I am seeking examples...

[Harry Guerrilla]

Maybe I should be more precize then: It's wrong to label all kinds of different ideologies with the broad brush label "socialism". Europe today isn't socialist. IIRC, the only remaining socialist countries are North Korea and Cuba. Socialism in Europe ended in 1990.

A completely different kind of animal is social democracy or social liberalism. Sweden, for example, is a social democracy. That's completely different from "socialism" and certainly has nothing at all to do with the former Soviet brand of socialism. Most important, social democrats and social liberals don't advocate a nationalization of the entire economy. They want free markets. They just want to regulate them and redistribute some wealth. But that's really just a fig leaf on their free market capitalism. You may disagree with that, but it's not socialism à la Soviet Union.

Also, social democrats and social liberals strongly believe in freedom: They respect Constitution, civil liberties and a democratic political system. In European history, they were often the most bitter enemies of communists and revolutionary socialists just because of that. The German Social Democrats, for example, were the one party that established the free Weimar Republic in 1918/19 and defended it against both communist socialism from the left and fascism and Nazism from the right. The German Social Democrats were the only party voting against Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933.

What Americans call "socialist" these days are very different political concepts and ideologies. "Communist" socialists advocate tyranny and hate freedom, social democrats and social liberals love freedom and bitterly defend it if necessary.

I used the term "Social Democrat" to describe what most Americans are, in terms of political beliefs and my history professor dinged me on it because "Social Democrats exist mostly in Germany."

I call bs on that, belief wise, most Americans fit in to that political area.

 

[Moot]

Maybe I should be more precize then: It's wrong to label all kinds of different ideologies with the broad brush label "socialism". Europe today isn't socialist. IIRC, the only remaining socialist countries are North Korea and Cuba. Socialism in Europe ended in 1990.

A completely different kind of animal is social democracy or social liberalism. Sweden, for example, is a social democracy. That's completely different from "socialism" and certainly has nothing at all to do with the former Soviet brand of socialism. Most important, social democrats and social liberals don't advocate a nationalization of the entire economy. They want free markets. They just want to regulate them and redistribute some wealth. But that's really just a fig leaf on their free market capitalism. You may disagree with that, but it's not socialism à la Soviet Union.

Also, social democrats and social liberals strongly believe in freedom: They respect Constitution, civil liberties and a democratic political system. In European history, they were often the most bitter enemies of communists and revolutionary socialists just because of that. The German Social Democrats, for example, were the one party that established the free Weimar Republic in 1918/19 and defended it against both communist socialism from the left and fascism and Nazism from the right. The German Social Democrats were the only party voting against Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933.

What Americans call "socialist" these days are very different political concepts and ideologies. "Communist" socialists advocate tyranny and hate freedom, social democrats and social liberals love freedom and bitterly defend it if necessary.

Excellent reply. Unfortunately, in the US the right wing use labels like socialist, communist, and Marxist interchangeably and they all mean one thing, Liberals. They are defining liberals as socialists and they draw a straight line from anything they can find from the past, no matter how far fetched or absurd to connect the present as their proof. For instance, they see Obama nationalize GM, well the Soviets, Hitler and Mussolini nationalized private business too. Obama wants nationalized health care, well so did the Soviets. Redistribution of wealth, Soviets did that too. Obama is doing extralegal detention, well guess who else did that too. Do you see the problem?

The result is young people like Wade who are now becoming politically aware are "seeking" to connect the dots for the pre determined conclusions they learned from the right wing propaganda and media. I don't know how to combat it, other to come onto forums like this one. I think the only reason fascism hasn't escalated as fast as it did in Italy and Germany is because of the sheer size of our country. But now with the tea party movement, the right wing are starting to over come that obstacle. If you notice after our last election, the liberal states are pretty much delegated to the east and west coast. Pretty hard to organize a counter movement with that kind of distance between like minded people.

I am so disappointed in our president and his appeasing the right wing on everything, that it feels like the great American experiment is coming to an end and we are witnessing it's final chapter. It's definitely not the America that I grew up with or that you knew, anymore.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Minor nations such as Russia and China seem to have benefited from Marx injections.

 

[PeteEU]

Minor nations such as Russia and China seem to have benefited from Marx injections.

Not really. Russia is a mess, run by the mafia and with a very weak legal system. The amount of poor is sky-rocketing (as well as the amount of super rich of course), and the average life span has gone down dramatically since the end of the USSR.

China is also a mess. Its economic growth might look good on paper, but it is not reaching the majority of the Chinese population who still live in utter poverty. At some point this will cause problems that not even a gun and boot method of population control will be able to control. The US needs 3% annual growth to maintain even the basics.. China needs far more, and has to keep growing to help more of its people out of poverty. That is why basic laws are being broken and bent in the never ending pursuit for growth. The Chinese leaders almost went into panic when the growth rate went under 8% last year....

 

[German guy]

I used the term "Social Democrat" to describe what most Americans are, in terms of political beliefs and my history professor dinged me on it because "Social Democrats exist mostly in Germany."

I'm not sure how commonly used this term is in English speaking countries, but maybe that's a matter of capital "Social Democrats" versus small-letter "social democrats". But I know this term is used in political theory in Europe beyond Germany, like Scandinavia or the Netherlands. Maybe this term has a special historical connotation because of particular historical traditions that existed in Germany and Scandinavia, but were distinctively different from very similar labor movements in other countries.

But as far as I know, the term "social liberalism" is common in English discourse too. Maybe that's more appropriate then.

I call bs on that, belief wise, most Americans fit in to that political area.

Probably you are right, although social liberal and/or social democratic believes are more prevalent in Europe than America. But considering more than half of the American voters voted for Obama in 2008, it probably means social liberal ideas are not uncommon in America either.

I'd say Obama is clearly not a socialist. Probably he can correctly be labelled a "social liberal". Of course you can give good reasons to disagree with that and to oppose him, but it's ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt when people villify him with the term "socialism", evoking associations with Soviet style dictatorship, or calling him a "Marxist". This is so obviously ridiculous and absurd as calling Bush a "Nazi".

 

[Tucker Case]

It is important that these are foreign nationals and not American citizens or our guests.

A few things, reefed.

1. If a CIA agent violates a law in another country, they should be subject to that country's laws and prosecued to the full extent. If MI-6 were kidnapping US citizens on US soil, I would want to see them prosecuted for it. Fair's fair.

2. The "unlawful" combatants detained by the US have a right to a military tribunal to determine if their assigned status as "unlawful combatants" is legitimate as per the Geneva conventions (this protects lawful combatants from being labeled as "unlawful" for nefarious purposes, and the US agreed to it when they signed the geneva conventions).

 

[WI Crippler]

2. The "unlawful" combatants detained by the US have a right to a military tribunal to determine if their assigned status as "unlawful combatants" is legitimate as per the Geneva conventions (this protects lawful combatants from being labeled as "unlawful" for nefarious purposes, and the US agreed to it when they signed the geneva conventions).

I've never recalled an argument against military tribunals for unlawful combatants. The arguments against them stem from extending them protections that are reserved for US citizens IIRC.

 

[Tucker Case]

I've never recalled an argument against military tribunals for unlawful combatants. The arguments against them stem from extending them protections that are reserved for US citizens IIRC.

Originally, they were denied their tribunals. After a SC ruling, they began getting them.

 

[Andalublue]

I'm not sure how commonly used this term is in English speaking countries, but maybe that's a matter of capital "Social Democrats" versus small-letter "social democrats". But I know this term is used in political theory in Europe beyond Germany, like Scandinavia or the Netherlands. Maybe this term has a special historical connotation because of particular historical traditions that existed in Germany and Scandinavia, but were distinctively different from very similar labor movements in other countries.

When I studied Political Science and Government (admittedly some years ago) we referred to social democracy and liberal democracy (no capitals) often, the former signifiying more interventionist, mixed market economics, the latter signifying a more free market approach but with similar liberal social policies and attitudes.

But as far as I know, the term "social liberalism" is common in English discourse too. Maybe that's more appropriate then.

Social liberalism was not a term we used; I'm not sure what it might mean.

Probably you are right, although social liberal and/or social democratic believes are more prevalent in Europe than America. But considering more than half of the American voters voted for Obama in 2008, it probably means social liberal ideas are not uncommon in America either.

I would think of Obama as a liberal democrat. He advocates certain social democratic ideas in his healthcare proposals, but I can't think of many other social democratic initiatives he's taken. Certainly, in his timid attitude towards under-regulated financial sector, he's positvely anti-socialist.

This is so obviously ridiculous and absurd as calling Bush a "Nazi".

Only if you believe that calling someone a 'socialist' is a terrible insult.

 

[German guy]

When I studied Political Science and Government (admittedly some years ago) we referred to social democracy and liberal democracy (no capitals) often, the former signifiying more interventionist, mixed market economics, the latter signifying a more free market approach but with similar liberal social policies and attitudes.
Social liberalism was not a term we used; I'm not sure what it might mean.

Probably it's what you called "liberal democracy". As I have come to know the term "social liberalism", it refers to liberal stances on social issues, but more social democratic ideas regarding economy and social safety nets. Basically social democracy without any socialist or Marxist roots, but more a "compassionate liberalism".

"Liberal democracy" is not commonly used in Germany, because the word "liberal" as used here usually refers to classic liberalism, or ideas Americans would call "libertarian" -- which is often the opposite extreme of socialism.

I would think of Obama as a liberal democrat. He advocates certain social democratic ideas in his healthcare proposals, but I can't think of many other social democratic initiatives he's taken. Certainly, in his timid attitude towards under-regulated financial sector, he's positvely anti-socialist.

Indeed.

Only if you believe that calling someone a 'socialist' is a terrible insult.

Well, American opponents of Obama often seem to use it this way. And since they even allude to communism à la Marx or Stalin, it seems they don't really see the difference between the different brands of socialist ideas. That is definitely insulting.

I don't think calling someone a "socialist" is necessarily insulting. But if someone called me a "communist", "Marxist" or "Stalinist", just because I believe public healthcare is a good idea, or because I think limited redistribution of wealth is fine, that would not just be factually wrong and intellectually offending, but I'd take that as an insult too.

 

[Andalublue]

"Liberal democracy" is not commonly used in Germany, because the word "liberal" as used here usually refers to classic liberalism, or ideas Americans would call "libertarian" -- which is often the opposite extreme of socialism.

It's funny, in the UK during my college years, we would talk about 'Classical liberalism' only really in terms of Locke, the social contract, the Enlightenment and the rejection of absolutism. It certainly never went hand-in-hand with unfettered individualism.

Well, American opponents of Obama often seem to use it this way. And since they even allude to communism à la Marx or Stalin, it seems they don't really see the difference between the different brands of socialist ideas. That is definitely insulting.

I don't think calling someone a "socialist" is necessarily insulting. But if someone called me a "communist", "Marxist" or "Stalinist", just because I believe public healthcare is a good idea, or because I think limited redistribution of wealth is fine, that would not just be factually wrong and intellectually offending, but I'd take that as an insult too.

Terminology can only have any effect as an insult in the reaction of the insulted. Those using normal political shorthand as childish insult tend not to be the more serious players. The best possible response is to calmly point out the inaccuracy and refrain from exchanging unpleasantries. Easier said than done I know, and I have a couple of infractions to prove it.

 

[German guy]

It's funny, in the UK during my college years, we would talk about 'Classical liberalism' only really in terms of Locke, the social contract, the Enlightenment and the rejection of absolutism. It certainly never went hand-in-hand with unfettered individualism.

Maybe that's because in Germany, you more or less have an unbroken continuity of "liberalism", that has never become synonymous with "left" or "democratic" as in America. German liberals would be more traditional in the past, in the Locke sense, flirt with ordoliberal ideas and some regulation past WW2, until they finally embraced more "libertarian" small state ideas and market radicalism after the 1980s, during the Reagan and Thatcher years.

It may not be entirely appropriate, but when I refer to people in Germany calling themselves "liberal", I usually translate this as "libertarian" when talking with Americans, because using the term "liberal" would cause misunderstanding. As far as I see, that's the closest analogy, although political cultures in both countries differ, along with the respective "libertarians".

 

[reefedjib]

A few things, reefed.

1. If a CIA agent violates a law in another country, they should be subject to that country's laws and prosecued to the full extent. If MI-6 were kidnapping US citizens on US soil, I would want to see them prosecuted for it. Fair's fair.

Fair is fair.

2. The "unlawful" combatants detained by the US have a right to a military tribunal to determine if their assigned status as "unlawful combatants" is legitimate as per the Geneva conventions (this protects lawful combatants from being labeled as "unlawful" for nefarious purposes, and the US agreed to it when they signed the geneva conventions).

Right, so what's the problem? Our system corrected itself.

 

[Djoop]

Maybe that's because in Germany, you more or less have an unbroken continuity of "liberalism", that has never become synonymous with "left" or "democratic" as in America. German liberals would be more traditional in the past, in the Locke sense, flirt with ordoliberal ideas and some regulation past WW2, until they finally embraced more "libertarian" small state ideas and market radicalism after the 1980s, during the Reagan and Thatcher years.

It may not be entirely appropriate, but when I refer to people in Germany calling themselves "liberal", I usually translate this as "libertarian" when talking with Americans, because using the term "liberal" would cause misunderstanding. As far as I see, that's the closest analogy, although political cultures in both countries differ, along with the respective "libertarians".

I do the same, it seems to work. I think the difference has to do with the extremes of the political spectrum, the fact most of post war (western) Europe was run by social democrats where the US was still busy getting over mccarthyism.

Anyhow, to most socialists, liberalism is all about 'unfettered individualism'. Classical liberals and libertarians argue that that the system of justice should abstract from the concrete characteristics of individuals, differences among normal adults do not imply different fundamental rights. When socialist and libertarians talk about equality, one is consistent, the other is not.

 

[Tucker Case]

Right, so what's the problem? Our system corrected itself.

There are some legitimate grievances about the "impartiality" of the tribunals we've set up (there is no "objective" oversight form the international community) and there is also a legitimate gripe about the fact that we did initially violate international law by denying these tribunals.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Others have pointed out their problems with your posting already, with good reason ... but I want to give a serious answer for a change:

There are bad experiences with socialism in Europe: The Soviet Union and its socialist satellites -- East Germany, Poland, Hungary and so on -- were ruled by socialist dictatorships until 1989/90. That was bad, because the people had no say, their freedoms were violated, including basic civil and human rights.

If you are American, that might confuse you, but this brand of Soviet socialist dictatorship has almost nothing at all to do with democratic socialism, social democracy or social liberalism that existed and still exists in Western Europe. Also, these socialist dictatorships were not bad because they had public healthcare. They were bad because they wiretapped and controlled people, because they extralegally detained people, denied them fair trials and tortured them. There was no freedom of speech, no independent fair judicary, and people were not allowed to leave the country as they pleased.

I don't blame Americans who don't get this, and who don't get the difference between socialist dictatorship and liberal social democracy, because you never had to live under such a Soviet regime, unlike half of my country and half of Europe. If you had, you'd maybe see that there are worse things than public healthcare, and what tyranny actually is. Also, you'd see that socialism is not always socialism, and you'd be more precize when using this label. Maybe you'd even stop giving up the very freedoms that distinguish free Western democracy from dictatorship (socialist or otherwise) in the name of fighting some boogeyman (today, it's Muslims). Hundreds of thousands of people went on the streets to protest for their freedom in 1989/90, and you give up many of the precious freedoms they fought for voluntarily.

A while ago, I visited a former Stasi prison in East Berlin (Stasi was the socialist East German secret police) that now is a museum, and former political prisoners give tours there as guides. The former prisoner showed me the little cells were people were extralegally held, denied fair trials, waterboarded, exposed to "harsh interrogation" and broken. He had tears in his eyes when he told about his liberation in 1989/90, when the Berlin Wall fell, the socialist dictatorship collapsed and he was set free. But soon, he got very sad and explained that he believes this victory may have been in vein, because the self-declared "leader of the free world" does exactly the same today, as official policy, what his people went on the streets against.

GG, I appreciate your honest response on the topic. Sounds reasonable to me for the most part. I have a couple of things to add for your consideration:

1. Health care in socialist countries is used as a tool to control people, as are taxes. Whether they are used for the benefit of society or for tyranny depends entirely upon who is in charge. It creates the impression that individual citizens exist at the pleasure of the government. There is obviously a huge difference between soviet dictators and the leaders of Western Europe and I don't think Americans fail to see it.

2. On that note, I would expect a reasonable person to see the difference between arresting/torturing confessions out of your political opposition, and arresting/torturing (and I don't accept the premise that torture is an official policy) terrorists who are actively plotting to kill innocent people. Are you claiming a moral equivalence between the two?

 

[FederalRepublic]

You can't just give up your most basic values, even if that's just limited and temporary, just because you are afraid and they have become inconvenient. The little extra security is not worth it, either you respect these values or you aren't free. Risk is the price of freedom.

Point taken, and I say the same to you about turning over the responsibility for your health care to the government.

 

[reefedjib]

There are some legitimate grievances about the "impartiality" of the tribunals we've set up (there is no "objective" oversight form the international community) and there is also a legitimate gripe about the fact that we did initially violate international law by denying these tribunals.

I think grievances about impartiality are illegitimate. There is no law being violated, by the lack of a jury.

Perhaps we were violating international law before we corrected, I don't know. Since we are not signatories to the ICC, there is no body that could prosecute us.

 

[FederalRepublic]

The CIA has kidnapped German citizens from the streets in Germany, then detained and tortured them, instead of going the way of invoking the authorities in the free, democratic republican constitutional German state. German authorities had no choice but issuing arrest warrents against the according CIA members for kidnapping and other charges. But America protects these thugs and refuses to deliver them.

Is that what you had in mind when you liberated my country from Nazist dictatorship, teaching us what a Constitution is, what fair trials are and what freedom is?

I haven't heard about this, but I'll agree with you that it's wrong. It's kind of hard to have allies when you treat them like that. I'm curious to know why the CIA thought they needed to go after him.

 

[German guy]

GG, I appreciate your honest response on the topic. Sounds reasonable to me for the most part.

Thanks. I am glad you don't take offense and we can have a good debate.

I have a couple of things to add for your consideration:

1. Health care in socialist countries is used as a tool to control people, as are taxes. Whether they are used for the benefit of society or for tyranny depends entirely upon who is in charge. It creates the impression that individual citizens exist at the pleasure of the government. There is obviously a huge difference between soviet dictators and the leaders of Western Europe and I don't think Americans fail to see it.

I have the impression you are missing exactly this crucial difference: Soviet-style socialism was authoritarian, those countries were dictatorships, civil liberties like freedom of speech, and democratic elections to chose the leaders and influence the policy did not exist (or on the paper at best). In Western Europe/today's EU, this is different, no matter how much wealth redistribution there is: There are civil rights like freedom of speech and habeas corpus protected in republican constitutions, and there are fair and free elections that allow the people to chose a government by the people, through the people and for the people. That's the crucial difference. And this difference is much, much bigger than any tax could ever be.

This is what I have the impression many Americans fail to see: In East Germany for example, people could not vote against their government, if they disagreed with public healthcare, economic policies or their leaders in general. They could not even speak out against it -- when they did, they had to fear repression, that some Stasi snitch would arrest them out of their living rooms, make them disappear, torture them until they were finally broken. They could not even escape their country: Those who attempted to do that were shot to death at the Berlin Wall. In schools and workplaces, people had to parrot socialist slogans, else they'd get on the ****list and be denied promotions, or not allowed to go to college. And there was no way, no means to ever change that, except mass rebellion: And that's what finally happened in 1989, when the oppressed people peacefully forced down their oppressors.

None of this is the case in Western Europe or the EU today, no matter how "socialist" these countries are: You disagree with wealth redistribution or public health care? Vote against it in the election. You don't like your leaders? Vote for another. You want to make a ralley or form a party, using free speech to gather likeminded people? Nobody will keep you from doing that. If you are accused of a crime, nobody may arrest you except the police protecting your rights in the process, and if you are suspect of a crime, you have the right on a fair trial. Your right to vote for the candidates and policies you like is protected, your right on free speech is protected, and your freedom of movement is protected. And if you still hate your country, you are free to leave.

So you disagree with public healthcare? No problem, that's perfectly fine. Vote against it. Use free speech to convince people that it's wrong. Nobody will keep you from doing that -- not even Obama in his wildest dreams, nor Swedish socialists, nor German social democrats. And what is the worst that could happen? Your side loses the election and you have to pay higher taxes. But higher taxes are not oppression, and they are not tyranny. They are an annoyance at worst. You find it annoying to pay taxes for other people's healthcare bills, others may find it annoying to pay taxes for the military you might support.

Behaving as if the sky was falling, tyranny is only one step ahead and higher taxes and/or public healthcare are "socialism" à la Soviet Union, as some people do, is very hysteric to say the least. And it's incredibly decadent, if you ask me: Compare your loss when you have to pay higher taxes to the loss of someone who was raped and tortured by the communist secret police, like that former prisoner in the Stasi prison I mentioned. People who overreact this way don't know what oppression really is, in my opinion -- and maybe that's good. It shows how lucky your people is, because you never had such an oppressive regime. You have my honest best wishes it will stay like that forever.

2. On that note, I would expect a reasonable person to see the difference between arresting/torturing confessions out of your political opposition, and arresting/torturing (and I don't accept the premise that torture is an official policy) terrorists who are actively plotting to kill innocent people. Are you claiming a moral equivalence between the two?

If those people in question were indeed "terrorists who are actively plotting to kill innocent people", I might agree. Some certainly are. But the point is, as long as no fair trail has found them guilty, they are mere suspects. All you got at this point, before such a trial has taken place, is an accusation by the government. I find it ironic and contradictory that you would be suspicious of a democratically legitimized decision like public healthcare, but blindly take the mere word of the government to determine the guilt of a suspect.

The Nazis and East German communists did the same: They always claimed the people they imprisoned and tortured for political reasons were "criminals". Often, they even said those suspects were terrorists. Problem was, without fair trials, this accusation was worth nothing. A government that is accuser, judge and hangman in one person, can destroy people at free will -- and once it has this power and gets away with it, it will inevitably abused. Yet some people, unteachable Nazis and communists believed these accusations: "The government says they are criminals. That's good enough for me, they deserve it." Some unteachable people still believe that today: "They must have been guilty. If they'd been innocent, they wouldn't have been put in labor camps, wouldn't they?" Those people are fortunately not many, but the few are really a pain in today's Germany.

That's not how freedom loving people should think, no matter if the government is accusing the suspects of terrorism or whatnot. Only a fair trial can determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent. And a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. That goes for people accused of terrorism against the USA as well, just like for a pickpocket.

When this most basic principle of a constitutional state -- fair trials and an independent judicary -- are violated, and the government takes the power to judge people without due process, I believe the potential for abuse is much bigger and more extreme than any potential for abuse when it comes to public healthcare (although I agree there is potential for abuse too).

 

[Andalublue]

1. Health care in socialist countries is used as a tool to control people, as are taxes. Whether they are used for the benefit of society or for tyranny depends entirely upon who is in charge. It creates the impression that individual citizens exist at the pleasure of the government. There is obviously a huge difference between soviet dictators and the leaders of Western Europe and I don't think Americans fail to see it.

In what way is universal health care a means of social control? It has no bearing whatever on whether a citizen is deemed to exist or have rights. It is merely a service, and one that most European nations deem to be one that is more efficiently delivered than if left entirely to the private sector. There are and have been plenty of other threads on DP in which to debate the efficiency issue, but that was one of the principal drivers behind the establishment of many nationalised health services.

2. On that note, I would expect a reasonable person to see the difference between arresting/torturing confessions out of your political opposition, and arresting/torturing (and I don't accept the premise that torture is an official policy) terrorists who are actively plotting to kill innocent people. Are you claiming a moral equivalence between the two?

I would claim that until you establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person you are dealing with has committed terrorist acts, the two groups you mention are one and the same.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Excellent reply. Unfortunately, in the US the right wing use labels like socialist, communist, and Marxist interchangeably and they all mean one thing, Liberals. They are defining liberals as socialists and they draw a straight line from anything they can find from the past, no matter how far fetched or absurd to connect the present as their proof. For instance, they see Obama nationalize GM, well the Soviets, Hitler and Mussolini nationalized private business too. Obama wants nationalized health care, well so did the Soviets. Redistribution of wealth, Soviets did that too. Obama is doing extralegal detention, well guess who else did that too. Do you see the problem?

The result is young people like Wade who are now becoming politically aware are "seeking" to connect the dots for the pre determined conclusions they learned from the right wing propaganda and media. I don't know how to combat it, other to come onto forums like this one. I think the only reason fascism hasn't escalated as fast as it did in Italy and Germany is because of the sheer size of our country. But now with the tea party movement, the right wing are starting to over come that obstacle. If you notice after our last election, the liberal states are pretty much delegated to the east and west coast. Pretty hard to organize a counter movement with that kind of distance between like minded people.

Pot to kettle: "Have you gotten blacker lately?":doh

 

[FederalRepublic]

I have the impression you are missing exactly this crucial difference: Soviet-style socialism was authoritarian, those countries were dictatorships, civil liberties like freedom of speech, and democratic elections to chose the leaders and influence the policy did not exist (or on the paper at best). In Western Europe/today's EU, this is different, no matter how much wealth redistribution there is: There are civil rights like freedom of speech and habeas corpus protected in republican constitutions, and there are fair and free elections that allow the people to chose a government by the people, through the people and for the people. That's the crucial difference. And this difference is much, much bigger than any tax could ever be.

This is what I have the impression many Americans fail to see: In East Germany for example, people could not vote against their government, if they disagreed with public healthcare, economic policies or their leaders in general. They could not even speak out against it -- when they did, they had to fear repression, that some Stasi snitch would arrest them out of their living rooms, make them disappear, torture them until they were finally broken. They could not even escape their country: Those who attempted to do that were shot to death at the Berlin Wall. In schools and workplaces, people had to parrot socialist slogans, else they'd get on the ****list and be denied promotions, or not allowed to go to college. And there was no way, no means to ever change that, except mass rebellion: And that's what finally happened in 1989, when the oppressed people peacefully forced down their oppressors.

None of this is the case in Western Europe or the EU today, no matter how "socialist" these countries are: You disagree with wealth redistribution or public health care? Vote against it in the election. You don't like your leaders? Vote for another. You want to make a ralley or form a party, using free speech to gather likeminded people? Nobody will keep you from doing that. If you are accused of a crime, nobody may arrest you except the police protecting your rights in the process, and if you are suspect of a crime, you have the right on a fair trial. Your right to vote for the candidates and policies you like is protected, your right on free speech is protected, and your freedom of movement is protected. And if you still hate your country, you are free to leave.

So you disagree with public healthcare? No problem, that's perfectly fine. Vote against it. Use free speech to convince people that it's wrong. Nobody will keep you from doing that -- not even Obama in his wildest dreams, nor Swedish socialists, nor German social democrats. And what is the worst that could happen? Your side loses the election and you have to pay higher taxes. But higher taxes are not oppression, and they are not tyranny. They are an annoyance at worst. You find it annoying to pay taxes for other people's healthcare bills, others may find it annoying to pay taxes for the military you might support.

Behaving as if the sky was falling, tyranny is only one step ahead and higher taxes and/or public healthcare are "socialism" à la Soviet Union, as some people do, is very hysteric to say the least. And it's incredibly decadent, if you ask me: Compare your loss when you have to pay higher taxes to the loss of someone who was raped and tortured by the communist secret police, like that former prisoner in the Stasi prison I mentioned. People who overreact this way don't know what oppression really is, in my opinion -- and maybe that's good. It shows how lucky your people is, because you never had such an oppressive regime. You have my honest best wishes it will stay like that forever.

I sincerely appreciate your perspective. I have trouble imagining what Berlin was like at that time. I also have trouble imagining how someone who lived through that would approve of the government administering their health care. You have my best wishes that your leaders remain benevolent.

If those people in question were indeed "terrorists who are actively plotting to kill innocent people", I might agree. Some certainly are. But the point is, as long as no fair trail has found them guilty, they are mere suspects. All you got at this point, before such a trial has taken place, is an accusation by the government. I find it ironic and contradictory that you would be suspicious of a democratically legitimized decision like public healthcare, but blindly take the mere word of the government to determine the guilt of a suspect.

The Nazis and East German communists did the same: They always claimed the people they imprisoned and tortured for political reasons were "criminals". Often, they even said those suspects were terrorists. Problem was, without fair trials, this accusation was worth nothing. A government that is accuser, judge and hangman in one person, can destroy people at free will -- and once it has this power and gets away with it, it will inevitably abused. Yet some people, unteachable Nazis and communists believed these accusations: "The government says they are criminals. That's good enough for me, they deserve it." Some unteachable people still believe that today: "They must have been guilty. If they'd been innocent, they wouldn't have been put in labor camps, wouldn't they?" Those people are fortunately not many, but the few are really a pain in today's Germany.

That's not how freedom loving people should think, no matter if the government is accusing the suspects of terrorism or whatnot. Only a fair trial can determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent. And a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. That goes for people accused of terrorism against the USA as well, just like for a pickpocket.

When this most basic principle of a constitutional state -- fair trials and an independent judicary -- are violated, and the government takes the power to judge people without due process, I believe the potential for abuse is much bigger and more extreme than any potential for abuse when it comes to public healthcare (although I agree there is potential for abuse too).

This is not a matter of guilt or innocence. Let me give you my perspective this way:

If I suspect that you murdered my brother, as a human right, I owe you the presumption of innocence unless/until I can prove you are guilty.

If I suspect that you and a group of your friends present an immediate mortal danger to my brother, as a human right, I owe it to my brother to get any information you have out of you in order to save his life.

 

[FederalRepublic]

In what way is universal health care a means of social control? It has no bearing whatever on whether a citizen is deemed to exist or have rights. It is merely a service, and one that most European nations deem to be one that is more efficiently delivered than if left entirely to the private sector. There are and have been plenty of other threads on DP in which to debate the efficiency issue, but that was one of the principal drivers behind the establishment of many nationalised health services.


I would claim that until you establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person you are dealing with has committed terrorist acts, the two groups you mention are one and the same.

Andalu, health care and taxes are already used as a tool for social engineering in the US. Occasionally they are used as tools for personal gain of politicians, whether that gain be monetary or simply influence. More often they are used to desirable changes in society, but the fact remains they are tools of control. You have to admit that.

On #2, see my response to GG. The two are absolutely not the same. One is clearly wrong, the other is in shades of gray.

 

[Tucker Case]

I think grievances about impartiality are illegitimate.

For me, this is a "fair's fair" situation. If a US citizen were being held in another country as an unlawful combatant, I would want to see an objective third party making the determination if this status was legit. I wouldn't want the country that is holding this perosn making the determination. Even if the countries system was impartial, there would always be doubts becuase they have a vested interest in the decision.

There is no law being violated, by the lack of a jury.

That actually depends on the specifics of the individual case.

Perhaps we were violating international law before we corrected, I don't know.

The lack of tribunals was a major violation of the geneva conventions. Even if they really were unlawful combatants, the fac tthat there was doubt to whether or not they fit into the descriptions form article 4, meant they were to be afforded the same treatment until such timeas a competent tribunal determined their status.

Here is the pertinent artcle of the Geneva convetions:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

There's really no doubt that the US violated that portion of the conventions while those tribunals were withheld.

Since we are not signatories to the ICC, there is no body that could prosecute us.

There is one body that can prosecute... the US government.

If the international law is agreed to by the US by way of treaty, it becomes US federal law.