I'd say the country in which Man first evolved.
That'd be somewhere in Central Africa, right?
Individual wrote:Austria-Hungary
Because they started WWI, they also started the communist scare, the vietnam conflict, massive hostility towards europeans in the middle east, WWII, and countless other wars that shaped the modern era.
The Habsburgs started the Vietnam conflict?
Huh. Live and learn :wink:
nimh : the austro-hungarians (or the viennese - they are one and the same) make the best coffee and cakes in the world. i'll forgive them anything for that, even starting the vietnam war and anything else(or was it supposed to mean : viennese war ?). ... sorry, it's sunday evening - must be getting silly. hbg
thats true, hamburger: cake makes up for a lot. and vienna has the best.
in fact, its true that dictatorships are bad and all that, but the tradition of autocracy / quality of cake ratio does make one think again, it must be said.
In response to the original question: the Netherlands (of course). Look at what this little country has achieved throughout history: a big empire (from Indonesia to Suriname), one of the first republics of this world (the Republic of the Seven United Provinces; the Netherlands is also one of the youngest monarchies in this world by the way), a lot of great scientists, writers, painters etc. (from Spinoza to Rembrandt, from Van Leeuwenhoek to Van Gogh). We started Nieuw Amsterdam, what later became New York City, we were the first Westerners who were allowed to build a settlement on Japanese ground, we 'discovered' Australia and New Zealand (Zealand comes from the Dutch province Zeeland, the island of Tasmania derives its name from the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman). And we are still good at sports (look at skating, swimming (Inge de Bruin, Pieter van den Hoogenband), soccer, hockey, volleyball), we have the largest harbour of the world - Rotterdam - and we are leading in moral issues like abortion, mercy killing and gay marriage. And don't forget the Dutch multinationals: Philips, Shell, Unilever, Ahold.
I would surely vote for the Netherlands! :wink:
By the way: I realize I'm not very objective.
That and.....the netherlands nearly doubled the size of their turf peacefully, through inovation.
But........as much as I like the dutch, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. lol
A late response to Asherman's Post.
Asherman: as always your well thought out and articulate words ring true.
Like Setanta, your style is so interesting (not to mention educational) to read, your posts cannot be too long. Your final point I'd like to discuss a little further, though.
Asherman wrote:Some have suggested that given advancing communications technology we might change our system to something closer to a pure democracy. The government should be driven entirely by the popular will expressed by some sort of plebiscite. Pure democracy gives every citizen the right and duty to vote on virtually every policy undertaken by the government. Every citizen is politically equal. We have steadily expanded the voting franchise in recent times. Now some seem to want substitute popular opinion for submission to the policies and laws set by those we've elected to represent us. That sort of system has never worked very well for a number of reasons. Self-interest tends to fragment opinion among many possible government policies. Timeliness is lost as the number of people involved in developing policies is increased. In the modern world, where change is so swift and the risks are so great, we can ill afford the time required to build strong national condenses. The frequency and risks faced by modern governments requires the specialized knowledge and experience of full-time government administrators. Even if national plebiscites on only the most obvious issues were adopted, this form of decision and policy making would fall short. Few will take the time to become familiar with the issue(s), the alternatives and costs before forming their opinion. Many will have no interest, or will fail to see the importance of the issue before them. In effect, pure democracy is rule by the mob. Emotional responses tend to rule, and they change constantly. With this sort of approach no policy or constancy is ever likely, and the national government would cease to have any credibility at home or abroad. We simply cannot have chaos both in domestic and international affairs. In the 21st century, this approach would lead almost inevitably to ruin.
The alternative is accepting the notion that any administration is likely to have significant opposition within the electorate. Resorting to name-calling and exaggeration can only further widen the gap between opposing political factions.
While I agree completely that a truly democratic system of rule would be a disaster; I continue to think the House of Representatives has outlived its usefulness. IMO the debilitating prophecy of disinterest, ill-informed judgments and emotional decision-making has already manifest itself in our representative system. What percentage of Americans do you think know their Congressman's names, let alone their voting records? I have trouble believing that individuals voting their minds would be more damaging than representatives who's decisions are dominated by "special interest groups" like they are today. The pork laden "business as usual" techniques would be a thing of the past. Predominantly; those doing the voting would be the very people who do choose to be relatively informed on the issues at hand.
I'm imagining an Internet based voting platform where citizens can log in and vote on bills in lieu of representatives. I believe a system could be devised that piggybacked our banking institutions making ATM's an alternative for those without Internet access. Having done 90% of my financial transactions online for the last 5 years; I believe any fears of impropriety stemming from online fraud is non-starter. The same precautionary measures that keep our money safe could be used to keep our voting process secure as well. Suffice to say; I believe we have enough technology to build an adequate infrastructure for such a process. I further don't believe for one minute that such a system would slow down the mechanics compared to Congress. If anything, it might be too fast.
Now considering we would still have the Senate and the Executive Branch; wouldn't that still provide the checks and balances necessary to maintain the integrity of the system? IMO the system would work pretty much the same as now
only with a more accurate assessment of the will of the people driving the decisions. I am anxious to learn; what's wrong with that?
cavfancier wrote:
ceili wrote:
Quote:Yap had the biggest coinage in the world. Big round boulder with holes in them. Haven't thought about Yap for a long, long time.
right now yap is being blasted by typhoon "sudal", they have not recovered from the last typhoon "lupid" which struck them december 1,2003
yap is the purple dot right under the eye of the typhoon.
typhoon sudal
Occum,
I don't believe your system would work, largely for the reasons I've already stated.
That representatives are influenced by special interests and personal gain is not new. People have always had difficulty in rising above that which may benefit themselves and friends. The short run almost always wins out over the longer term benefits for the nation as a whole. If humans were angels then the law would be moot. A central problem faced by the Constitutional Convention was how to keep any individual or combination from seizing too much power. Their solution of checks and balances was much more sophisticated than just dividing power between the branches of government. Within each branch there are checks to make it difficult for any entity to hold supreme power. The government is at constant war with, and within itself.
Private interests can, and have in the past, gain great control over how the government operates. The Republican Party and Big Business were almost uncontested during the period from 1865 through the end of the century. Election fraud and corruption were on scales almost unimaginable today, yet the nation survived. During that sad period, farmers were virtually robbed by the railroads, who gained their power by buying Congressional votes. Factories and coal mines were the unsafe playgrounds of children who worked twelve hour days, six days a week. Civil rights were just a dangerous dream for over half of the nation's population. There was no health plan, or social programs to relieve the suffering of the poor, the elderly, or the unfortunates cast aside after being worked past productivity. Children were more likely to carry around hook-worm than school books, and a university education was available only for the rich. Things changed, and they changed because our governmental system does work ... sometimes it just takes longer than we wish.
There is another reason that I oppose such radical changes as those you propose for our consideration. That is the danger of tinkering with the Constitution. Our Constitutional system works far better than any other system I know of largely because it is constant, predictable {within limits}, and has a long history of success. In other places I've declared my doubts about changing the way Senators are selected because it removes part of the balance between those with property interests and those without. The Federal Government must be centralized and powerful enough to manage the nation's affairs, but limited enough that it can not trod upon the individual rights of citizens, or the subordinate States. The Federal Government is the glue that binds us together, and makes us strong in world affairs. It is the mechanism to insure that transportation, communication, and business contracts are uniform across the whole of the nation. These powers are essential, and we when we diddle with the Constitution, the risks we run could easily be mortal.
For over fifty years we have fostered the idea that the Federal Government is THE ANSWER to all of the myriad problems facing us. The Great Depression and Dust Bowl threw a third of population out of work. Businesses and banks failed and many of our citizens lost faith that things would ever recover. That was a time when Communist and Fascist movements flourished, even in the heartland of America. There was revolution in the air, and overseas the governments of Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union seemed to offer a better way. The Federal Government did act, and most of it's program were declared unconstitutional. FDR was a frustrated man who tried to pack the Supreme Court just to get the authority he sincerely believed the nation needed to recover. Some of those New Deal Programs did endure, and WWII got the wheels of American industry rolling again. LBJ's Great Society was an even larger attempt at using the Federal Government to socially engineer our society, to make long overdue changes happen more quickly. Now there are folks who seem to be seriously suggesting that the Constitution needs to be amended to enforce traditional ideas of marriage, of abortion, and a whole host of other issues.
Changing the Constitution is not easy, nor is it something that can be done on a whim. Mistakes, like the Volstead Act, can cause damage for years before they are repealed. Some constitutional Amendments may never be repealed, even if we later recognize that they were mistaken in the first place.
There are, of course, a number of specific problems with the idea of replacing the House of Representatives with an Internet plebiscite. All those without computer access would be disenfranchised. The special interests that you are trying to avoid, would organize the mob to pass their own versions of the laws. The jacobins are as great threat to individual liberty as any, i.e., The Terror, The bolsheviks, The cultural Revolution, etc. Big money would still be the most capable of getting its agenda passed. And on, and on.
Computer access would be simple to provide and, I'd be willing to bet, cheaper than running the House as we do now.
Would it be unfair to summarize your opinion that the masses simply can't be trusted to govern themselves? I don't understand why you don't believe the Senate and Executive would be sufficient to keep us in check. This lack of understanding may well be due to my own ignorance, but I am a willing student.
I, like you, shun the idea that the Fed is responsible for solving all of our problems. I suspect my dissention comes from a belief that most Americans would be inclined to agree.
Your example of mistakes like the Volstead Act, and others like it that may never be fixed; IMO constitute evidence of our current system's inadequacy. I guess I have more faith in the populace to recognize right from wrong than their supposed representatives. Of course, I'd be on the next plane to Costa Rica if the public proved me wrong.
Your stand reminds me of an old quote I remember Ross Perot referencing:
Professor Alexander Tytler, addressing the fall of the Athenian Republic about two hundred years ago, while the thirteen colonies were still part of Great Britain. wrote:"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves excessive gratuities from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the treasury, with the result that democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Depending on how you look at this; it could be used to support the premise that we should not be given more direct control of our government. I on the other hand would be inclined to believe the prophecy is in danger of being realized if we don't take steps to improve our system, gut the waste, and take steps to prevent special interest groups from emptying our coffers.
Wyoming.
(OK, I recently saw Dog Day Afternoon. That was the 'country' Sal wanted to escape to.)
Italy.
Rick, you forgot to mention that we invented cheese. Everybody knows that. And thats almost more important still than cake.
Rick d'Israeli wrote:one of the first republics of this world (the Republic of the Seven United Provinces [and] also one of the youngest monarchies in this world
Typical - the Netherlands is like John Kerry. Always been on both sides of the fence - and boasts about that.
<giggles>
well, inventing edible mold is certainly an acheivement.
OCCOM BILL wrote: I'm imagining an Internet based voting platform where citizens can log in and vote on bills in lieu of representatives. t?
This has long been one of my fantasies. A government intranet detailing our budgets decisions issues etc that citizens who wish to participate in could do.
Lot's of kinks to work out but one of my pet fantasies.
Sorry, Occom and Craven. I'm firmly with Asherman on this. Maybe we're both dinosaurs, but I don't see universal participation in the decision-making process as a viable alternative to a legislative assembly, chosen by the population at large. For one thing -- not mentioned by anyone so far, as far as I can see -- the average citizen would not be privy to all the information necessary to make a reasoned judgement on such things as budgets or military needs. We could be steering awfully close to anarchy here.
Indeed nimh, cheese is something to be very proud of :wink:
And ceili: you really disagree with me? Really??
Not fun...
The most important country or should i say country's in history are the world powers which was
1st:Egypt
2nd:Assyria (sorry i don't know the date's the 1st 2 were in power)
3rd:Babylonia from 607 b.c.e
4th:Medo-Persia from 539 b.c.e
5th:Greece from 331 b.c.e
6th:Rome from 30 b.c.e
7th:Anglo-American World Power from 1763 c.e
The only thing the world powers have in common is that they will all fall, the first 6 have fallen and the 7th will fall as well. It will be very interesting to see how it falls
Rome.
Rome still has a huge influence on the world today from laws to how people train in the military to design of buildings to systems of government, etc etc etc.
And Australia. We invented all the cool stuff over the last couple of hundred years.
