Guns, Guns Guns

pokermind wrote:@ Tenshinai, socialism has very negative meanings to the average citizen of the United States, two of our worst enemies have been socialists: the National Socialist Worker's Party (NSPD or the Nazis), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP or Russia) To you socialism is a benign representative government, to us it is a repressive dictatorship. It is a different world view and not right wing extremism, or the use of mind altering substances. It is just you looking at a nice apple and us looking at a sour lemon.

By the by many socialists call themselves progressives due to this negative cogitation in the USA.

Poker

Its more than just bad connotations, Poker. If your nation claims its government holds sovereignty, socialism is not problem at all so long as the privileges it grants its citizens is acceptable. From the US perspective, in order for socialist governments to grant anything, it must first take upon the right and ability to do so from the sovereign citizens.

Where the sovereignty of the US citizens allows us to retain as much liberty as we desire, the nations' sovereignty elsewhere allows those governments to grant whatever privileges it deems just to its citizens. Shifting the paradigm to the US just doesn't work. The notion that the Government grants whatever liberty it chooses sticks in the craws of everyone except those that believe they will control government. On the left NSA spying is just too much and on the right Obamacare are examples.

PeterZ wrote:Its more than just bad connotations, Poker. If your nation claims its government holds sovereignty, socialism is not problem at all so long as the privileges it grants its citizens is acceptable. From the US perspective, in order for socialist governments to grant anything, it must first take upon the right and ability to do so from the sovereign citizens.

Where the sovereignty of the US citizens allows us to retain as much liberty as we desire, the nations' sovereignty elsewhere allows those governments to grant whatever privileges it deems just to its citizens.

Nonsense.

Whether we're talking about socialist Scandanavians or the "I'm terrified of socialism" United States the rights and privileges the state allows it's citizens are determined by those citizens because those citizens vote on their governments.

The only thing you need to make sure citizens maintain sovereign control over their rights and freedoms is to maintain the integrity of the democratic voting system. Which is completely independent of whether socialism is being practiced or not.

Shifting the paradigm to the US just doesn't work.

Of course it works. There's nothing magic about the US or the way it's government operates that renders socialism non-operable. The only thing preventing it from being successfully employed is the neuroses of a large percentage of the population on that subject who refuse to allow it to be implemented.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Its more than just bad connotations, Poker. If your nation claims its government holds sovereignty, socialism is not problem at all so long as the privileges it grants its citizens is acceptable. From the US perspective, in order for socialist governments to grant anything, it must first take upon the right and ability to do so from the sovereign citizens.

Where the sovereignty of the US citizens allows us to retain as much liberty as we desire, the nations' sovereignty elsewhere allows those governments to grant whatever privileges it deems just to its citizens.

Nonsense.

Whether we're talking about socialist Scandanavians or the "I'm terrified of socialism" United States the rights and privileges the state allows it's citizens are determined by those citizens because those citizens vote on their governments.

The only thing you need to make sure citizens maintain sovereign control over their rights and freedoms is to maintain the integrity of the democratic voting system. Which is completely independent of whether socialism is being practiced or not.

Shifting the paradigm to the US just doesn't work.

Of course it works. There's nothing magic about the US or the way it's government operates that renders socialism non-operable. The only thing preventing it from being successfully employed is the neuroses of a large percentage of the population on that subject who refuse to allow it to be implemented.

No it does not. Do you know who holds the legal sovereignty in any European nation? Besides Poland, the sovereignty resides in the governments of those nations. Sovereignty in the UK resides in the Queen and Parliament. Their citizens are subjects of the Queen and Parliament.

The US government legally borrows its sovereignty from its citizens. Our government is not sovereign, our citizens are. As I recall Poland and Brazil each recognize their citizens are sovereign, rather than the government of their nation.

European governments grant rights and freedoms to its citizens. The US citizens grant powers to its government at the expense of their liberty. This is fundamental to the US system of government and legal theory. Those of us who know and understand this distinction are not eager to give up our liberty. This is not a neurosis that your ignorance names it, it is simply valuing our liberty.

That does not mean we in the US can't or won't implement socialist policies. We have and continue to do so. The difference between us and Europe is that those citizens are being given more rights, privileges or freedoms where as we are losing our liberty to do those things as we deem appropriate and allowing the government to decide on our behalf.

If you don't believe me, talk to a lawyer.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Of course it works. There's nothing magic about the US or the way it's government operates that renders socialism non-operable. The only thing preventing it from being successfully employed is the neuroses of a large percentage of the population on that subject who refuse to allow it to be implemented.

No it does not. Do you know who holds the legal sovereignty in any European nation? Besides Poland, the sovereignty resides in the governments of those nations.

And those governments (excluding monarchies which you introduced but which I wasn't talking about) are democratically elected by their citizens. Placing the citizens at the top of the decision making hierarchy.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
No it does not. Do you know who holds the legal sovereignty in any European nation? Besides Poland, the sovereignty resides in the governments of those nations.

And those governments (excluding monarchies which you introduced but which I wasn't talking about) are democratically elected by their citizens. Placing the citizens at the top of the decision making hierarchy.

I am not arguing that the citizenry do not contribute to their own governance. I am talking about sovereignty. Here let's review this definition of sovereignty from Merriam-Webster.

sovereignty:
noun sov·er·eign·ty \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən-tē, -vərn-tē also ˈsə-\

unlimited power over a country,
a country's independent authority and the right to govern itself

This isn't about having a say in how the country is run. It is about the source of authority within a country's government. European countries do not recognize that the legal source of authority for their government's actions come from its citizens. That legal source of authority comes from the governments themselves, not their citizenry.

Those governments allow their citizens to vote on who governs or rules, really. Once voted in as agents of government, the elected members of those in government use their corporate sovereignty as part of the government to act. That's not the way power legally flows in the US. US citizens use our sovereignty to assign agents to government to make decisions on our behalf. Those agents are limited in what they can do by the Constitution. What the federal government can't do falls back to the state governments and the individual citizens to address.

Its not about who has influence over who enters into government, but who holds the ultimate authority that makes a nation's government's actions legitimate, government of the nation or the citizens of a nation. Because a government that holds a nation's sovereignty can change how it is structured. Should it deny its citizens a vote, it has the legal authority to do that. That means the citizens' right to choose who rules them can be legally rescinded by government. The US government does not have that legal right or authority, because it does not have sovereignty nor has it been granted the legal authority to do that by its sovereign citizenry.

So long as the people are not sovereign, they are not at the top of their decision making hierarchy. They have influence, certainly but they do not hold the legal source of power for government.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And those governments (excluding monarchies which you introduced but which I wasn't talking about) are democratically elected by their citizens. Placing the citizens at the top of the decision making hierarchy.

I am not arguing that the citizenry do not contribute to their own governance. I am talking about sovereignty.

You can argue legalese technicalities all day, it changes nothing.

When the citizens retain the power to evict any members of the government who make decisions they don't like the citizens are ultimately in charge. You can call that government sovereign all you want, but the practical reality is unchanged. The citizenry still hold the ultimate decision making authority.

That is true in any legitimate representative democracy. It is not somehow unique to the United States.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
I am not arguing that the citizenry do not contribute to their own governance. I am talking about sovereignty.

You can argue legalese technicalities all day, it changes nothing.

When the citizens retain the power to evict any members of the government who make decisions they don't like the citizens are ultimately in charge. You can call that government sovereign all you want, but the practical reality is unchanged. The citizenry still hold the ultimate decision making authority.

That is true in any legitimate representative democracy. It is not somehow unique to the United States.

Do try to keep up.

Under a Parliamentary or Legislative sovereign nation, the citizens do not have the right to evict members of parliament because they are not sovereign. The authority to make laws does not reside with them. They are given the privilege to vote by Parliament. Parliament is free to change the law as they see fit and take that privilege away. Now, the citizens can rebel in protest, but that would be outside the law. In that sense the de facto authority is always with a large enough portion of citizens who are willing to fight to assert their displeasure.....We can discuss the justification for the Second Amendment another time.

We aren't given the privilege to vote by our government. There are very specific rules laid down in our constitution as to when elections must be held, and our government has no choice but to obey. I understand that all other free democracies are similar. Our governments don't have "unlimited power", far from it.
You can argue semantics and play word games all you like, but the actual experience of living in our countries is essentially the same as yours.
Parliament is also constrained by our legal systems as to what laws it can pass. If they pass a law that the High Court says conflicts with our constitution or any international treaties we have signed, then it is invalid.
Knowing & talking to US friends it does seem to me that views expressed here tend to be the province of a certain subset of US society, and far from universal.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:You can argue legalese technicalities all day, it changes nothing.

When the citizens retain the power to evict any members of the government who make decisions they don't like the citizens are ultimately in charge. You can call that government sovereign all you want, but the practical reality is unchanged. The citizenry still hold the ultimate decision making authority.

That is true in any legitimate representative democracy. It is not somehow unique to the United States.

Do try to keep up.

Under a Parliamentary or Legislative sovereign nation, the citizens do not have the right to evict members of parliament because they are not sovereign.

How, exactly, do you think elections in those countries work?

I'm genuinely curious, since you appear not to think they work by deciding who stays and who goes in their governments.

Daryl wrote:We aren't given the privilege to vote by our government. There are very specific rules laid down in our constitution as to when elections must be held, and our government has no choice but to obey. I understand that all other free democracies are similar. Our governments don't have "unlimited power", far from it.
You can argue semantics and play word games all you like, but the actual experience of living in our countries is essentially the same as yours.
Parliament is also constrained by our legal systems as to what laws it can pass. If they pass a law that the High Court says conflicts with our constitution or any international treaties we have signed, then it is invalid.
Knowing & talking to US friends it does seem to me that views expressed here tend to be the province of a certain subset of US society, and far from universal.

Daryl,

I never claimed that Australia recognized parliamentary sovereignty. My assertions were rather specific.