All I can add to Turnea's comment is that our Constitution was derived from the lessons of European history and the history of the Colonies and our nation under the Articles of Confederation..By 1789 we were the equal of Europe, or better, in most aspects of life. That slavery thing was a bit of a flaw.

It is amazing a scant 60 years ago Europe engaged in wholesale bloodshed at a scale we hope never to see again. But now their thousand to two thousand year history is seen as some great divider of knowledge between them and us. I guess they had a growth spurt, in brain cells, in their old age.

Yes, and coincidentally during that growth spurt and all the enlightenment, their governments have come to resemble ours a lot more than we have come to resemble theirs. Do we now have the kings or do they now have the presidents?

Every human discovery/improvement is built upon the success of someone else ahead of them- with some steps backwards- such as the fact that we had computers as it turns out in greek times with complicated clock type gears!

I think that Europe was behind us when we "discovered" democracy- or "rediscoverd" it- or a representive goverment anyway- but now, in many ways, they have surpassed us- such as thier concept of what goverment is- for instance, they are less afraid of big goverment than big business-why? because they accept, for the most part, that thier goverment IS the poeple- whereas corporate rule is not, and therefore, sometimes the rights of business are overwhelmed by the rights of the greater good- such as some of thier "welfare state" ideas, many of which really work!

In this, and thier ideas of personal responsibility for thier actions overall as a society, they are more mature as a society than we.

Mass Amnesia!

Of course it's mass amnesia. Look at our own nation. Every poll in last few months has indicated that a majority of Americans put an emphasis on the economy and jobs. War on Terror! What war on Terror?

Think about this!

The average age in Europe is 35 or so. The average educational level is the equivalent of a high school education in the U.S. Their last great war ended almost 60 years ago. They have been largely protected, militarily, by the U.S. from the "Evil Empire" from 1945 until 1991! Almost twice their average age!

Ok! so what does the populace probably think?

War is terrible, Grandma told me how so many died and how much the people suffered from war! So; "war" is terrible and fighting a war is wrong!

For most of our lives, we lived west of a wall created by our enemies, the "Evil Empire", while the Americans stayed here to protect us. The "Evil Empire" is gone without a war so why did we need the Americans? We could have, and can take care of ourselves, right?

Wow! there are lots of Muslims in our country and I'm sorta afraid of them cause they're different. We didn't have to do anything about the "Evil Empire" even though they were scary too. They just went away, right?. So, I think the muslim fascists will just go away too!

The American guy Bush wants to call this muslim stuff war! I hate war! Grandma and my teachers taught me to hate war! The Americans are wrong! The Islamic Fascists will go away just like "Evil Empire" went away. I don't want war! The American guy Bush is wrong, it's not war! Just wait-----they'll go away too!

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

So much for history's influence on Europeans and a lot of Americans too!
Don't think because they were raised in London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, or Berlin they're any more informed than most Americans are!

People who are responsible for themselves. People who take "personal responsibility" do not need the welfare state. Government never represents the whole of the people on any issue. It is a neccesary evil at best, and a tyrannical force when it oversteps it's bounds. No corporation ever forced me, at the threat of jail time, to write them a check.

The welfare state is a prime example of where Europe still trails us when it comes to morality and individual freedom. It is our classical liberal roots that divide us from Europe. The flame of individual liberty still receives a bit of oxygen here.

Not at all. In Europe we accept that people can be misfortunate and require the aid of the state to help them get back on their feet. This is not theft by the state, as we vote in the government and so allow them to tax us in order to support a welfare state.

Your morality translates into little more than self-interest...you tell yourself that the poor deserve to be poor and should take responsiblity for themselves. Although to a certain degree this may be true, it does not allow for the simple fact the wealth and poverty can also be a result of good or bad luck. You dislike the welfare state because you like to tell yourself that the poor do not deserve your help.

We disagree, and hence the flame of charity still burns in good ol' 'socialist' Europe

We can argue the benefits of America's slightly less socialist state vs. Europe's slightly more socialist states all day. I think we all see that this is why those who prefer socialism prefer us to be more like Europe, and why those who prefer freedom from theft, by a mob, prefer that we distance ourselves from European policies. This is why, those of us who prefer liberty over slavery should be wary of certain treaties.

Let me quote Tocqueville:



I refuse to grant the power, I would not give the common thief, to a mob of 51%.

I thought this was an interesting comment.

I was reading recently that 4 week vacations are pretty standard in many places in Europe. And there were a few places where paid maternity leave was also standard -- even up to a year!

I also know some Americans that are afraid to leave horrible jobs because they are afraid of losing health insurance, not to mention that there are more and more people who cannot afford to get sick (literally) even with insurance.

Another issue is the way corporate power runs amok here -- there's a gradual process of corporations requiring more and more work for the same amount of pay -- " we just may outsource your job if you can't do the work of two people".

Another thing I read a few months ago is that Americans now work more hours than just about anyone else in a first world nation-- we've even surpassed the Japanese.

So I find it interesting to compare the European model to that of slavery and the American model to that of freedom.

I'd personally rather give a little more in taxes and have more free time, and to know that I won't have to declare bankruptcy if I get sick or have some other misfortune hit me, to have my children have a superior education. Seems worth a little extra cash to me.

Hugo

I am sorry, I fail to see your point.

If you are implying that a government voted in by 51% of the population and then sets high taxes to support a welfare state is a thief, then you could extend that argument and say that the US government that spends tax dollars in Iraq is stealing money from every American who doesn't support americas involvement in Iraq.

Or indeed, any democratic government is a thief when it spends tax money on something not everyone agrees on.

People always live under majority rule....in Europe the majority supports a welfare state. In the US the majority do not......in Europe before we adopted democracy and free market systems, wealth was not earned, but something you were born with - or without...so we view wealth as a function of luck...whereas America was founded by farmers etc who had to earn everything and were not constricted in how much wealth they could possess...so wealth to Americans is based on how hard people work.

I think that people can be unlucky and that the state should care for the poor, because it is a civilised way to behave.

I think that we should take long holidays and relax and work hard enough to survive in comfort. That we should have a welfare state because it leads to a more caring society.

I only live once and I don't intend to spend my life working all the time and hardening my heart to the plight of beggars around me. I don't want to live in a society where obesity (a.k.a gluttony) is the biggest cause of mortality. Americans work all the time to make money...and they are very good at that. But what value is money if all there is to do is to spend it on DVD players, Big Macs and SUVs? You might be the richest country on earth, but it won't make you any happier.

Been meaning to get involved in this thread for some time now, so to go back to the debate questions...

Why do many Americans (especially Liberals) think we should conform and "Be more like the Europeans??"

I think my opinion on this has been addressed earlier in the thread.

I am not American so can't speak as an American liberal, and even if I were it is a bit presumptuous to say liberals in general want to be more like Europe. I also don't like the use of the word 'conform'.

As a liberal minded person, I'd say that all nations should be out to learn from others, not neccesarily conform. True, my continent has many admirable traits, but so too does the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan...the list could go on and on, and it could include nations we see as third world or even under dictatorial rule. There is no reason to ignore the societies of the world based on prejudice, there will always be lessons that can be learned from others.

This is where liberals may apply to the question, being more open minded - while conservatives generally value the traditions and morals of their own nation primarily. In this I can see where the phrase "be more like Europeans" can sound a daunting and worrying statement to conservatives, so it is a bit of an unfair question for debate. Liberals, as a group, don't want to "be more like others", but rather watch, talk and listen to others, in the hope that interaction with other societies will help them better themselves and their own country.

What is wrong with having different morals, values, foreign policy, etc than the Europeans have?

Nothing at all, but as someone pointed out: morals and values are attributed to individuals, not nations. Traditional morals and values will differ from country to country, and in fact from European country to European country. This started out of the Janet Jackson incident, where people said Europe would have said 'so what?'. I can say with confidence that my country would have reacted with a different attitude than, say, the Netherlands or Sweden - we probably would have had a similar reaction to the US in the papers/media.

Is there something that attractive about European culture that we should morph culture to be more like theirs?

Of course not. I am not in favour of melting pot theories, I prefer the salad bowl metaphor. The USA has a unique and attractive culture. While some continually point to what they see as being 'evil America', there is no denying it is a nation based on morals and values and human rights. Out of that has come a culture that need not be thrown away, a culture that the rest of the world including Europe) has looked to and learned from. As I said earlier, it is merely a matter of being open minded and learning, not "morphing".

If European culture, values, etc are that attractive to some why don't those Americans (that obviously despise aspects of our own culture) pack up and move to Europe. Wouldn't you be more happy there?

Not a fair question. Every individual has the right to push their country in new directions, its what keeps nations going. If all those people who did want to learn and adopt values/morals from others left, and all that remained in the USA were people who wanted everything to remain the way it was, it would be dire straights for America. It is a vital component of democracy to let everyone have their opinion, without being told they should move if thats what they want.

turnea,



It is too bad you feel it is silly. It comes from your "brother". It was meant as an analogy, not a characterization. Who is characterizing? Is America trying to 'find' its character like a confused adolescent teenager?




It is not 'simply put' which is why a metaphor is used. The political history of Europe goes back thousands of years in its current form. There is a linear progression. We as Americans cannot make this claim. There is a discontinuity between America as British subjects and America as revolutionaries. One cannot overlook the influence that the American Revolution has had on the world. But can we forget our mistakes either? The Civil War was fought only some 80 years after the establishment of the United States. Is this a great temper tantrum? We go across the pond and it is all of a sudden "yeah we know what we're doing", we don't need them to tell us what to do anymore. Maybe we still can have a positive influence on the rest of the world. Then again, maybe not. Right now we seem to be just emulating the mistakes of our "daddy" (Great Britain).



Insulting to the easily insulted, perhaps. The fact is our history did take on a divergence. For example, why does it seem that the sheepish Europeans aren't as patriotic as we are? Could it be that there is a little more reflection in the fact that two World Wars have been fought on their soil? Could it be that they recognize it as a mistake to colonize the entire planet and then take on an intense nationalistic attitude at the same time?

There is European architecture that is thousands of years old. You can go to sites where battles were fought. Can people learn/read something from architecture or geography? It is always there! People pass down stories from generation to generation. Look at the crystallized version of the King James Bible. The Gospels for example cannot be positively dated to Christ's time. What can this mean but that it was a story that was passed down? What do American's do? The story begins in America. It is a little difficult to pass down a story before there was such a thing as email. Further still, it is clinical and impersonal. There also has been (and still is) a tendency to forget one's troubles by 'Coming to America'. This is yet another discontinuity. A European immigrant is no longer a European, but an American.

Which is more misleading? The one who posits a 'why', and gives no idea as to a better solution (trying to bait someone into a "why aren't you more patriotic" debate) or one who gives an analogous metaphor (albeit, not perfect) to explain why people feel certain way?

In a democratic republic, an individual psyche's can be projected on the whole. As an example, what is the point of Congressional hearings?

If you ask a 'why', try to understand a 'because'. This is "Argumentation by Question" on your part.

One more point. It is not necessary to follow in a 'parents' footsteps. Sometimes it is better, other times it is not. Why would one want to offend themselves because they chose not to follow their 'parents' lead?. If you can't see this, we have nothing more to talk about.

It goes from taxation to outright thievery when money is taken from one person and given to another without the second person having to labor for it. National defense is a legitimate role of government. Does not mean the war on Iraq makes sense, it does mean the money spent cannot be regarded as legalized theft.



We don't. That is news to me. Why do we have Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid? Why are hospitals along the US/ Mexico border suffering a finacial crisis? Why do I pay that self-employment tax? The majority in the US do support the Welfare state. Not to quite the same level as Europe.

Hugo You say that national defence (if attacking another country on the (unproven) assumption that it might be a threat counts as defence) is a legitimate role of government yet providing a safety net for its citizens is not.

Firstly that depends on your view of what is legitimate for a government. European citizens would disagree with you. If the majority of citizens in a democracy support the spending of tax on something (anything) then it is legitimate for a government to tax the populace and spend that tax, whether it be on national defence or on national health service, or on a national pension scheme.

Secondly, why is an army different from (say) a national health service that the British have, or any other welfare type scheme? Assuming the US Army defends all Americans equally, then working Americans are paying a disproportionate amount for the defence of the poor, or unemployed (and as you seem to believe, 'lazy') Americans. Why is that different to paying for their healthcare?

Surely the rich should hire private defence companies and let the poor defend themselves? The army is really just an extension of the welfare state, albeit one that helps the government subsidise the arms industry etc.

However I do retract my statement saying that the majority of Americans support do not support the welfare state. I assumed that that was the case, based on all the horror stories about the American health care system we hear in Europe. It wasn't very intelligent of me not to check the facts....

Let me first refer you to my signature. My view of our constitution is in align with Madison's view. In my opinion our federal government is legally limited to the powers designated to it under Article 1 Section 8 of our constitution. This was also the prevailing view of our Supreme Court for the first 150 years of our country's existence. Sadly, since the 30's the commerce and general welfare clauses in the constitution have been perverted and allowed the welfare state we have today.

The reason, Rousseau stated, that men left the liberty of the state of nature and formed governments is the protection of their lives and property. Defense against external and internal aggressors is not only a proper role of government, it is an essential one;it is the reason government's come into being. National defense, when properly applied, defends life and private property. Government welfare programs allow a majority of 51% to infringe on the property rights of others. There are areas where man should be sovereign and not subject to the whims of the majority. Few would argue, today, that a majority of 51% could legally enslave a minority. All recognize limits to democratic rule. Americans, more than Europeans, stress rights to property.

We must recognize some people have more property than others. Since defense and police power protects property, as well as lives, it is perfectly legitimate to tax some individuals more than others. Highly progressive tax rates I would label legalized theft.

Let me finish with three quotes from Thomas Jefferson, The man who wrote The Declaration of Independence.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave men otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.
First Inaugural Address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
Thomas Jefferson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Hugo


Such is your failing.

Why should your personal property be more important than the welfare of other people?

Firstly, property is a social construct and in most cases a distraction from what is important in life.

Secondly, welfare systems act to redistribute wealth and for good reason. Europe used to have societies where the property of the rich was strongly protected, but we found that this tend to lead to a an increasingly fractured society divided between the rich and the poor. Civil society will not stand too much economic inequity.....hence generally lower crime rates in Europe compared to the US.

And as impressive as Jefferson's quote was , I think he was actually talking about taxation without representation, or whatever reason you had from splitting from the Brits. Given that the welfare state didn't really take off until the 1960s (although the idea had been around since the start of the 20th century), I do not think you can use hs quotes to justify neoconservative ideology.

The neo-con position is that the best welfare program is a job and that subsidizing sloth increases sloth.

The United States is far from maintaining the neo-con position; From the Baltimore Chrionicle Sept 2, 2002.



This was before the recent huge increase in government expenditures on healthcare that passed with bi-partisan support. We are too much like Europe for my liking.

I really do not see how you could possibly construe the Jefferson quotes as referring to taxation without representation, they clearly refer to a concept of limited government, of which welfare violates.

Another Jefferson quote that more specifically addresses welfare:

And had you looked at any European welfare programs you would have realised that they are all oriented towards getting the unemployed back into jobs, rather than funding a glorious laid back cafe lifestyle at the expense of the rich.

We have no interest in providing people with an incentive to be lazy, but we do have an interest in maintaining a society where people aren't forced to catch pigeons to survive (which is the enduring image I took home from LA)!

Britain used to adopt a very similar attitude to your neo-con position about 150 years ago, Charles Dickens being their famous critic of the period. At the time the US derided the UK for being class ridden and keeping in place barriers to prevent the poor from succeeding. Now the situation seems to have reversed itself...how ironic.

Wealth must to a certain degree be redistrited, otherwise society decays. I don't know whether this is fair, but it is the way things are. People do not require welfare because they are slothful (an attitude I find disgusting) but because they are unlucky - whether through being born into poverty, or falling ill or becoming a victim of economic circumstance. To deny them this basic charity is inumane and, to me, typifies everything that is wrong with your country.

I am editing this to add that, in a great many respects I admire the US and do not intend any disrespect towards Americans in general. But I have been to your country and I do not understand how people who are so rich can tolerate such levels of poverty.

I'm all for helping those who are on hard times because of illness, or being born into poverty. BUT.......
It appalls me to see people on welfare or food stamps and raise their children in a dump of a house in a drug and gang infested neighborhood, but have Nintendo's, cable TV, $1,000 rims and $2,000 stereos in their cars. People who get their hair and nails done and buy designer clothes at the expense of trying to better their selves or the welfare of their children. It seems to be all about image for some of these people, instead of making life better for their kids, than it was for them.
This may not be prevalent in Europe, but it most surely is in the US. It is for this reason, that I have always been skeptical of public assistance programs.

I think its hard to say. Britain falls in between, having a small welfare state for a European country, but still having very entrenched institutions such as the NHS.

People will take advantage of welfare, but it is something that Europeans clearly consider important. Remember that Nintendos and $2000 stereos are less prevalent in Europe as a whole.

Having spent time in both the EU (non-UK) and US I did find that Europeans did place a higher value on socialising (drinking!) than Americans, who definitely owned more goods and seemed to place a very large value on property.....maybe it is something to do with most Europeans coming from poor peasant backgrounds (remember that as a proportion of the population, the sterotyped European nobility is actually tiny) and having everything blown up during large wars - culturally we avoid owning things that might either be taken from us by the upper classes or blown up by our neighbours. Whereas you lot wisely ditched nobility and did not suffer from large scale invasions every fifty years or so!

Anyway, so long as I get my whisky I dinnae care.

That description of qualities is by definition a characterization. It is also an analogy yes... but it is the accuracy of that analogy that I call into question with my use of the word "silly".


Pardon? I thought it was a violent clash of ideals between adults. Again, ascribing child-like qualities to a government without substantiation is silly. The fact that the US government is relatively new means what exactly? The American people are still descendent from the same people as Europeans (or Africans, Asians, etc. as the case may be) and have the same opportunity to learn from history. European people as they are have no greater experience benefit due to age, so they analogy of adult to child is off the mark.


That has nothing to do with their greater age. Americans of these times saw European imperialism and World Wars, they were just in a different place...
How does that make us child-like today?

Are Europeans childish because they didn't experience some war in ancient Egypt?


I'm trying I assure you, however I have yet to see a "because" that passes a basic examination and I'm frankly confused as to what European architecture has to do with all of this...

Forget it. I reject this topic's premise as "fishing for the purpose to pidgeon-hole the one who answers", the concept of which I find fundamentally flawed.

Analogies are meant to be illustrative, not to exactly describe events or attitudes. To ask a question and follow it up by attacking point by point is nitpicking and suggests that you don't want an answer, but are looking for a fight. If you can't give some credence to an opposing view we have nothing more to talk about.

For further explanation of my future enthusiasm for this subject, see the quote by Nietzche below.