cross that bridge eventually.
I've posted about this before, but at one time some US states allowed residents who weren't US citizens to vote. This practice seems to have been ended everywhere by about 1920.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2015, 09:45:45 AM
I agree that the ideal democratic model is one which has the highest possible participation. But that does not mean that a democratic form of government is not obtained until that goal is achieved.
Nobody disputes that - but this is a silly argument for you to make. That as long as there is anyone not allowed to vote, then effectively it is all the same in regards to any argument about whether ENOUGH people are allowed to vote to call it a democracy. If you deny 5%, then it is the same as if you deny 75%.
Because that argument from extremes works the other way - it forces you to concede that even a country that only allows a very tiny fraction of people to vote is a "democracy" as well. In the UK pre-1918 only men who owned land could vote, resulting in 40% of otherwise eligible men to NOT be allowed to vote. You claim that this does not mean it is not a democracy.
That actually isn't a bad argument, as long as the argument is based on some reasonable acceptance that there is some line somewhere, but that in your opinion it is lower than the given line. But that is NOT your argument, your argument is that as long as someone is voting, then it is a democracy. If the law was that only men who owned significant property could vote, resulting in 3% of the men only being eligible, your argument would demand that we accept that THAT is a democracy as well.
You don't want to concede that though, since you already raised the "Compare to the US!" thing, which of course if we go into comparing relative levels of participation, it makes the UK in 1914 look bad, which I suppose comes as a surprise to you.
Of course we know the answer - it is a range. Even in a "perfect" democracy, we all accept that some people should not be allowed to vote - children are a good example.
So it becomes a grey argument, predicated around a decision that must be made about how much enfranchisement is needed to constitute a democratic outcome. I think we could all agree in general that the goal is to make sure that there is reasonable representation for all social and economic classes within the body politic.
That means perfectly reasonable arguments can be made for various levels of participation needed to call a nation a "democracy". There is no clear and fast "rule". Personally, if someone said "The US was not a democracy in 1910 because large numbers of women could not vote" I might not agree with that view, but I certainly would not dismiss it as ridiculous. There is a very valid point being made there.
And if you leave your emotions out of it, it is pretty easy to see that an argument that a nation that at some point decided that 21 million ought to be allowed to vote, but prior to that point only allowed 7 million people to vote, was not much of a democracy BEFORE that point is hardly "absurd". Especially when those it was denying the right to vote had a very vested interest in the political process and a crucial need for representation, and those who could vote had a very vested interest in keeping them from voting.
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.
Wyoming had women's suffrage in 1890. :alberta:
Move over Athens. We have a new cradle for Democracy.
I wonder if this topic would have been about a German victory in WW1 if it had been titled: "which is the most democratic country in 1914: UK or USA?"
I guess we'll never know. :p
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.
Not what is being said at all - once could make the argument however that Finland in 1907 (if that is actually the first example of true women's suffrage) was the first time the ideal of democracy were realized in a practical extent such that the resulting nation could truly be called "democratic". That is not at all an unreasonable argument, and is in fact an argument that has been made many, many times - namely by thos wfighting for women's suffrage, for example.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.
Not what is being said at all - once could make the argument however that Finland in 1907 (if that is actually the first example of true women's suffrage) was the first time the ideal of democracy were realized in a practical extent such that the resulting nation could truly be called "democratic". That is not at all an unreasonable argument, and is in fact an argument that has been made many, many times - namely by thos wfighting for women's suffrage, for example.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 06, 2015, 12:56:44 PM
I wonder if this topic would have been about a German victory in WW1 if it had been titled: "which is the most democratic country in 1914: UK or USA?"
I guess we'll never know. :p
It is unfortunate that people let their emotions derail on otherwise interesting discussion.
ZOMG HE SAID THE UK WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY! GET A NOOSE!
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.
That's an interesting question - what would have happened if the US didn't enter the war? I don't know if that would have much impact on the Austrians or the Turks, so Germany would likely still be shackled to a couple of corpses that would collapse eventually. On the other hand, it means that the Germans would not necessarily launch a major spring offensive (or at least not the offensive that was historically launched) in 1918, and, if it did, the British and the French must needs have had a more difficult time stopping the offensive and pushing the Germans back afterward.
Quote from: Kleves on June 06, 2015, 02:10:02 PM
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.
That's an interesting question - what would have happened if the US didn't enter the war? I don't know if that would have much impact on the Austrians or the Turks, so Germany would likely still be shackled to a couple of corpses that would collapse eventually. On the other hand, it means that the Germans would not necessarily launch a major spring offensive (or at least not the offensive that was historically launched) in 1918, and, if it did, the British and the French must needs have had a more difficult time stopping the offensive and pushing the Germans back afterward.
It depends on what you mean by "the US didn't enter the war".
Does the US continue to fund the war? If not, the Entente collapses immediately.
Which is kind of why the entire idea of the US NOT entering the war in some fashion is a little silly - by 1917 the US had so heavily invested in an Entente victory our entry was almost inevitable.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 06, 2015, 04:29:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 04:19:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 03:07:54 AM
You can be born in France and live your entire life there and not have citizenship and thus wouldn't be able to vote, yet France is still a Democracy.
That seems rather complicated and does indicate you can be born in France and not be a citizen.
Even more complicated when moving goal posts. Five years of residence is not exactly to achieve when you're born and live in the same country till 18 years old of age.
In practice, most people born in France end up French, this accounts for the low percentage of foreign citizens when compared to similar other EU countries.
Wow, most people born in France end up French in practice. Compare this to the US where all people born in the US are US citizens.
Oh noooz Raz is going all Marty on France. Next he is going to ask when France can do things like civilized countries.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2015, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.
Not what is being said at all - once could make the argument however that Finland in 1907 (if that is actually the first example of true women's suffrage) was the first time the ideal of democracy were realized in a practical extent such that the resulting nation could truly be called "democratic". That is not at all an unreasonable argument, and is in fact an argument that has been made many, many times - namely by thos wfighting for women's suffrage, for example.
The argument can be made now, since some people in the US don't have the right to vote in federal elections. Children, felons, Puerto Ricans, Guamians etc.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2015, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2015, 04:43:53 AM
I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.
So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.
Not what is being said at all - once could make the argument however that Finland in 1907 (if that is actually the first example of true women's suffrage) was the first time the ideal of democracy were realized in a practical extent such that the resulting nation could truly be called "democratic". That is not at all an unreasonable argument, and is in fact an argument that has been made many, many times - namely by thos wfighting for women's suffrage, for example.
The argument can be made now, since some people in the US don't have the right to vote in federal elections. Children, felons, Puerto Ricans, Guamians etc.
It would not be a very persuasive argument though.
Nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote, or would argue that NOT allowing them to vote decreases the legitimacy of the democracy.
And while it is unfortunate that there are others who cannot vote (to a greater or lesser extent) it is difficult to argue that the impact of those groups is significant compared to the total - hard to imagine, for example, that any national election has ever been influenced by the fact that there is no need to cater to the desires of the voters in Guam.
If you could cough up an example of a group who ought to be allowed to vote and who are not such that fixing the problem would radically change the makeup of the set of voters, then that might be a better argument.
No, it would not. But there was a time when voters did not think women or blacks should vote. What seemed reasonable in 1840 may not seem reasonable today, and what's reasonable today may not be reasonable in the future, so "nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote" is not the most objective standard.
Somebody filed a suit and argued that prisoners should be allowed to vote in Hong Kong. They won :ph34r: So now the government needs to set up special booths inside the prisons for them to vote.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 06, 2015, 04:29:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 04:19:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 03:07:54 AM
You can be born in France and live your entire life there and not have citizenship and thus wouldn't be able to vote, yet France is still a Democracy.
That seems rather complicated and does indicate you can be born in France and not be a citizen.
Even more complicated when moving goal posts. Five years of residence is not exactly to achieve when you're born and live in the same country till 18 years old of age.
In practice, most people born in France end up French, this accounts for the low percentage of foreign citizens when compared to similar other EU countries.
Wow, most people born in France end up French in practice. Compare this to the US where all people born in the US are US citizens.
There's more freedom in this regard in France since people can choose not being French, default choice is being French for those born there, is that so hard to understand? It takes quite an effort to avoid French citizenship at 18, namely dealing with the French administration. Getting French citizenship at birth is also very easy.
More freedom in France in this regard. The law is meant to avoid birth tourism.
This explains the low percentage of foreigners reported as shown in this map. I found it even too low, with France a country with an history of immigration, with a lower percentage of foreign citizens than Spain, where immigration did not really exist till the '90s.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRxPYbPX.png&hash=355567cf4121b97759d97be408258ab3e44fc03a)
But yeah, Valmy summed it up nicely for Raz, so I won't bother anymore.
You guys get real defensive over your weird laws. Incidentally the percentage of foreigners in the US is 7%, and if you are born here you automatically get citizenship the moment you fall out of your mother's womb not at 18. Foreign born is like 13%.
I can hardly imagine that if I was engaging in birth tourism that I would want to pick a nation as welcoming as France. :tinfoil:
Not very welcoming for those who don't know what champagne is indeed. :frog:
Quote from: Kleves on June 06, 2015, 02:10:02 PM
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war. Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.
That's an interesting question - what would have happened if the US didn't enter the war? I don't know if that would have much impact on the Austrians or the Turks, so Germany would likely still be shackled to a couple of corpses that would collapse eventually. On the other hand, it means that the Germans would not necessarily launch a major spring offensive (or at least not the offensive that was historically launched) in 1918, and, if it did, the British and the French must needs have had a more difficult time stopping the offensive and pushing the Germans back afterward.
The UK needed American loans, not for their own needs, but they were heavily subsidizing the French war economy at this point. If the Americans don't join, the Fed won't make the loans. The ability of the British to keep the French war economy going will collapse.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2015, 03:55:39 AM
I can hardly imagine that if I was engaging in birth tourism that I would want to pick a nation as welcoming as France. :tinfoil:
Yeah, the chart DdB posted might show more the desirability of moving to a country than anything about its citizenship laws. Switzerland, Ireland, and Luxembourg all have high percentages, and they're places that seem like they'd be good places to live, while Poland has a very low figure--and really, who
want to move to Poland? OTOH, that admittedly can't be the full story, 'cause I doubt that many people really want to move to Latvia or Estonia, either.
Those are probably Russians.
As for Switzerland, I believe it is such a high number because it is very hard to get Swiss citizenship.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 08:50:41 PM
No, it would not. But there was a time when voters did not think women or blacks should vote. What seemed reasonable in 1840 may not seem reasonable today, and what's reasonable today may not be reasonable in the future, so "nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote" is not the most objective standard.
yeah, this is what i was thinking when i skimmed through the argument that not allowing women to vote back in the day meant the country wasn't a democracy. i'm under the impression that women were considered incapable of voting, and that's why the government kept them from voting. this is like the 16 year old voter argument rather than, say, denying women from voting merely because the government wanted to disenfranchise/silence strong women voters. some countries today allow sixteen year olds to vote, but those countries are probably not considered "truer" democracies than the countries that allow only eighteen and older to vote.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 07, 2015, 05:46:29 AM
Not very welcoming for those who don't know what champagne is indeed. :frog:
Probably time to find a new anecdote but I'll note, Korbel (:() is marketed as champagne in the U.S.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 07, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 08:50:41 PM
No, it would not. But there was a time when voters did not think women or blacks should vote. What seemed reasonable in 1840 may not seem reasonable today, and what's reasonable today may not be reasonable in the future, so "nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote" is not the most objective standard.
yeah, this is what i was thinking when i skimmed through the argument that not allowing women to vote back in the day meant the country wasn't a democracy. i'm under the impression that women were considered incapable of voting, and that's why the government kept them from voting. this is like the 16 year old voter argument rather than, say, denying women from voting merely because the government wanted to disenfranchise/silence strong women voters. some countries today allow sixteen year olds to vote, but those countries are probably not considered "truer" democracies than the countries that allow only eighteen and older to vote.
I think most people would acknowledge that there is some line for voting based on age, and the exact point of that line is hardly objectively fixed in stone. Both 16 and 18 and 21 for example are all pretty reasonable, and I don't think anyone has made the argument that the choice of one over the others would constitute anything that would effect a reasonable labeling of a country as a democracy. They are all variants with nominal practical impact.
Hardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2015, 12:45:14 PMHardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.
the comparison to sixteen year olds was referring to the class of person's mental fitness/capacity to vote, not really the barrier based on age. back then, the government did not believe women had the capability to vote. as women gained more freedom and society changed, that mentality eroded away.
despite your assertion, the federal constitution's intent was not clear that women should be allowed to vote. the drafters wrote the constitution at a time when women lacked voting rights pretty much all over the world. today, we read the constitution and see that women clearly are allowed the right to vote, but that view is influenced by modern context.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 07, 2015, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2015, 12:45:14 PMHardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.
the comparison to sixteen year olds was referring to the class of person's mental fitness/capacity to vote, not really the barrier based on age. back then, the government did not believe women had the capability to vote. as women gained more freedom and society changed, that mentality eroded away.
The point however is that they were wrong to think that women did not have the capability to vote, while the reasons to not allow children to vote are well understood and it is rather likely that that is NOT wrong. So again, they are not comparable, unless you wish to either argue that they were right, or we are wrong now.
Quote
despite your assertion, the federal constitution's intent was not clear that women should be allowed to vote. the drafters wrote the constitution at a time when women lacked voting rights pretty much all over the world. today, we read the constitution and see that women clearly are allowed the right to vote, but that view is influenced by modern context.
I was referencing US Jim Crow laws.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2015, 07:19:35 PMThe point however is that they were wrong to think that women did not have the capability to vote, while the reasons to not allow children to vote are well understood and it is rather likely that that is NOT wrong. So again, they are not comparable, unless you wish to either argue that they were right, or we are wrong now.
if we are wrong and 16 year olds should have the right to vote, then is the US currently not a democracy? if so, where does this end? who knows what classifications will receive the right to vote in the future. the point i'm making is that it's pretty dishonest to go back in time and say "this is not a democracy" based on a context that the contemporary society could not have known.
Voting age should probably be closer to 30.
So if anything, we've had too much democracy. :P
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2015, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 07, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2015, 08:50:41 PM
No, it would not. But there was a time when voters did not think women or blacks should vote. What seemed reasonable in 1840 may not seem reasonable today, and what's reasonable today may not be reasonable in the future, so "nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote" is not the most objective standard.
yeah, this is what i was thinking when i skimmed through the argument that not allowing women to vote back in the day meant the country wasn't a democracy. i'm under the impression that women were considered incapable of voting, and that's why the government kept them from voting. this is like the 16 year old voter argument rather than, say, denying women from voting merely because the government wanted to disenfranchise/silence strong women voters. some countries today allow sixteen year olds to vote, but those countries are probably not considered "truer" democracies than the countries that allow only eighteen and older to vote.
I think most people would acknowledge that there is some line for voting based on age, and the exact point of that line is hardly objectively fixed in stone. Both 16 and 18 and 21 for example are all pretty reasonable, and I don't think anyone has made the argument that the choice of one over the others would constitute anything that would effect a reasonable labeling of a country as a democracy. They are all variants with nominal practical impact.
Hardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.
Reasonable to you living in the 21st century. You accept the premise that men and women are mentally equal, this is very modern. This premise was not widely accept in 1840. There are people living in this country
now who don't accept this premise. I don't accept that an 8 year old can make a rational choice in voting and thus should not be allowed to vote. The rationale is the the same, but the initial assumptions and bar are different. The idea that voting should be restricted to people with property was based in the idea that these people had more to lose then people without property and thus were more invested in their community. Property restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles). I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2015, 08:13:42 PMProperty restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles). I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.
Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.
I think Neil may have argued for that at some point. Course, he's even less of a libertarian than Raz.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 08, 2015, 01:21:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2015, 08:13:42 PMProperty restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles). I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.
Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.
I've seen it too.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 08, 2015, 01:21:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2015, 08:13:42 PMProperty restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles). I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.
Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.
Glenn Beck who self identifies as libertarian at times has endorsed these ideas. I have also found libertarian thinkers who support the idea of monarchy over democracy which is a big property requirement to having a say in government! I believe this all rooted in the belief that the poor will just vote themselves money and thus destroy that most important freedom, freedom from taxation.
Balanced analysis there, Raz.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 07, 2015, 08:04:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2015, 07:19:35 PMThe point however is that they were wrong to think that women did not have the capability to vote, while the reasons to not allow children to vote are well understood and it is rather likely that that is NOT wrong. So again, they are not comparable, unless you wish to either argue that they were right, or we are wrong now.
if we are wrong and 16 year olds should have the right to vote, then is the US currently not a democracy? if so, where does this end? who knows what classifications will receive the right to vote in the future. the point i'm making is that it's pretty dishonest to go back in time and say "this is not a democracy" based on a context that the contemporary society could not have known.
That is the problem with the Frum/Berkut analysis. It does not allow for the fact that throughout the history of democratic governments there have always been groups who were disenfranchised. Including today. People between the minimum age to work and the minimum age of voting do work, pay taxes and generally participate in activities governed by the laws passed but others who are unelected by that group. What happened to no taxation without representation?
But more fundamentally the Frum/Berkut analysis ignores completely that it is the form of government that determines whether or not it is democratic. Not some self serving statistics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 08, 2015, 01:21:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2015, 08:13:42 PMProperty restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles). I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.
Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.
The other side of this is that many if not all local governments give voting rights to people who own property but who do not live in that jurisdiction.
Quote from: derspiess on June 08, 2015, 10:53:55 AM
Balanced analysis there, Raz.
And what would be a balanced analysis of the most important facet of libertarianism?
I'm guessing raz is referencing the "neo reactionaries", sometimes posited to have a connection with libertarians as per say: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries.html
I have my doubts whether these views really exist, beyond maybe a dozen or so guys in the internet, and a few more fellow travelers who like playing along for fun.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
I'm guessing raz is referencing the "neo reactionaries", sometimes posited to have a connection with libertarians as per say: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries.html (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries.html)
I have my doubts whether these views really exist, beyond maybe a dozen or so guys in the internet, and a few more fellow travelers who like playing along for fun.
I believe Jeb Bush recently said he was reading a lot of Charles Murray, a man who's work fall into that category. I don't think he's mentioned in your blog post, but he certainly has whole racist, anti-democracy, libertarian thing going on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 08, 2015, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 08, 2015, 01:21:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2015, 08:13:42 PMProperty restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles). I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.
Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.
The other side of this is that many if not all local governments give voting rights to people who own property but who do not live in that jurisdiction.
Care to elaborate on that bit?
Quote from: RazgovoryAnd what would be a balanced analysis of the most important facet of libertarianism?
To start with, a balanced analysis would probably not advance the notion that freedom from taxation is the most important facet of libertarianism.
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2015, 04:03:03 PM
Care to elaborate on that bit?
Owning property still gives voting rights. Would Frum/Berkut say that renders our society undemocratic?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2015, 04:03:03 PM
Care to elaborate on that bit?
Owning property still gives voting rights. Would Frum/Berkut say that renders our society undemocratic?
Only if it results in 2/3rds of the people who should be voting not being allowed to vote.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2015, 04:50:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2015, 04:03:03 PM
Care to elaborate on that bit?
Owning property still gives voting rights. Would Frum/Berkut say that renders our society undemocratic?
Only if it results in 2/3rds of the people who should be voting not being allowed to vote.
Probably the best argument for why your analysis is so arbitrary. :P
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2015, 04:03:03 PM
To start with, a balanced analysis would probably not advance the notion that freedom from taxation is the most important facet of libertarianism.
Then what is it?