Poll
Question:
Whose side are you on?
Option 1: Vive L'Empereur!
votes: 33
Option 2: Rule Britannia
votes: 35
For me: :frog:
:bowler:
:bowler:
Nelson's mistress worshipped him like a god, while Nappy's mistress made fun of his tiny man-bits.
Rule Brittania! :D
Such a touch choice.
One is a vile reactionary enemy to liberty and the French Republic who wanted to rule the world through violence and the other is Napoleon.
:frog:
duh.
God Save the King!
A tough choice. In hindsight (and I'm not talking about who wins, but rather long term consequences), I should probably side with the British, but without knowledge of the future, I think Napoleon's cause would have been more appealing.
Vive La France! Vive L'Empereur! :frog:
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2011, 03:06:59 PM
A tough choice. In hindsight (and I'm not talking about who wins, but rather long term consequences), I should probably side with the British, but without knowledge of the future, I think Napoleon's cause would have been more appealing.
Vive La France! Vive L'Empereur! :frog:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F2b%2FNap1807.JPG&hash=fcaac8865ca3736863fecb8faef2ce4f9f067c70)
Good man! :frog:
But Zoups what about 18 Brumaire, Year VIII? :(
Fuck the English.
:frog:
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 03:19:10 PM
But Zoups what about 18 Brumaire, Year VIII? :(
A necessary, temporary evil. We have a mission civilisatrice, after all. :sleep:
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
On the one hand France overthrew the old feudal order and created what was ostensibly a meritocracy. And they had really badass uniforms. On the other Boner nepotited half the countries in Europe with his brothers.
Slight edge to :bowler:
France had Davout and the Dear Child of Victory. Boney had the coolest subordinates. Soult looting anything not nailed down, Murat leading cavalry charges like a maniac, etc. etc.
:wub:
Also, the tread starter is owed one punch in the nuts, as I now want to play a Napoleonic wargame. YOU FUCK.
Albion of course :bowler:
But closer than you may think, the heart says Napoleon..........so much more fun than those British bores.................but the head says that till the ogre was chained Europe would enjoy no peace at all.
Surprised the vote is so close. I was expecting Languish to go overwhelmingly in the British favour.
Despite shitting the bed by crowning himself Emperor, at least he did it by his own hand.
And I will always stand by my revolutionary brethren anyhow.
:frog: :frog: :frog:
:bowler: by a slight margin.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2011, 03:51:58 PM
Surprised the vote is so close. I was expecting Languish to go overwhelmingly in the British favour.
We have a lot of Napoleonic fans here. I'm a bit conflicted on that one, though. I don't really know enough about the time period to make a good choice. I've been meaning to study more about the Napoleonic wars (and the French Revolution).
:frog:
Only very slightly supportive, though. I'd make a good Bernadotte.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 03, 2011, 06:10:03 PM
:frog:
Only very slightly supportive, though. I'd make a good Bernadotte.
Ewww. Bernadotte sucks donkey dick.
Bernadotte ended up king. Napoleon ended up exiled and poisoned to death.
Seems like Bernadotte won that round.
King of Sweden. Sounds like hell to me.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 03, 2011, 06:24:17 PM
Bernadotte ended up king. Napoleon ended up exiled and poisoned to death.
Seems like Bernadotte won that round.
Should of let Davout shoot him.
Britain all the way.
You can trust them with the continent. Napoleon on the other hand....
Funny kids sketch on the subject of Nappy and his nepotism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztU5GuUUzM
WTF is the actual question? Britain or France, 1799-1814/15? They both sucked and there's a higher than normal chance of me catching a musket ball in the face. Pass.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2011, 06:29:30 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 03, 2011, 06:24:17 PM
Bernadotte ended up king. Napoleon ended up exiled and poisoned to death.
Seems like Bernadotte won that round.
Should of let Davout shoot him.
:yes:
Quote from: Tyr on June 03, 2011, 06:32:22 PM
Britain all the way.
You can trust them with the continent.
How do you know? :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 06:50:13 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 03, 2011, 06:32:22 PM
Britain all the way.
You can trust them with the continent.
How do you know? :ph34r:
Its worked out alright hasn't it?
Give or take a world war or two.
Which was really hardly our fault. :ph34r:
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2011, 06:25:14 PM
King of Sweden. Sounds like hell to me.
Better to reign in hell...
Quote from: Tyr on June 03, 2011, 06:51:47 PM
Its worked out alright hasn't it?
Give or take a world war or two.
Which was really hardly our fault. :ph34r:
It worked out pretty well, yeah. Don't see how that shows Britain can be "trusted with the continent."
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2011, 06:25:14 PM
King of Sweden. Sounds like hell to me.
Better to reign in hell...
Hell has a better climate, otherwise it would be the same. Full of protestants. ;)
Hail Britannia! :bowler:
Quote from: Habbaku on June 03, 2011, 06:24:17 PM
Bernadotte ended up king. Napoleon ended up exiled and poisoned to death.
Seems like Bernadotte won that round.
Bonaparte thought it was a joke.
Write in Candidate Thomas Jefferson!
Brittania rules the waves :bowler:
Otherwise I would haven been a French citoyen of the department of the Deux Nèthes! <_<
It's bad enough having to share a country with the Walloons, being a French minority would be even worse!
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2011, 07:17:35 PM
Hell has a better climate, otherwise it would be the same. Full of protestants. ;)
Protestant hell will be full of harps and hymn singing. :zzz:
What a horrible question. "Would you rather get fucked in the ass by a man with a huge dick, or a man with a tiny dick made of splintery wood."
But in the end, Napoleon is an unsavoury character. :bowler:
What? No love for the guy who gave you the dynasy of buxomy slutty princesses and pervy strip-club-frequenting Kings??
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2011, 02:21:21 AM
What? No love for the guy who gave you the dynasy of buxomy slutty princesses and pervy strip-club-frequenting Kings??
Say what you will about the Bernadottes, but they kept us at peace for 200 years. I can't think of a more successful dynas
ty.
:frog:
So much better than the cheap knock-offs like Napoleon v3.0.
Besides, the British were mostly bandits.
:bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
My choice goes to the House of Washington, who built a nation based on liberty, and justice, for all. Evenually. :yeah:
Alexander I. :contract:
Quote from: Slargos on June 04, 2011, 02:29:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2011, 02:21:21 AM
What? No love for the guy who gave you the dynasy of buxomy slutty princesses and pervy strip-club-frequenting Kings??
Say what you will about the Bernadottes, but they kept us at peace for 200 years. I can't think of a more successful dynasty.
I figured you would be pissed that they didn't lock lips with Hitler.
Quote from: Slargos on June 04, 2011, 02:29:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2011, 02:21:21 AM
What? No love for the guy who gave you the dynasy of buxomy slutty princesses and pervy strip-club-frequenting Kings??
Say what you will about the Bernadottes, but they kept us at peace for 200 years. I can't think of a more successful dynasty.
Easy to be at peace when you rule a race of cowards occupying land nobody wants.
Far too many Brit fanbois around here. As I was telling my man Buskers this morning, it's positively stifling, what what.
Quote from: Archy on June 04, 2011, 12:32:23 AM
Brittania rules the waves :bowler:
Otherwise I would haven been a French citoyen of the department of the Deux Nèthes! <_<
It's bad enough having to share a country with the Walloons, being a French minority would be even worse!
Indeed indeed.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
Yes it is.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
My choice goes to the House of Washington, who built a nation based on liberty, and justice, for all. Evenually. :yeah:
Given that the US at the time discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed the natives and kept a quarter of their population as slaves, maybe you should shut your mouth, you ignorant Martinus.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2011, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
My choice goes to the House of Washington, who built a nation based on liberty, and justice, for all. Evenually. :yeah:
Given that the US at the time discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed the natives and kept a quarter of their population as slaves, maybe you should shut your mouth, you ignorant Martinus.
So you vote Washington as well? :P
he he
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
My choice goes to the House of Washington, who built a nation based on liberty, and justice, for all. Evenually. :yeah:
Yes, around the same time the United Kingdom became anything we would recognize as free. Perhaps a bit afterward.
Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.
If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 05, 2011, 07:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.
If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.
The rush? France and Britannia seem neck and neck in the poll.
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2011, 08:25:14 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 05, 2011, 07:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.
If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.
The rush? France and Britannia seem neck and neck in the poll.
It has tightened up quite a bit, thanks to American stupidity.
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2011, 08:57:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2011, 08:25:14 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 05, 2011, 07:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.
If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.
The rush? France and Britannia seem neck and neck in the poll.
It has tightened up quite a bit, thanks to American stupidity.
Pretty funny, all this Brit ass-to-mouth action coming from a Canadian. You don't even realize how insignificant they consider you, do you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2011, 09:07:34 AM
Pretty funny, all this Brit ass-to-mouth action coming from a Canadian. You don't even realize how insignificant they consider you, do you?
Don't know, don't care. The bonds that bound the Empire together are disintegrating year by year. But there are still people out there who remember that the greatest force for good and justice that the world has ever known was the British Empire, and that Canada was second only to England herself in that great assemblage of peoples.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2011, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
My choice goes to the House of Washington, who built a nation based on liberty, and justice, for all. Evenually. :yeah:
Given that the US at the time discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed the natives and kept a quarter of their population as slaves, maybe you should shut your mouth, you ignorant Martinus.
I thought Faelin was a Brit. At the time, I think many states still had a property restrictions on holding office and voting.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2011, 09:30:04 AM
I thought Faelin was a Brit. At the time, I think many states still had a property restrictions on holding office and voting.
Fae attends law school in New York.
IIRC, Fae's father is a British doctor or something?
Anyway, as for this poll:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_kkuXLMP61Io%2FTCWc3pen-AI%2FAAAAAAAAAZI%2FrwO8DVZxhj4%2Fs1600%2Funion_jack.jpg&hash=61d3fe8483a6e46a9cdbe9b61c6490216de34487)
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2011, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
Yes it is.
But it isn't "fair" to call it a Parliamentary democracy at all, when membership in the two most significant and powerful elements of Parliament is hereditary, and the members of the third are chosen by a tiny handful of voters.
Napoleonic France was probably more "democratic" than Napoleonic-era Britain.
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2011, 02:27:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2011, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2011, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Very touch choice.
On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies.
Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?
Yes it is.
But it isn't "fair" to call it a Parliamentary democracy at all, when membership in the two most significant and powerful elements of Parliament is hereditary, and the members of the third are chosen by a tiny handful of voters.
Napoleonic France was probably more "democratic" than Napoleonic-era Britain.
Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?
I imagine the British would have objected to calling their system a Democracy at the time. I believe that word had a negative connotation in the late 18th century. It did in the early US at least.
Still, I think it's unfair to use the modern day as the reference point for Democracy in other times and places. People in the US considered themselves living in a Democracy a hundred years ago, despite women being unable to vote and most blacks. A hundred years from now people may consider us undemocratic for some reason.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 05, 2011, 07:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.
If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.
Yes. Although it probably is correct to say that the United Kingdom is better than Napoleonic France, and possibly correct to declare it the best country ever, "better than a dictatorship that killed millions, arguably for nothing" and even "the best country ever" is still rather faint praise.
Quote from: RazStill, I think it's unfair to use the modern day as the reference point for Democracy in other times and places. People in the US considered themselves living in a Democracy a hundred years ago, despite women being unable to vote and most blacks. A hundred years from now people may consider us undemocratic for some reason.
The advance of morality in the decades following World War II is really an amazing thing. But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards. Those standards may continue to evolve, but if they can't be applied universally then they're not really standards, and more like opinions, aren't they? And you don't get much of anywhere by having an
opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong.
Quote from: Slargos on June 05, 2011, 02:30:42 PM
Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?
Ron Paul was just on the news saying that the US is not a democracy.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards.
Fair or not, it's not remotely useful to do so.
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2011, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 05, 2011, 02:30:42 PM
Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?
Ron Paul was just on the news saying that the US is not a democracy.
President Bartlet said the same thing.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
The advance of morality in the decades following World War II is really an amazing thing. But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards. Those standards may continue to evolve, but if they can't be applied universally then they're not really standards, and more like opinions, aren't they? And you don't get much of anywhere by having an opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong.
Yes, but you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about government. I'm saying it's unfair to so narrowly define Democracy to only the government we have right now.
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2011, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 05, 2011, 02:30:42 PM
Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?
Ron Paul was just on the news saying that the US is not a democracy.
Was it clear that Ron Paul knew which century he was living in?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2011, 03:45:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
The advance of morality in the decades following World War II is really an amazing thing. But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards. Those standards may continue to evolve, but if they can't be applied universally then they're not really standards, and more like opinions, aren't they? And you don't get much of anywhere by having an opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong.
Yes, but you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about government. I'm saying it's unfair to so narrowly define Democracy to only the government we have right now.
Which definition wouldn't be unfair?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2011, 03:48:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2011, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 05, 2011, 02:30:42 PM
Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?
Ron Paul was just on the news saying that the US is not a democracy.
Was it clear that Ron Paul knew which century he was living in?
I only saw the headline as I was walking through the lobby of my hotel, so no clue.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2011, 03:45:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
The advance of morality in the decades following World War II is really an amazing thing. But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards. Those standards may continue to evolve, but if they can't be applied universally then they're not really standards, and more like opinions, aren't they? And you don't get much of anywhere by having an opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong.
Yes, but you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about government. I'm saying it's unfair to so narrowly define Democracy to only the government we have right now.
The thing is, with Democracy, quantity translates into quality. If you call a government where "only some people have a vote" a Democracy, then it becomes rather tricky to justify why the US in 1799 was a Democracy (only the land-owning non-slave non-Indian males could vote) and Poland-Lithuania in 1791 wasn't (only the land-owning non-commoner males could vote - which amounted to app. 10% of the general populace and you could buy a noble title), considering in both cases the majority of the populace did not have a vote.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2011, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards.
Fair or not, it's not remotely useful to do so.
Of course it's useful. By identifying what is immoral or unwise from history, we can prevent similar mistakes from being made in the future. Also, there's a nice feeling associated with realizing that you're a better and brighter human being than almost anyone who has ever lived.
Quote from: RazYes, but you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about government. I'm saying it's unfair to so narrowly define Democracy to only the government we have right now.
I did misunderstand a little bit, but like morality, it's not correct to call a system a democracy when, if it existed in the present, we would not recognize as a democracy. At least, you have to qualify it with something, like calling the US an "emerging" democracy.
If that means that the future ones can find us wanting as well, that's fine with me. That's their prerogative, just as we can and should look down on past people who don't measure up to our own standards. Although we have a relatively novel advantage in that we can far more concretely conceive of people from the future judging us harshly, and put ourselves in their place, which makes us less likely to be total assholes.
But all that really means is that we don't have any standards at all, but rather fashions.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2011, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards.
Fair or not, it's not remotely useful to do so.
It is probably fair to compare Napoleonic France to its contemporaries, though.
No country of the period was "democratic" in the sense that we mean the term today. But Britain was arguably less democratic (democracy = "rule by the will of the people") than France at that point. It most certainly was not a democratic parliamentary system, as only the House of Commons was elected at all, and that by a tiny fraction of the populace (and the Commons had much less power at that point than it would later in the century).
Britain was a more "constitutional" state in that her leadership was more restricted by her constitution than France's was by hers, and one can certainly argue that this was one of the secrets to British success in these wars and later. But that's not the same thing as "rule by the will of the people."
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2011, 05:03:49 PM
I did misunderstand a little bit, but like morality, it's not correct to call a system a democracy when, if it existed in the present, we would not recognize as a democracy. At least, you have to qualify it with something, like calling the US an "emerging" democracy.
If that means that the future ones can find us wanting as well, that's fine with me. That's their prerogative, just as we can and should look down on past people who don't measure up to our own standards. Although we have a relatively novel advantage in that we can far more concretely conceive of people from the future judging us harshly, and put ourselves in their place, which makes us less likely to be total assholes.
Well the term Democracy was coined to describe forms of government before the modern era, so I'm not sure we get to chose which ones are closer to a Democratic ideal then our forebearers. (is this a word? Spell Check doesn't like it. Bleh). Still, a qualifier is probably the best solution. Democracy has described a lot of governments over time. 5th century Athens, 1950's East Germany and 1880's America all claimed to be a Democracy (well, I'm not sure if the Athenians actually called it a Democracy at the time, but it's the term used in modern history for it), but differ wildly in their governments. Presumably they all believed they had a more perfect form of it. At least those in a position to write stuff down at least.
As to situation at hand, I'm not sure how Britons and Frenchmen regarded their governments at the time or how free they were.
Can I be Byzantium?
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2011, 09:15:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2011, 09:07:34 AM
Pretty funny, all this Brit ass-to-mouth action coming from a Canadian. You don't even realize how insignificant they consider you, do you?
Don't know, don't care. The bonds that bound the Empire together are disintegrating year by year. But there are still people out there who remember that the greatest force for good and justice that the world has ever known was the British Empire, and that Canada was second only to England herself in that great assemblage of peoples.
:lol: Wayne Gretsky
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2011, 07:25:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2011, 09:15:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2011, 09:07:34 AM
Pretty funny, all this Brit ass-to-mouth action coming from a Canadian. You don't even realize how insignificant they consider you, do you?
Don't know, don't care. The bonds that bound the Empire together are disintegrating year by year. But there are still people out there who remember that the greatest force for good and justice that the world has ever known was the British Empire, and that Canada was second only to England herself in that great assemblage of peoples.
:lol: Wayne Gretsky
Pump your brakes there. That man's a national treasure,
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2011, 07:50:03 PM
Pump your brakes there. That man's a national treasure,
That's rather ethnic phrasing.
Well, I'm going to withdraw what I said earlier, since both the Athenian Democracy and the Polish Nobles' Democracy are considered to be form of democracies by scholars, apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
So I think Ide is talking about "liberal democracy" and refusing to call "democracy" every other form of democracy.
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2011, 06:16:11 PM
No country of the period was "democratic" in the sense that we mean the term today. But Britain was arguably less democratic (democracy = "rule by the will of the people") than France at that point.
How so? The Constitution of the Year VIII allowed people only to choose names to present on a list of notables, from which members of the Assembly and public servants on all three government levels were either nominated by the government or elected by the Senate.
At least the House of Commons was elected directly from the population, even with a limited census, and people had a say on local administrators (mayors, JPs, sheriffs). In France all mayors in towns and
communes over 5000 pops were directly nominated by Napoleon.
Yeah Napoleon was about as democratic as Louis XIV. At least, according to his nephew (who I have a soft spot for since he actually did do this at the end of his reign), the plan was to eventually make it democratic this was supposed to be a transition phase. Of course I doubt Napoleon I himself would have allowed that to happen while he was alive.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2011, 09:06:16 AM
Yeah Napoleon was about as democratic as Louis XIV. At least, according to this nephew (who do have a soft spot for since he actually did do this at the end of his reign), the plan was to eventually make it democratic this was supposed to be a transition phase. Of course I doubt Napoleon I himself would have allowed that to happen while he was alive.
Only when his personal fortune would surpass the two billion
francs threshold. He had about 600 millions
francs in gold in the Tuileries when he got deposed the first time.
Napoleon was about power and money. When he got back from Elba he was ready to promise anything to come back on his throne, even a new liberal constitution with elections. And what "constitution" he gave to France in 1815 : at least people could elect their mayors now.
Quote from: Martinus on June 06, 2011, 02:38:51 AM
Well, I'm going to withdraw what I said earlier, since both the Athenian Democracy and the Polish Nobles' Democracy are considered to be form of democracies by scholars, apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
So I think Ide is talking about "liberal democracy" and refusing to call "democracy" every other form of democracy.
I have a hard time considering a system that allowed a minority of one to overturn the majority everytime really that democratic. Really if they had just had a method of overturning a veto with a super majority their system would have had alot to admire about it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2011, 09:08:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 06, 2011, 02:38:51 AM
Well, I'm going to withdraw what I said earlier, since both the Athenian Democracy and the Polish Nobles' Democracy are considered to be form of democracies by scholars, apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
So I think Ide is talking about "liberal democracy" and refusing to call "democracy" every other form of democracy.
I have a hard time considering a system that allowed a minority of one to overturn the majority everytime really that democratic. Really if they had just had a method of overturning a veto with a super majority their system would have had alot to admire about it.
Originally it worked like that, but later started to get abused. It was also used very sparringly at first, but later became a plague. It just goes to show that democratic institutions are only as good as the people who get to use them.
See also: filibuster.
Edit: Originally, liberum veto was used as a "threat" or "pause" - essentially, an opposing representative would say "liberum veto" to force the house to deliberate more on the measure instead of going straight to the voting, and would either end up being convinced to withdraw it or another compromise would be reached. Only after about 200 years of use (in late 17th century), it would involve some minor guy (usually paid by that or this magnate party or a foreign power) to yell "liberum veto" and then run as quickly as possibly out of the room, thus essentially forcing the parliament session to a halt (unless he was caught and brought back and forced under threat of violence to retract).
As I said, it just goes to show, that a lot depends on how the representatives treat such tools.
Quote from: Martinus on June 06, 2011, 10:00:10 AM
See also: filibuster.
Well the way it works in the US Senate you can overturn a filibuster with a 60% vote.
:bowler: to keep Albion slightly ahead.