Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 3:40pm:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg Oh, dearie, dearie, me.   Tsk, tsk, I am always surprised at the gross ignorance displayed by Islamophobes all the time.   Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA).   Most Mosques are organised democratically.    I wonder where the Islamophobes get this idea that Islam does not accept democracy?   I really do wonder.   Gee, could it be from the Muslim extremists who don't like the idea that they have to win an election?   Nah, of course not...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 4:43pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, see what I said where the Islamophobes get this idea that democracy is incompatible with Islam?   From the Extremists.   What a shame that the modern world has by and large, moved on from the days of the Caliphate.  Only it's supporters claim it is how Islam should be organised.  What does that make you, Soren?   Back to the Madrassah with you, my boy.  I'm sure there is some more K'ran for you to rote learn.     ::)

This reminds me of Abu explaining that Islam is entirely compatible with democracy, but just has a slightly different take on it - only Muslims can vote, only Muslims can run for office, and Shariah law is the only platform you can run on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

The politics of Iran take place in a framework of a theocracy in a format of syncretic politics that is guided by Islamic ideology.

In addition, there are representatives elected from appointed organizations (usually under the Supreme Leader's control) to "protect the state's Islamic character".[1]

The Guardian Council is an appointed and constitutionally mandated 12-member council with considerable power. It approves or vetoes legislative bills from the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament), and approves or forbids candidates seeking office to the Assembly of Experts, the Presidency and the parliament,[26] Six of the twelve members are Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law) selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the other six are jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial system (who is also appointed by the Supreme Leader),[27], and approved by the Iranian Parliament.[28]

According to the constitution, the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The Guardian Council has 12 members, six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists, elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, the Guardian Council approves the Assembly of Experts candidates, who in turn supervise and elect the Supreme Leader.
The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[86] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran.

How exactly is that 'no more modified' version of democracy than in the US? Does the US president appoint a council to appoint candidates for president?

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 7:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 3:40pm: http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg Oh, dearie, dearie, me.   Tsk, tsk, I am always surprised at the gross ignorance displayed by Islamophobes all the time.   Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA).   Most Mosques are organised democratically.    I wonder where the Islamophobes get this idea that Islam does not accept democracy?   I really do wonder.   Gee, could it be from the Muslim extremists who don't like the idea that they have to win an election?   Nah, of course not...   ::) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 4:43pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, see what I said where the Islamophobes get this idea that democracy is incompatible with Islam?   From the Extremists.   What a shame that the modern world has by and large, moved on from the days of the Caliphate.  Only it's supporters claim it is how Islam should be organised.  What does that make you, Soren?   Back to the Madrassah with you, my boy.  I'm sure there is some more K'ran for you to rote learn.     ::) This reminds me of Abu explaining that Islam is entirely compatible with democracy, but just has a slightly different take on it - only Muslims can vote, only Muslims can run for office, and Shariah law is the only platform you can run on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran The politics of Iran take place in a framework of a theocracy in a format of syncretic politics that is guided by Islamic ideology. In addition, there are representatives elected from appointed organizations (usually under the Supreme Leader's control) to "protect the state's Islamic character".[1] The Guardian Council is an appointed and constitutionally mandated 12-member council with considerable power. It approves or vetoes legislative bills from the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament), and approves or forbids candidates seeking office to the Assembly of Experts, the Presidency and the parliament,[26] Six of the twelve members are Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law) selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the other six are jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial system (who is also appointed by the Supreme Leader),[27], and approved by the Iranian Parliament.[28] According to the constitution, the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The Guardian Council has 12 members, six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists, elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, the Guardian Council approves the Assembly of Experts candidates, who in turn supervise and elect the Supreme Leader. The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[86] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran. How exactly is that 'no more modified' version of democracy than in the US? Does the US president appoint a council to appoint candidates for president?

Well, Mr Trump has appointed experts himself, FD. They might be his sons, daughter and son-in-law,  but they know thing or two about life. Mr Trump's also the Supreme Leader, so there are similarities.

But I'm curious. You identified the Afghani and Iraqi governments as successful democracies because they hold erections. Iran has erections too. Ipso facto, it must be a 'no more modified' version of democracy than the US as Abu says, yes?

We're more alike than we're different, no?

Iranian democra...  ;D ;D  ;D

I hold more hope for Persians over the sunnis arab nut jobs

The Persians at least into art and music and I think it will be that which leads them out of the darkness of islam.

Gordon wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:

I hold more hope for Persians over the sunnis arab nut jobs The Persians at least into art and music and I think it will be that which leads them out of the darkness of islam.

You know, that's an interesting comment, Gordon.  Unusually so for you.   You realise that 20 years ago, people like you and Soren, and FD and Herbie and everybody else was saying exactly the reverse?   "Better the Sunnis than those nutjob Sh'ia!"   ::)

nobody knew who the sunni and shia were before 9/11.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:

nobody knew who the sunni and shia were before 9/11.

Of course they did, Hammer.  You're forgetting, the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1978.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:38pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:29pm: nobody knew who the sunni and shia were before 9/11. Of course they did, Hammer.  You're forgetting, the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1978.    ::)

Nobody cared about the Iranian revolution in 78 brian.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:

nobody knew who the sunni and shia were before 9/11.

Do you?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:38pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:29pm: nobody knew who the sunni and shia were before 9/11. Of course they did, Hammer.  You're forgetting, the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1978.    ::) Nobody cared about the Iranian revolution in 78 brian.

Everybody cared about it. Hammer.  History trumps you again.  Washington was selling high-tech weapons to the Shah's regime.   Iraq planned to invade Iran.   Saudi Arabia was frightened of Iranian aggression over the Haj.  Israel was frightened of the possibility of Iranian aggression.   The Russians feared the possibility of the spread of Iranian extremism to Central Asia, which in turn prompted their decision to invade Afghanistan.   Pakistan worried about the dangers of Iranian aggression.    It all came together because of the Iranian Revolution.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Gordon wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:

I hold more hope for Persians over the sunnis arab nut jobs The Persians at least into art and music and I think it will be that which leads them out of the darkness of islam.

You can say what you like about the Shah, but Persians had a lot more freedom under his regime than the do under the witch-doctors of Islam. Oh, and notice who is defending them again? Our resident closet Muzlims.

Quote:

Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA).

Can you explain what you mean by this Brian?

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian?

Do you want to have a stab at Iraq being the next South Korea?

A tricky claim to defend, I know.

You could always ask Brian more questions, I guess.

Any muslim nation and true democracy is as oxymoronic as army intelligence.


You can't be a democracy if you are already a theocracy and usually a pretty fkken vicious one at that.


To be a true democracy you have to destroy religion to the point of irrelevancy, where no religious leader is taken seriously and no leader takes religion seriously.


So no gold logie winners over to the lodge for fkking ramadan is a good start

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian?

Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::)

I'll give the Iranian government a Hi5 for refusing to release captured Australian Muslims who fought for ISIS where they are now imprisoned in Syria.

Our luvvies have been begging the Iranians to release them so they can return to Australia.

I wonder what a plebiscite on that would show in Australia.

Public sentiment and government decisions on these matters are poles apart, giving the lie that we live under a Representative Democracy.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::)

Can you explain the highlighted bit?

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::) Can you explain the highlighted bit?

I can feel another 'Kodak moment' coming on.

Brian's about to be thrown under the bus, as always.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::) Can you explain the highlighted bit?

That is obvious from what I have already typed, FD.  If you need it spelt out, I'd recommend you look up on Google the US's "Electoral College" votes versus the "popular vote".   It will help you to understand the point I am making.    ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 2:37pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 2:18pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::) Can you explain the highlighted bit? I can feel another 'Kodak moment' coming on. Brian's about to be thrown under the bus, as always.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk. poor, poor, Herbie.  How is your Dual Citizenship coming along?  When are you moving back to the PRC?    ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::) Can you explain the highlighted bit?

FD, could you please explain the democratic elements of Roman government under the Caesars? Include in your account their systems of popular representation. Finally, compare and contrast them with the tribal councils of the early  caliphates.

When you're done doing that, we'll revisit your graph, okay? I'm even happy to give your inbreeding map another peek.

If you answer, we could carry this conversation on for another few years. And we all know how much you want that, ya?

Execute ten a week until the rest learn to vote the right way.,....

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Gordon wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:05pm: I hold more hope for Persians over the sunnis arab nut jobs The Persians at least into art and music and I think it will be that which leads them out of the darkness of islam. You know, that's an interesting comment, Gordon.  Unusually so for you.   You realise that 20 years ago, people like you and Soren, and FD and Herbie and everybody else was saying exactly the reverse?   "Better the Sunnis than those nutjob Sh'ia!"   ::)

See I'd have never picked the Sunnis over the Persians.

Just a casual glance at hard-line sunnis shows a grim spartian culture of total submission to Islam nearly devoid of art and music and colour.

Persians have a very fine culture of art and music which predates Islam and it's continued to seep thru and ads colour to their lives, and despite the hardline Shia whackjob tendencies, I think it's that which will open the window to an overall more enlightened culture, free of Islam.

The only reason one would have backed the Sunnis over the Shia was for geopolitical reasons.

Gordon wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:26pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:05pm: I hold more hope for Persians over the sunnis arab nut jobs The Persians at least into art and music and I think it will be that which leads them out of the darkness of islam. You know, that's an interesting comment, Gordon.  Unusually so for you.   You realise that 20 years ago, people like you and Soren, and FD and Herbie and everybody else was saying exactly the reverse?   "Better the Sunnis than those nutjob Sh'ia!"   ::) See I'd have never picked the Sunnis over the Persians. Just a casual glance at hard-line sunnis shows a grim spartian culture of total submission to Islam nearly devoid of art and music and colour. Persians have a very fine culture of art and music which predates Islam and it's continued to seep thru and ads colour to their lives, and despite the hardline Shia whackjob tendencies, I think it's that which will open the window to an overall more enlightened culture, free of Islam. The only reason one would have backed the Sunnis over the Shia was for geopolitical reasons.

An interesting conclusion, Gordon.  One that President Reagan subscribed to, when he backed the Afghani Mujihadeen against the Soviets.   Oh, and the Iraqis against the Iranians and the Kuwaitis against the Iranians and the Saudis against the Iranians.   Funny, everybody seemed to be anti-Iranian, anti-Shi'ia in those days.  Nowadays, it's all anti-Sunni...

Gee, I wonder if geopolitics is more important than religio-politics in the eyes of the secular West?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 2:18pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::) Can you explain the highlighted bit? That is obvious from what I have already typed, FD.  If you need it spelt out, I'd recommend you look up on Google the US's "Electoral College" votes versus the "popular vote".   It will help you to understand the point I am making.    ::)

Brian this is no less idiotic than comparing our democracy with Iran because we have representatives rather than direct democracy. It is still a far cry from the circular appointment process used in Iran.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

.....the circular appointment process used in Iran.

In the Iranian democratic process, it appears, that THE GUARDIAN COUNCIL controls who may stand as a candidate in all elections [for places in their parliament].


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/img/navigation.gif



Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234921577/13#13

Quote:

There is an informative BBC page here, a graphic presentation [click on different parts of the graphic] which reveals the structure and tight control of political power within IRAN..... It is all very incestuous. The clerics [not Allah] decide, who can stand for political office, and who can participate in voting. IRAN - GUARDIAN COUNCIL [on the page that loads......] "Click on the chart.....to unravel Iran's complex political system" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/guardian_council.stm

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

Brian this is no less idiotic than comparing our democracy with Iran because we have representatives rather than direct democracy. It is still a far cry from the circular appointment process used in Iran.

So, the circular appointment process of the "primaries" doesn't count to you, FD?  The use of an "electoral college" versus the "popular vote"?   I never claimed they were identical BTW, just "similar".    ::)

Iran is partially democratic, but not to the same extent as America or Australia.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11^th, 2017 at 5:02pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 9:18pm: Brian this is no less idiotic than comparing our democracy with Iran because we have representatives rather than direct democracy. It is still a far cry from the circular appointment process used in Iran. So, the circular appointment process of the "primaries" doesn't count to you, FD?  The use of an "electoral college" versus the "popular vote"?   I never claimed they were identical BTW, just "similar".    ::)

How is it circular Brian?

If I may make a point about the electoral college.

It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal.

HOWEVER,

It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors.

Gordon wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:26pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 10:05pm: I hold more hope for Persians over the sunnis arab nut jobs The Persians at least into art and music and I think it will be that which leads them out of the darkness of islam. You know, that's an interesting comment, Gordon.  Unusually so for you.   You realise that 20 years ago, people like you and Soren, and FD and Herbie and everybody else was saying exactly the reverse?   "Better the Sunnis than those nutjob Sh'ia!"   ::) See I'd have never picked the Sunnis over the Persians. Just a casual glance at hard-line sunnis shows a grim spartian culture of total submission to Islam nearly devoid of art and music and colour. Persians have a very fine culture of art and music which predates Islam and it's continued to seep thru and ads colour to their lives, and despite the hardline Shia whackjob tendencies, I think it's that which will open the window to an overall more enlightened culture, free of Islam. The only reason one would have backed the Sunnis over the Shia was for geopolitical reasons.

Good call, Gordon. I agree with you. The Persians are very enlightened. This is due to the fact that they are not, historically, tribal in nature unlike the Arabs. The Persians have had a long history of a centralized imperial administration, which has affected how Islam is practised in Iran. The idea of a unified Iranian state has existed since the Medes.

Auggie wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors.

Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote.

Any comment on the South Korean situation?

Why won't you say?

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote.

That is correct; it is not majoritarian, but it is democratic.

A distinction must be made between the two. It is inaccurate to state that the American voting system isn't democratic, as some have argued. That the electors cast their votes (in most cases) according to the direction of the people indicates a democratic system. If they were so-called 'independent' electors who exercised independent judgement (as was the original intention of the Founders), then it would not be a democratic system, but an oligarchic system.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote. Any comment on the South Korean situation? Why won't you say?

What 'South Korean' situation?

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 10:00am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 9:56pm: freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote. Any comment on the South Korean situation? Why won't you say? What 'South Korean' situation?

FD believes that thanks to the US overthrowing Saddam and getting rid of the Ba'athists, the only thing stopping Iraq becoming a prosperous manufacturing economy is Islam.

They should have heavy industry and manufacturing happening - there should be Samsungs and Kias rolling off production lines with a sizeable middle class, healthy terms of trade, a functioning government, a rule of law and a free press.

And why not? Well, for FD, it comes down to inbreeding. Because Muhammed married an 8 year old girl, Iraqis follow his example and marry their cousins. Over the years, they've also married their African sex slaves, which has introduced Negroid blood into their gene pool. Due to these factors, Iraqis have low IQs, squat down to p1ss, and play with their dicks afterwards.

Nothing like South Korea, now is it?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 10:00am: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 9:56pm: freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote. Any comment on the South Korean situation? Why won't you say? What 'South Korean' situation? FD believes that thanks to the US overthrowing Saddam and getting rid of the Ba'athists, the only thing stopping Iraq becoming a prosperous manufacturing economy is Islam. They should have heavy industry and manufacturing happening - there should be Samsungs and Kias rolling off production lines with a sizeable middle class, healthy terms of trade, a functioning government, a rule of law and a free press. And why not? Well, for FD, it comes down to inbreeding. Because Muhammed married an 8 year old girl, Iraqis follow his example and marry their cousins. Over the years, they've also married their African sex slaves, which has introduced Negroid blood into their gene pool. Due to these factors, Iraqis have low IQs, squat down to p1ss, and play with their dicks afterwards. Nothing like South Korea, now is it?

Well, I hate to break it to FD but it's slightly more complicated than that. The development of prosperous societies takes hundreds of years; it was folly to believe that we could bring democracy to a nation that wasn't ready for it, and nothing to do with the religion, btw. Look at South American nations, they've also had difficulty in becoming 'prosperous'.

It took the West hundreds of years, and millions of dead people to get to where we are today. The Middle East will have to go through a similar process. Unfortunately, globalization means that this affects us if only minimally.

Ultimately, it comes down one thing, and one thing only: institutions. There's a great book called Why nations fail?. FD should read it. If you read this and read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' you'll have a much better idea as to why societies develop unevenly.

Good thing about institutions, though: they can change.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

And why not? Well, for FD, it comes down to inbreeding. Because Muhammed married an 8 year old girl, Iraqis follow his example and marry their cousins. Over the years, they've also married their African sex slaves, which has introduced Negroid blood into their gene pool. Due to these factors, Iraqis have low IQs, squat down to p1ss, and play with their dicks afterwards.

I have to say, Karnal: I really do enjoy your humour. Don't worry about what the other members say. I like your contributions to OzPolitic.

Keep it up.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 12:46pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 11:51am: Auggie wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 10:00am: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 9:56pm: freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote. Any comment on the South Korean situation? Why won't you say? What 'South Korean' situation? FD believes that thanks to the US overthrowing Saddam and getting rid of the Ba'athists, the only thing stopping Iraq becoming a prosperous manufacturing economy is Islam. They should have heavy industry and manufacturing happening - there should be Samsungs and Kias rolling off production lines with a sizeable middle class, healthy terms of trade, a functioning government, a rule of law and a free press. And why not? Well, for FD, it comes down to inbreeding. Because Muhammed married an 8 year old girl, Iraqis follow his example and marry their cousins. Over the years, they've also married their African sex slaves, which has introduced Negroid blood into their gene pool. Due to these factors, Iraqis have low IQs, squat down to p1ss, and play with their dicks afterwards. Nothing like South Korea, now is it? Well, I hate to break it to FD but it's slightly more complicated than that. The development of prosperous societies takes hundreds of years; it was folly to believe that we could bring democracy to a nation that wasn't ready for it, and nothing to do with the religion, btw. Look at South American nations, they've also had difficulty in becoming 'prosperous'. It took the West hundreds of years, and millions of dead people to get to where we are today. The Middle East will have to go through a similar process. Unfortunately, globalization means that this affects us if only minimally. Ultimately, it comes down one thing, and one thing only: institutions. There's a great book called Why nations fail?. FD should read it. If you read this and read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' you'll have a much better idea as to why societies develop unevenly. Good thing about institutions, though: they can change.

FD's argument is that Islam is the dominant factor in preventing prosperity world-wide. He believes the developing world was on a straight pathway to freedom and democracy before the Muselman stepped in on Sept 11.

Mind you, FD sees such destruction as the Muselman's job. Since Muhammed started preaching, Islam has been the enemy of the West, conniving and plotting and destroying everything in its path.

You're right. FD forgets those moments of history where the West destroyed itself - you know, most of its history. He overlooks details like whether empires were democracies or tyrannies. He gets confused over details like whether the West was hopping around the world, nobly liberating the colonies it conquered, or in actual fact, enslaving entire populations in order to tame its conquered lands and produce enough surplus crops to dominate global trade.

You could be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that FD has the cart before the horse. He has a neat theory about the history of civilisation, he just ignores all the details that contradict it. He'll never own up to it either. If you ask him about it, he'll ignore you. FD avoids all questions.

Ultimately, FD's theories are a self-serving, Eurocentric justification for Western supremacy. His aim is to show that the white man is always right, and we should be careful about letting in those who aren't as white as us. FD's aim is to ban them and, if they won't go quietly, kill them.

It is a jolly world, no?

Quote:

FD's argument is that Islam is the dominant factor in preventing prosperity world-wide. He believes the developing world was on a straight pathway to freedom and democracy before the Muselman stepped in on Sept 11. Mind you, FD sees such destruction as the Muselman's job. Since Muhammed started preaching, Islam has been the enemy of the West, conniving and plotting and destroying everything in its path. You're right. FD forgets those moments of history where the West destroyed itself - you know, most of its history. He overlooks details like whether empires were democracies or tyrannies. He gets confused over details like whether the West was hopping around the world, nobly liberating the colonies it conquered, or in actual fact, enslaving entire populations in order to tame its conquered lands and produce enough surplus crops to dominate global trade. You could be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that FD has the cart before the horse. He has a neat theory about the history of civilisation, he just ignores all the details that contradict it. He'll never own up to it either. If you ask him about it, he'll ignore you. FD avoids all questions. Ultimately, FD's theories are a self-serving, Eurocentric justification for Western supremacy. His aim is to show that the white man is always right, and we should be careful about letting in those who aren't as white as us. FD's aim is to ban them and, if they won't go quietly, kill them. It is a jolly world, no?

'Tis a jolly world, indeed.

Quote:

Well, I hate to break it to FD but it's slightly more complicated than that. The development of prosperous societies takes hundreds of years; it was folly to believe that we could bring democracy to a nation that wasn't ready for it, and nothing to do with the religion, btw. Look at South American nations, they've also had difficulty in becoming 'prosperous'.

Why does it take centuries?

How long did it take South Korea?

Why are the US and Canada in a much better position than South America, despite being settled by Europeans far more recently?


Quote:

Ultimately, it comes down one thing, and one thing only: institutions. There's a great book called Why nations fail?. FD should read it. If you read this and read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' you'll have a much better idea as to why societies develop unevenly.

I have read both, and several other more interesting ones. There are reviews on this forum somewhere. What institutions does Diamond refer to in Guns, Germs and Steel? Perhaps you should try coming up with a coherent argument before giving others homework to do.

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

How long did it take South Korea?

South Korea began modernization in early 1900s known as the Gwangmu Reform. Their modernization and industrialization was accompanied and accelerated by Japan after the latter conquered Korea in 1910. The Japanese laid railways and developed industries in Korea. It's not as if Korea took 40 years to industrialize, as you claim.


freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

Why does it take centuries?

It takes centuries because institutions need to evolve organically and naturally.


freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

Why are the US and Canada in a much better position than South America, despite being settled by Europeans far more recently?

Well, if you've read Why Nations Fail you'll know why this is the case. British institutions were more conducive to a prosperous society than Spanish colonial institutions.


freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

What institutions does Diamond refer to in Guns, Germs and Steel?

I was referring to Why Nations Fail for institutions. Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about the geographic differences in societies which led to early societies developing different.


freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

Perhaps you should try coming up with a coherent argument before giving others homework to do.

I have made a coherent argument. Perhaps you should actually reflect on what you've read, rather than come up with the bullshit philosophy that everything happens in a vacuum.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote.

An interesting claim, FD.  Where did you pull that from, out of a matter of interest?

However, it is immaterial.  The Government is chosen on the basis of the number of seats that the party that commands the majority of, in the House.  The Party with the greatest number wins government.   Simples, really.    ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. AugCaesarustus.  You've just insulted FD.   Even worse, you've insulted his views on how the world develops and how it should work, to the betterment of anybody who wants to be White, Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, Protestant Christian, Blonde, Blue-eyed and obedient or those that at least pretend to be.   Tsk, tsk, you'll be banned now.  You really can't have an attitude like that on open display.    ::)

Auggie wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:29pm: How long did it take South Korea? South Korea began modernization in early 1900s known as the Gwangmu Reform. Their modernization and industrialization was accompanied and accelerated by Japan after the latter conquered Korea in 1910. The Japanese laid railways and developed industries in Korea. It's not as if Korea took 40 years to industrialize, as you claim. freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:29pm: Why does it take centuries? It takes centuries because institutions need to evolve organically and naturally. freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:29pm: Why are the US and Canada in a much better position than South America, despite being settled by Europeans far more recently? Well, if you've read Why Nations Fail you'll know why this is the case. British institutions were more conducive to a prosperous society than Spanish colonial institutions. freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:29pm: What institutions does Diamond refer to in Guns, Germs and Steel? I was referring to Why Nations Fail for institutions. Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about the geographic differences in societies which led to early societies developing different. freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:29pm: Perhaps you should try coming up with a coherent argument before giving others homework to do. I have made a coherent argument. Perhaps you should actually reflect on what you've read, rather than come up with the bullshit philosophy that everything happens in a vacuum.

Did it take centuries in South Korea?


Quote:

I was referring to Why Nations Fail for institutions.

What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 12th, 2017 at 12:54pm: If I may make a point about the electoral college. It is a 'democratic' manner of voting because the electors vote according to the will of the people, which is the democratic principal. HOWEVER, It is not a majoritarian system, because of how the value of votes is determined by the electors. Our system is not majoritarian either. It is theoretically possible to gain an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament with 26% of the vote. An interesting claim, FD.  Where did you pull that from, out of a matter of interest? However, it is immaterial.  The Government is chosen on the basis of the number of seats that the party that commands the majority of, in the House.  The Party with the greatest number wins government.   Simples, really.    ::)

Think about it Brian. You'll figure it out.


Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 2:18pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 11:33am: Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian? Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.    ::) Can you explain the highlighted bit? That is obvious from what I have already typed, FD.  If you need it spelt out, I'd recommend you look up on Google the US's "Electoral College" votes versus the "popular vote".   It will help you to understand the point I am making.    ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2017 at 5:02pm: freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2017 at 9:18pm: Brian this is no less idiotic than comparing our democracy with Iran because we have representatives rather than direct democracy. It is still a far cry from the circular appointment process used in Iran. So, the circular appointment process of the "primaries" doesn't count to you, FD?  The use of an "electoral college" versus the "popular vote"?   I never claimed they were identical BTW, just "similar".    ::) How is it circular Brian?

Brian are you officially wunning away from this claim of yours comparing America to Iran? Or just slinking off?

FD, why are you afraid to say?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

FD, why are you afraid to say?

Karnal.....why are you NOT afraid to spam OzPol tonight with your troll buddy Groggy?

Oh. You've gone.

Quote:

Did it take centuries in South Korea

It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity.

South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea.

Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries.



Quote:

What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say?

Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and (once) Hong Kong focused heavily on this from their inception. Sure, they had "institution" to facilitate investment. Singapore passed laws at one point banning long hair for men. But this investment brought their populations into a lifestyle that reinforced those institutions.

In Korea, the money came from Japan. In Singapore and Hong Kong it came from Chinese émigrés. Lberal tax laws had a huge influence.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment. Countries like South Korea, Singapore and (once) Hong Kong focused heavily on this from their inception. Sure, they had "institution" to facilitate investment. Singapore passed laws at one point banning long hair for men. But this investment brought their populations into a lifestyle that reinforced those institutions. In Korea, the money came from Japan. In Singapore and Hong Kong it came from Chinese émigrés. Lberal tax laws had a huge influence.

Investment is only secondary to the issue. You can throw money at a country and the government squanders it. Look at foreign aid to poor countries.

Contrast this to what happened in Japan during the Meiji restoration. Many people think that Japan got rich after ww2 because of American foreign investment and the money they stole from China; but this is not the complete picture. Japan had the institutions in place long before world war 2.

Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman.

Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute.

Auggie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 11:46am:

Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say?

Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. [/quote]

Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases.


Quote:

Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse?


Quote:

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?

Auggie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:

Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute.

Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced.

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:46am: Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say? Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases.


Quote:

Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse?


Quote:

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?[/quote]

Not sure what you're asking here, FD. There are no Native American political institutions in the Americas.

Name me a US Presidential campaigner who hasn't slavishly grovelled to the Christian lobby, or crawled on his hands and knees over to AIPAC?

It's easy to look at them and laugh. But lets not kid ourselves what the West is like.

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:46am: Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say? Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases.


Quote:

Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse?


Quote:

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?[/quote]

They don’t reflect the institutions that once existed prior to European colonisation

Regarding diamond, I haven’t read the book Collapse.

If a country is transplanting westernisation to another country then it doesn’t take as long as clearly. But there have been only a few exceptions, mainly in Asian countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. But in all cases they were spurred on by Japan anyway so they can’t really be counted. Japan is an exception to the rule.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced.

Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense.

This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions.

Auggie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:42pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced. Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense. This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions.

I've been watching road rules change in Thailand over the past few years. Now, everyone wears motorbike helmets. Drivers are licensed. Cars don't go through red lights - oh, and they have traffic lights. Why?

Because the big provinces in Thailand have had a concerted police effort to shape an orderly, safe road system. Police now issue fines. The government has seen the effect of the revenue this brings in, and the hospitals and morgues have seen fewer injuries and deaths.

The only people changing this are police. Tuk tuk and taxi drivers haven't suddenly slowed down and decided to drive safe. They're motivated to avoid fines.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:42pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced. Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense. This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions. I've been watching road rules change in Thailand over the past few years. Now, everyone wears motorbike helmets. Drivers are licensed. Cars don't go through red lights - oh, and they have traffic lights. Why? Because the big provinces in Thailand have had a concerted police effort to shape an orderly, safe road system. Police now issue fines. The government has seen the effect of the revenue this brings in, and the hospitals and morgues have seen fewer injuries and deaths. The only people changing this are police. Tuk tuk and taxi drivers haven't suddenly slowed down and decided to drive safe. They're motivated to avoid fines.

When are you moving over there babe? Cheat on your husband and they'll wack your big fat Pakistani ass with a 4 foot long cane at 20 paces.  :-[

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:42pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced. Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense. This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions. I've been watching road rules change in Thailand over the past few years. Now, everyone wears motorbike helmets. Drivers are licensed. Cars don't go through red lights - oh, and they have traffic lights. Why? Because the big provinces in Thailand have had a concerted police effort to shape an orderly, safe road system. Police now issue fines. The government has seen the effect of the revenue this brings in, and the hospitals and morgues have seen fewer injuries and deaths. The only people changing this are police. Tuk tuk and taxi drivers haven't suddenly slowed down and decided to drive safe. They're motivated to avoid fines.

Ok, but what leads the police to be organised? Why are they making the effort? What are the institutions driving this?

Thailand is known to be quite westernised in some regards, although they haven’t gone all the way.

Auggie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 11:59pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:52pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:42pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced. Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense. This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions. I've been watching road rules change in Thailand over the past few years. Now, everyone wears motorbike helmets. Drivers are licensed. Cars don't go through red lights - oh, and they have traffic lights. Why? Because the big provinces in Thailand have had a concerted police effort to shape an orderly, safe road system. Police now issue fines. The government has seen the effect of the revenue this brings in, and the hospitals and morgues have seen fewer injuries and deaths. The only people changing this are police. Tuk tuk and taxi drivers haven't suddenly slowed down and decided to drive safe. They're motivated to avoid fines. Ok, but what leads the police to be organised? Why are they making the effort? What are the institutions driving this? Thailand is known to be quite westernised in some regards, although they haven’t gone all the way.

Again, I'd say it's about investment. This requires a rule of law. It requires insurance, which uses the civil courts to delegate liability. Its a long-term plan - Bangkok's overpasses are toll roads with 30 year contracts. Change is slow, but it's driven by investment, which generates risk management and civil liability. These things also turn a profit, such as the revenue from fines.

This is not an orderly march to progress. Some economies thrive on chaos - India, Nigeria, The Philippines - but they have surplus populations. Some Indian states are slowly reforming their civil laws, but it's a mess. And look at what the Filipino president can get away with in a country with very high economic growth and a lot of foreign investment.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 4:15pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:46am: Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say? Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases. [quote]Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc.

Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse?


Quote:

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?[/quote]

Not sure what you're asking here, FD. There are no Native American political institutions in the Americas. [/quote]

There were before European colonisation. And the ones they ended up with after reflect those institutions, in a relative sense. The relative wealth relationship has been flipped on it's head. Why do you think this is?

Perhaps you should think of it this way. Good social institutions are an investment by the people. They typically have to kill a lot of people to get them. And they pay off far more than buying shares.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 7:52am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 4:15pm: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:46am: Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say? Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases. [quote]Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse? [quote]You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?[/quote]

Not sure what you're asking here, FD. There are no Native American political institutions in the Americas. [/quote]

There were before European colonisation. And the ones they ended up with after reflect those institutions, in a relative sense. The relative wealth relationship has been flipped on it's head. Why do you think this is?

Perhaps you should think of it this way. Good social institutions are an investment by the people. They typically have to kill a lot of people to get them. And they pay off far more than buying shares.[/quote]

Did the indigenous peoples of the American continent practise the presidential system of government, with a President, Congress and independent judiciary?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 12:30am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:59pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:52pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:42pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced. Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense. This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions. I've been watching road rules change in Thailand over the past few years. Now, everyone wears motorbike helmets. Drivers are licensed. Cars don't go through red lights - oh, and they have traffic lights. Why? Because the big provinces in Thailand have had a concerted police effort to shape an orderly, safe road system. Police now issue fines. The government has seen the effect of the revenue this brings in, and the hospitals and morgues have seen fewer injuries and deaths. The only people changing this are police. Tuk tuk and taxi drivers haven't suddenly slowed down and decided to drive safe. They're motivated to avoid fines. Ok, but what leads the police to be organised? Why are they making the effort? What are the institutions driving this? Thailand is known to be quite westernised in some regards, although they haven’t gone all the way. Again, I'd say it's about investment. This requires a rule of law. It requires insurance, which uses the civil courts to delegate liability. Its a long-term plan - Bangkok's overpasses are toll roads with 30 year contracts. Change is slow, but it's driven by investment, which generates risk management and civil liability. These things also turn a profit, such as the revenue from fines. This is not an orderly march to progress. Some economies thrive on chaos - India, Nigeria, The Philippines - but they have surplus populations. Some Indian states are slowly reforming their civil laws, but it's a mess. And look at what the Filipino president can get away with in a country with very high economic growth and a lot of foreign investment.

So, how do explain a situation in which a country has many resources, like Congo, but is extremely poor?

How did 'rule of law' get there? You're missing a step.

To simply say that it's all about money is oversimplifying things. Institutions are key, and always have been. Investment doesn't mean anything if you don't have strong property rights. Private property is a key institutions in modern society.

The constitutional monarchy is another one: by reducing the power of the Monarch and giving it to the Parliament, it strengthened the rule of law, and led the way to granting and protecting patents. Before the Parliament took over, the Monarchy simply issued patents to whom he/she willed; but when the Parliament took over, it had to develop a standard method of recognizing patents. This encouraged innovation and investment.

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2017 at 7:52am: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 4:15pm: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:46am: Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say? Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases. [quote]Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse? [quote]You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment. Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?

Not sure what you're asking here, FD. There are no Native American political institutions in the Americas. [/quote]

There were before European colonisation. And the ones they ended up with after reflect those institutions, in a relative sense. The relative wealth relationship has been flipped on it's head. Why do you think this is?

Perhaps you should think of it this way. Good social institutions are an investment by the people. They typically have to kill a lot of people to get them. And they pay off far more than buying shares.[/quote]

Did the indigenous peoples of the American continent practise the presidential system of government, with a President, Congress and independent judiciary?

[/quote]

What's he on about?

Is this what it's like when he gives an answer?

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 17th, 2017 at 12:30am: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:59pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:52pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:42pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman. Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute. Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced. Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense. This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions. I've been watching road rules change in Thailand over the past few years. Now, everyone wears motorbike helmets. Drivers are licensed. Cars don't go through red lights - oh, and they have traffic lights. Why? Because the big provinces in Thailand have had a concerted police effort to shape an orderly, safe road system. Police now issue fines. The government has seen the effect of the revenue this brings in, and the hospitals and morgues have seen fewer injuries and deaths. The only people changing this are police. Tuk tuk and taxi drivers haven't suddenly slowed down and decided to drive safe. They're motivated to avoid fines. Ok, but what leads the police to be organised? Why are they making the effort? What are the institutions driving this? Thailand is known to be quite westernised in some regards, although they haven’t gone all the way. Again, I'd say it's about investment. This requires a rule of law. It requires insurance, which uses the civil courts to delegate liability. Its a long-term plan - Bangkok's overpasses are toll roads with 30 year contracts. Change is slow, but it's driven by investment, which generates risk management and civil liability. These things also turn a profit, such as the revenue from fines. This is not an orderly march to progress. Some economies thrive on chaos - India, Nigeria, The Philippines - but they have surplus populations. Some Indian states are slowly reforming their civil laws, but it's a mess. And look at what the Filipino president can get away with in a country with very high economic growth and a lot of foreign investment. So, how do explain a situation in which a country has many resources, like Congo, but is extremely poor? How did 'rule of law' get there? You're missing a step. To simply say that it's all about money is oversimplifying things. Institutions are key, and always have been. Investment doesn't mean anything if you don't have strong property rights. Private property is a key institutions in modern society. The constitutional monarchy is another one: by reducing the power of the Monarch and giving it to the Parliament, it strengthened the rule of law, and led the way to granting and protecting patents. Before the Parliament took over, the Monarchy simply issued patents to whom he/she willed; but when the Parliament took over, it had to develop a standard method of recognizing patents. This encouraged innovation and investment.

You've lost me, Augie. The standard method for recognising patents is the US Patent Office, policed by a number of US organs, diffused through the WTO. Countries like China then go berko on anyone who pirates goods that are reported to the US, who punish China in the ways Mr Trump has threatened to do.

The US rarely acts. Threats of broken trade deals always work.

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2017 at 7:52am: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 4:15pm: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 3:16pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:46am: Quote: Did it take centuries in South Korea It took hundreds of years for western Civilization to develop its institutions, which paved the way for modernity. South Korea and Japan were unique in the sense that they were able to quickly adopt westernisation and implement it into their societies. Japan was particularly unique in this regard because of its history of absorbing foreign institutions quickly. Japan was largely responsible for transplanting westernisation to South Korea. Having said that you would be making a grave mistake to try and apply the same logic to Muslim majority countries. [quote]What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say? Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Ah, so it takes hundreds of years, except when it takes mere decades. Or millennia in some cases. [quote]Protection of private property; development of the modern financial system; protection of patents; parliamentary democracy; bill of rights; rule of law; the Protestant religion etc. Are these the ones Diamond discussed on Collapse? [quote]You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment. Why do you think the modern social and political institutions in the Americas reflect so closely the ones that existed prior to European colonisation? But the relative wealth distribution is pretty much the opposite?

Not sure what you're asking here, FD. There are no Native American political institutions in the Americas. [/quote]

There were before European colonisation. And the ones they ended up with after reflect those institutions, in a relative sense. The relative wealth relationship has been flipped on it's head. Why do you think this is?

Perhaps you should think of it this way. Good social institutions are an investment by the people. They typically have to kill a lot of people to get them. And they pay off far more than buying shares.[/quote]

Did the indigenous peoples of the American continent practise the presidential system of government, with a President, Congress and independent judiciary?

[/quote]

The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 9:20pm:

The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies.

You've been told all this, FD, so you can't say you weren't informed. Prior to the US installing the Shah, Iran had a functioning, elected social democratic government. Their "sin" was to propose renegotiating contracts with British oil companies.

Iran was a liberal, educated country with a big middle class - good universities, a French-educated elite. Iran's cosmopolitan culture goes back to Darius I in 500BC. Due to the Silk Road, Persia was a bridge between east and west.

The Shah ruled Iran with a brutal secret police, but he kept the western influence going. The response?

A religious revolution akin to Oliver Cromwell. Iran used to be liberal and democratic. Not anymore.

But things are slowly changing.

Do you have a point Karnal?

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2017 at 12:43pm:

Do you have a point Karnal?

I am. The West has actively undermined democracy in Iran. I thought that was pretty clear, FD.

Your own point - a question - was far more obtuse. I believe it went something like this: did the Aztecs and Incans have the Westminster system?

I'll answer. No.

Now that's an answer. Would you care to make a point in response? That's how discussions on discussion boards used to work. That's how you used to work too - before you "changed your mind".

Social and political institutions are extremely resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. The Americas today vs prior to European colonisation are a good example of this, but you can see the same patterns in Africa and elsewhere.

Quote:

The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies.

Well, if you're referring to the indigenous peoples of the American continent, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Regarding the current state of the nation-state in Latin America, the authors of 'Why Nations Fail' explained the reasons why they are poor: the institutions that Spain transplanted to those countries were not 'inclusive' institutions but 'extractive'.

Quote:

You've lost me, Augie. The standard method for recognising patents is the US Patent Office, policed by a number of US organs, diffused through the WTO. Countries like China then go berko on anyone who pirates goods that are reported to the US, who punish China in the ways Mr Trump has threatened to do. The US rarely acts. Threats of broken trade deals always work.

The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions. In countries like Spain that had a strong monarchy but weak parliament, the Crown handed out patents to people who were 'in favour' with the Crown. The institution of parliamentary democracy in Britain helped to establish and solidify 'the rule of law', which means that patents were offered to ALL people, not just those who were close with the Crown.

This gave the middle class in Britain an incentive to innovate and create. By having a fair patent system, it ensured that any person who had a good idea could get a patent. Basically, if you encouraged the protection of intellectual property among the greatest number of people, then you're more likely to get more innovation, aren't you?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

Social and political institutions are extremely resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. The Americas today vs prior to European colonisation are a good example of this, but you can see the same patterns in Africa and elsewhere.

FD, this doesn't mean anything. Does something worry you about putting a clear and succinct point forward?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

Social and political institutions are extremely resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. The Americas today vs prior to European colonisation are a good example of this, but you can see the same patterns in Africa and elsewhere.

The Americas is not a comparable example, FD. The indigenous peoples of the American continent weren't a complex civilization, and hence their social institutions cannot be compared with other European institutions at the time.

It would be fairer to compare Spanish institutions with British institutions, but not indigenous American institutions with either Spanish or British institutions.

Auggie wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

Quote: You've lost me, Augie. The standard method for recognising patents is the US Patent Office, policed by a number of US organs, diffused through the WTO. Countries like China then go berko on anyone who pirates goods that are reported to the US, who punish China in the ways Mr Trump has threatened to do. The US rarely acts. Threats of broken trade deals always work. The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions. In countries like Spain that had a strong monarchy but weak parliament, the Crown handed out patents to people who were 'in favour' with the Crown. The institution of parliamentary democracy in Britain helped to establish and solidify 'the rule of law', which means that patents were offered to ALL people, not just those who were close with the Crown. This gave the middle class in Britain an incentive to innovate and create. By having a fair patent system, it ensured that any person who had a good idea could get a patent. Basically, if you encouraged the protection of intellectual property among the greatest number of people, then you're more likely to get more innovation, aren't you?

I'm not sure about this, Augie. I'd say that the legal protection of patents was pioneered by those who invented designs. I'd say that prior to the machine age, patents didn't actually exist. Apart from animal husbandry, there was very little to patent. Goods were simply not manufactured and sold on an old industrial scale prior to the Victorian era, capitalism's "golden age".

This, however, is my hunch. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Auggie wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 12:16pm: Social and political institutions are extremely resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. The Americas today vs prior to European colonisation are a good example of this, but you can see the same patterns in Africa and elsewhere. The Americas is not a comparable example, FD. The indigenous peoples of the American continent weren't a complex civilization, and hence their social institutions cannot be compared with other European institutions at the time.

Are you referring exclusive to Northern, Central or Southern America?   In Northern America, I'd tend to agree with you.  Basically the Native Americans were simple hunter-gather-farmer communities.   They had simple tribal structures.   In Central America, you had first the Mayans and then the Aztecs.  They were more complex, stationary, farming communities ruled by fairly complex tribal monarchies.   They had institutions but they mainly revolved primarily around the religious and war making attributes of the cultures concerned.   In Southern America you had a situation which was a mix between Northern and Central American systems.  Most of the continent was ruled by simply tribal societies.  High, in the Andes, you had the Inca and before that they were a patchwork of different cultures and peoples that developed from the Andes of Colombia southward down the Andes to northern Argentina and Chile, plus the coastal deserts of Peru and northern Chile. Archaeologists believe that Andean civilizations first developed on the narrow coastal plain of the Pacific Ocean. The Norte Chico civilization of Peru is the oldest known dating back to 3200 BCE.   Those civilisations had institutions, some quite complex which centred again around the war making and religions of their civilisations.  The last Inca stronghold fell in 1572.


Quote:

It would be fairer to compare Spanish institutions with British institutions, but not indigenous American institutions with either Spanish or British institutions.

Depends upon when, you're talking about.  Britain and Spain had similar monarchies until the advent of the Tudors in the UK.  After that, you have a massive debate about the rights of kings and the institution of republican rule, under Oliver Cromwell, until his death and the restoration of Charles II.   In Spain, the monarchy ruled with an iron hand, fueled by the riches of the New World, which allowed it to alleviate the taxes on the peasants.   It really isn't until 1836 when you get institutionalised electoral reform in the UK that super changes start to occur.  Before that, it was still the world of patronage and privilege.

Quote:

Depends upon when, you're talking about.  Britain and Spain had similar monarchies until the advent of the Tudors in the UK.  After that, you have a massive debate about the rights of kings and the institution of republican rule, under Oliver Cromwell, until his death and the restoration of Charles II.   In Spain, the monarchy ruled with an iron hand, fueled by the riches of the New World, which allowed it to alleviate the taxes on the peasants.   It really isn't until 1836 when you get institutionalised electoral reform in the UK that super changes start to occur.  Before that, it was still the world of patronage and privilege.

What you say is correct; it's also important to realize that the constitutional monarchy, as developed in Britain, was more 'inclusive' than other nation's system of government. Spurred on by the Bill of Rights, it established rule of law and consistency. The arbitrariness of the Crown and power was removed, which was an important first step in creating inclusive institutions. Sure, patronage still occurred, but more people were 'included' in the political process than in other countries. For e.g. according to a 1780 census, only 3% of the population in England could vote, but that was 3% more than in Russia, in which they was no voting. That 3% might seem marginal today, but at the time it would've included enough people to get things going.

The constitutional monarchy provided the foundation for further changes; it wasn't the end in of itself; it was the means to an end. 

Auggie wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

Quote: The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies. Well, if you're referring to the indigenous peoples of the American continent, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the current state of the nation-state in Latin America, the authors of 'Why Nations Fail' explained the reasons why they are poor: the institutions that Spain transplanted to those countries were not 'inclusive' institutions but 'extractive'.

That is not what Acemoglu says. He goes to great lengths to say that the institutions were already there. His central thesis is that these institutions are resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations.


Quote:

The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions.

Again, they were already either there, or largely imposed on them by circumstance. You should read that book again.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 12:28pm: Quote: The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies. Well, if you're referring to the indigenous peoples of the American continent, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the current state of the nation-state in Latin America, the authors of 'Why Nations Fail' explained the reasons why they are poor: the institutions that Spain transplanted to those countries were not 'inclusive' institutions but 'extractive'. That is not what Acemoglu says. He goes to great lengths to say that the institutions were already there. His central thesis is that these institutions are resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. [quote]The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions.

Again, they were already either there, or largely imposed on them by circumstance. You should read that book again.[/quote]

Wrong in both counts.

The authors agree that there are ‘inclusive’ and ‘extractive’ institutions, which led to different development in societies. Spanish institutions were extractive but British institutions were ‘inclusive’.

That institutions are resilient, naturally polarising says nothing about how there are differences.

The book clearly discusses inclusive and extractive institutions. Sure you’re reading the same book?

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 12:28pm: Quote: The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies. Well, if you're referring to the indigenous peoples of the American continent, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the current state of the nation-state in Latin America, the authors of 'Why Nations Fail' explained the reasons why they are poor: the institutions that Spain transplanted to those countries were not 'inclusive' institutions but 'extractive'. That is not what Acemoglu says. He goes to great lengths to say that the institutions were already there. His central thesis is that these institutions are resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. [quote]The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions. Again, they were already either there, or largely imposed on them by circumstance. You should read that book again.

Wrong in both counts.

The authors agree that there are ‘inclusive’ and ‘extractive’ institutions, which led to different development in societies. Spanish institutions were extractive but British institutions were ‘inclusive’.

That institutions are resilient, naturally polarising says nothing about how there are differences.

The book clearly discusses inclusive and extractive institutions. Sure you’re reading the same book?[/quote]

If the message you got was that the Spanish brought these institutions to the Americas then you are completely missing the point of the book, if you read it at all. You say I am wrong but ignore what I actually say.

Quote:

If the message you got was that the Spanish brought these institutions to the Americas then you are completely missing the point of the book, if you read it at all. You say I am wrong but ignore what I actually say.

No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it.

The Spanish did bring their institutions to Latin America, and it was those institutions which led to poverty and corruption.

The book starts off by illustrating an example of a city that has a Mexican and American border - both have the same cultures, the same history, yet the American side is more prosperous than the Mexican side. It is clear that the authors were highlighting the differences in institutions.

It seems that you missed the point of the book. It wasn't to show that 'institutions are resilient', it was an explanation as to HOW AND WHY countries differ in their development. The book, although it didn't specifically state it, acted as a kind of blueprint for the development of nations. It pointed out that differences in institutions lead to differences in development.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it

Ah.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 1:33pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:51pm: No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it Ah.

Karnal, just one word for you, just one word: "institutions".

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 1:33pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:51pm: No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it Ah. Karnal, just one word for you, just one word: "institutions".

I haven't read the book, Augie, but I don't buy it. I have two words for you:

Capital and labour.

Auggie wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Quote: Depends upon when, you're talking about.  Britain and Spain had similar monarchies until the advent of the Tudors in the UK.  After that, you have a massive debate about the rights of kings and the institution of republican rule, under Oliver Cromwell, until his death and the restoration of Charles II.   In Spain, the monarchy ruled with an iron hand, fueled by the riches of the New World, which allowed it to alleviate the taxes on the peasants.   It really isn't until 1836 when you get institutionalised electoral reform in the UK that super changes start to occur.  Before that, it was still the world of patronage and privilege. What you say is correct; it's also important to realize that the constitutional monarchy, as developed in Britain, was more 'inclusive' than other nation's system of government. Spurred on by the Bill of Rights, it established rule of law and consistency. The arbitrariness of the Crown and power was removed, which was an important first step in creating inclusive institutions. Sure, patronage still occurred, but more people were 'included' in the political process than in other countries. For e.g. according to a 1780 census, only 3% of the population in England could vote, but that was 3% more than in Russia, in which they was no voting. That 3% might seem marginal today, but at the time it would've included enough people to get things going. The constitutional monarchy provided the foundation for further changes; it wasn't the end in of itself; it was the means to an end.

The English Civil War brought in the idea of limiting the Right of Kings and making instead, Parliament Sovereign.   There never has been a written Constitution in the UK in the manner it is understood today.  There has been a Constitution Act, which the House of Commons has the power to amend or declare null and void (hence the fear is that the UK is always one person away from a dictatorship - they who command the greatest number of seats in the Commons controls not only the country but how it is governed).   And before you laugh at that idea, the UK has upon occasion suspended the Constitution Act and amended it several times.

As to who was "in" and who was "out" in the UK,  I wonder what the Chartists would have said about that?   They wanted a written, formal Constitution created outside the Parliament and controlled by the people of the UK.   Many ended up Transported to Australia (Tolpuddle Martyrs) after their protests.   Some even attempted revolution after the French one was successful.  The powers that be, didn't like losing the tillers of Government one bit, so off to the antipodes with them!

The British Government has only reluctantly and under considerable pressure increased the franchise.  Women used to complain about not being granted the right to vote until 1918 (on a limited franchise) and 1923 (on a less limited form).  However, unpropertied men were not granted the right to vote in UK elections until 1927 IIRC.  Before that, it was granted on the basis of ownership of property and that gradually decreased until all men were granted the vote.  In both cases it was a hard slog to gain the objectives desired.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 2:46pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 1:33pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:51pm: No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it Ah. Karnal, just one word for you, just one word: "institutions". I haven't read the book, Augie, but I don't buy it. I have two words for you: Capital and labour.

Both your arguments are interesting.  Have either of you looked at the establishment of democratic Indonesia in 1998-99?   In that case, capital, labour and institutions acted each in their own way to ensure the ousting of Suharto.    He had created the institutions which caused him to be overthrown legally.  He had done so 'cause he need help to rule Indonesia.   The capital and labour turned against him, because they were tired of his crony capitalism and his exploitation of the masses.   With all support withdrawn, there was no where else for him to go but out the door.  However, without the Institutions, with the support of either Capital or Labour, he would have died in office (in all likelihood).

Watch this video. It's a lecture given by James Robinson, the coauthor of the book 'Why Nations Fail'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs0vKyz35AQ&t=4067s

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 2:46pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 1:33pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:51pm: No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it Ah. Karnal, just one word for you, just one word: "institutions". I haven't read the book, Augie, but I don't buy it. I have two words for you: Capital and labour. Both your arguments are interesting.  Have either of you looked at the establishment of democratic Indonesia in 1998-99?   In that case, capital, labour and institutions acted each in their own way to ensure the ousting of Suharto.    He had created the institutions which caused him to be overthrown legally.  He had done so 'cause he need help to rule Indonesia.   The capital and labour turned against him, because they were tired of his crony capitalism and his exploitation of the masses.   With all support withdrawn, there was no where else for him to go but out the door.  However, without the Institutions, with the support of either Capital or Labour, he would have died in office (in all likelihood).

Indonesia initially had a parliamentary system of government, which was a condition of the Dutch when they left. Then Sukarno repealed it by decree. This was a huge mistake. They should've kept the parliamentary system of government the Dutch left them. Indonesia might've turned out differently if they had retained it.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 2:46pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 1:33pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:51pm: No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it Ah. Karnal, just one word for you, just one word: "institutions". I haven't read the book, Augie, but I don't buy it. I have two words for you: Capital and labour. Both your arguments are interesting.  Have either of you looked at the establishment of democratic Indonesia in 1998-99?   In that case, capital, labour and institutions acted each in their own way to ensure the ousting of Suharto.    He had created the institutions which caused him to be overthrown legally.  He had done so 'cause he need help to rule Indonesia.   The capital and labour turned against him, because they were tired of his crony capitalism and his exploitation of the masses.   With all support withdrawn, there was no where else for him to go but out the door.  However, without the Institutions, with the support of either Capital or Labour, he would have died in office (in all likelihood).

Good point. The IMF pulled the pin on Suharto, just as British and Dutch investment - in cahoots with the CIA - set him up.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:52pm:

Indonesia initially had a parliamentary system of government, which was a condition of the Dutch when they left. Then Sukarno repealed it by decree. This was a huge mistake. They should've kept the parliamentary system of government the Dutch left them. Indonesia might've turned out differently if they had retained it.

A little bit pointless, really.  Afterall, Sukarno got rid of the Parliament and changed a federal system to a centralised system.   What might have been, can lead to endless and often pointless arguments.   What happened was that Sukarno and then Suharto set up all the democratic institutions (for show and intending to ignore them) but then found that they turned against him, using the Constitution and legal system he had created to overturn his government.   However, it was the loss of support from Capital and Labour which finally did him in.    So perhaps all three are needed for a democratic system to function, working in tune but neither becoming superpowerful?

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Quote: If the message you got was that the Spanish brought these institutions to the Americas then you are completely missing the point of the book, if you read it at all. You say I am wrong but ignore what I actually say. No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it. The Spanish did bring their institutions to Latin America, and it was those institutions which led to poverty and corruption. The book starts off by illustrating an example of a city that has a Mexican and American border - both have the same cultures, the same history, yet the American side is more prosperous than the Mexican side. It is clear that the authors were highlighting the differences in institutions. It seems that you missed the point of the book. It wasn't to show that 'institutions are resilient', it was an explanation as to HOW AND WHY countries differ in their development. The book, although it didn't specifically state it, acted as a kind of blueprint for the development of nations. It pointed out that differences in institutions lead to differences in development.

The countries differ because the institutions are resilient. It is not a post-hoc explanation. It has predictive value. It does not say that the British brought freedom and democracy. It says they tried to set up the same sort of society that the Spanish did. They failed, because where the Spanish simply put themselves at the top of existing social institutions, the British started with nothing. You need to read the book again, or at least try thinking for yourself. I'm not sure how you could possibly read the whole thing and miss the main point of the book.

How do you explain that the relative differences between the modern social and political institutions across the Americas reflect so closely the differences that existed prior to colonisation, despite the relative wealth relationship being turned on its head? And are you seriously saying the book does not go into this at all?


Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 2:46pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 1:33pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:51pm: No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it Ah. Karnal, just one word for you, just one word: "institutions". I haven't read the book, Augie, but I don't buy it. I have two words for you: Capital and labour. Both your arguments are interesting.  Have either of you looked at the establishment of democratic Indonesia in 1998-99?   In that case, capital, labour and institutions acted each in their own way to ensure the ousting of Suharto.    He had created the institutions which caused him to be overthrown legally.  He had done so 'cause he need help to rule Indonesia.   The capital and labour turned against him, because they were tired of his crony capitalism and his exploitation of the masses.   With all support withdrawn, there was no where else for him to go but out the door.  However, without the Institutions, with the support of either Capital or Labour, he would have died in office (in all likelihood).

Sounds like a parallel to the British transition - compared to say, what happened in France. The British monarchy played a long and delicate game of gradually ceding political rights in exchange for financial assistance, while keeping all the emerging powers in some kind of balance.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 12:28pm: Quote: The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies. Well, if you're referring to the indigenous peoples of the American continent, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the current state of the nation-state in Latin America, the authors of 'Why Nations Fail' explained the reasons why they are poor: the institutions that Spain transplanted to those countries were not 'inclusive' institutions but 'extractive'. That is not what Acemoglu says. He goes to great lengths to say that the institutions were already there. His central thesis is that these institutions are resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. [quote]The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions. Again, they were already either there, or largely imposed on them by circumstance. You should read that book again.

Wrong in both counts. [/quote]


Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Quote: If the message you got was that the Spanish brought these institutions to the Americas then you are completely missing the point of the book, if you read it at all. You say I am wrong but ignore what I actually say. No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it.

Are you saying I am wrong or that I am obfuscating? I am telling you that the book says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, and you cannot figure out whether I am wrong or changing the subject.

freediver wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

The countries differ because the institutions are resilient. It is not a post-hoc explanation. It has predictive value. It does not say that the British brought freedom and democracy. It says they tried to set up the same sort of society that the Spanish did. They failed, because where the Spanish simply put themselves at the top of existing social institutions, the British started with nothing. You need to read the book again, or at least try thinking for yourself. I'm not sure how you could possibly read the whole thing and miss the main point of the book. How do you explain that the relative differences between the modern social and political institutions across the Americas reflect so closely the differences that existed prior to colonisation, despite the relative wealth relationship being turned on its head? And are you seriously saying the book does not go into this at all?

Watch the video I posted, and you'll see that what you've said has nothing to do with it. In fact, the British did better than the Spanish, as the video indicates.

Second, what are you talking about? The political institutions that existed in the Americas after colonization has no similarities to those after colonization. The indigenous peoples had a completely different form of government.

freediver wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 20th, 2017 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 19th, 2017 at 12:28pm: Quote: The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies. Well, if you're referring to the indigenous peoples of the American continent, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the current state of the nation-state in Latin America, the authors of 'Why Nations Fail' explained the reasons why they are poor: the institutions that Spain transplanted to those countries were not 'inclusive' institutions but 'extractive'. That is not what Acemoglu says. He goes to great lengths to say that the institutions were already there. His central thesis is that these institutions are resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. [quote]The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions. Again, they were already either there, or largely imposed on them by circumstance. You should read that book again. Wrong in both counts.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Quote: If the message you got was that the Spanish brought these institutions to the Americas then you are completely missing the point of the book, if you read it at all. You say I am wrong but ignore what I actually say. No, you are now obfuscating because you realize that you are wrong, and don't want to admit it.

Are you saying I am wrong or that I am obfuscating? I am telling you that the book says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, and you cannot figure out whether I am wrong or changing the subject.

Watch the video, then come and see me.
[/quote]

I've read the book. If the video is all you have, no wonder you miss key points. The book spends a lot of time comparing the British and Spanish adventures in the Americas. I don't think it's possible you could actually read the book and miss that point.

Do you agree that you were wrong to portray the book as attributing the American institutions to European imports rather than the conditions and institutions the Europeans found when they got there? Or have you not actually read the book?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 7:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 3:40pm: http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg Oh, dearie, dearie, me.   Tsk, tsk, I am always surprised at the gross ignorance displayed by Islamophobes all the time.   Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA).   Most Mosques are organised democratically.    I wonder where the Islamophobes get this idea that Islam does not accept democracy?   I really do wonder.   Gee, could it be from the Muslim extremists who don't like the idea that they have to win an election?   Nah, of course not...   ::) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 4:43pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, see what I said where the Islamophobes get this idea that democracy is incompatible with Islam?   From the Extremists.   What a shame that the modern world has by and large, moved on from the days of the Caliphate.  Only it's supporters claim it is how Islam should be organised.  What does that make you, Soren?   Back to the Madrassah with you, my boy.  I'm sure there is some more K'ran for you to rote learn.     ::) This reminds me of Abu explaining that Islam is entirely compatible with democracy, but just has a slightly different take on it - only Muslims can vote, only Muslims can run for office, and Shariah law is the only platform you can run on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran The politics of Iran take place in a framework of a theocracy in a format of syncretic politics that is guided by Islamic ideology. In addition, there are representatives elected from appointed organizations (usually under the Supreme Leader's control) to "protect the state's Islamic character".[1] The Guardian Council is an appointed and constitutionally mandated 12-member council with considerable power. It approves or vetoes legislative bills from the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament), and approves or forbids candidates seeking office to the Assembly of Experts, the Presidency and the parliament,[26] Six of the twelve members are Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law) selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the other six are jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial system (who is also appointed by the Supreme Leader),[27], and approved by the Iranian Parliament.[28] According to the constitution, the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The Guardian Council has 12 members, six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists, elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, the Guardian Council approves the Assembly of Experts candidates, who in turn supervise and elect the Supreme Leader. The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[86] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran. How exactly is that 'no more modified' version of democracy than in the US? Does the US president appoint a council to appoint candidates for president? Well, Mr Trump has appointed experts himself, FD. They might be his sons, daughter and son-in-law,  but they know thing or two about life. Mr Trump's also the Supreme Leader, so there are similarities. But I'm curious. You identified the Afghani and Iraqi governments as successful democracies because they hold erections. Iran has erections too. Ipso facto, it must be a 'no more modified' version of democracy than the US as Abu says, yes? We're more alike than we're different, no?

When I asked FD to explain how Afghanistan was a functioning democracy, he wanted to show me the list of candidates in the election.

And what a jolly laugh seeing FD mock Iranian democracy - the last time we discussed Iranian democracy, FD was falling over himself to spinelessly apologise for the UK/US overthrow of Iran's last democracy in 1953. His defense went something like "the Iranian had the hide to want to stop the British from taking their their oil profits and give it back to the Iranian people, so..."

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Quote: Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA). Can you explain what you mean by this Brian?

I think he's referring to the existence of a list of candidates for the Afghan election - no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:46am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 7:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 3:40pm: http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg Oh, dearie, dearie, me.   Tsk, tsk, I am always surprised at the gross ignorance displayed by Islamophobes all the time.   Democracy is practised in many Islamic nations, including Iran (in, I admit a modified form but no more than in the USA).   Most Mosques are organised democratically.    I wonder where the Islamophobes get this idea that Islam does not accept democracy?   I really do wonder.   Gee, could it be from the Muslim extremists who don't like the idea that they have to win an election?   Nah, of course not...   ::) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 4:43pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, see what I said where the Islamophobes get this idea that democracy is incompatible with Islam?   From the Extremists.   What a shame that the modern world has by and large, moved on from the days of the Caliphate.  Only it's supporters claim it is how Islam should be organised.  What does that make you, Soren?   Back to the Madrassah with you, my boy.  I'm sure there is some more K'ran for you to rote learn.     ::) This reminds me of Abu explaining that Islam is entirely compatible with democracy, but just has a slightly different take on it - only Muslims can vote, only Muslims can run for office, and Shariah law is the only platform you can run on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran The politics of Iran take place in a framework of a theocracy in a format of syncretic politics that is guided by Islamic ideology. In addition, there are representatives elected from appointed organizations (usually under the Supreme Leader's control) to "protect the state's Islamic character".[1] The Guardian Council is an appointed and constitutionally mandated 12-member council with considerable power. It approves or vetoes legislative bills from the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament), and approves or forbids candidates seeking office to the Assembly of Experts, the Presidency and the parliament,[26] Six of the twelve members are Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law) selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the other six are jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial system (who is also appointed by the Supreme Leader),[27], and approved by the Iranian Parliament.[28] According to the constitution, the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The Guardian Council has 12 members, six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists, elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, the Guardian Council approves the Assembly of Experts candidates, who in turn supervise and elect the Supreme Leader. The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[86] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran. How exactly is that 'no more modified' version of democracy than in the US? Does the US president appoint a council to appoint candidates for president? Well, Mr Trump has appointed experts himself, FD. They might be his sons, daughter and son-in-law,  but they know thing or two about life. Mr Trump's also the Supreme Leader, so there are similarities. But I'm curious. You identified the Afghani and Iraqi governments as successful democracies because they hold erections. Iran has erections too. Ipso facto, it must be a 'no more modified' version of democracy than the US as Abu says, yes? We're more alike than we're different, no? When I asked FD to explain how Afghanistan was a functioning democracy, he wanted to show me the list of candidates in the election. And what a jolly laugh seeing FD mock Iranian democracy - the last time we discussed Iranian democracy, FD was falling over himself to spinelessly apologise for the UK/US overthrow of Iran's last democracy in 1953. His defense went something like "the Iranian had the hide to want to stop the British from taking their their oil profits and give it back to the Iranian people, so..."

That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that?

freediver wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:

I've read the book. If the video is all you have, no wonder you miss key points. The book spends a lot of time comparing the British and Spanish adventures in the Americas. I don't think it's possible you could actually read the book and miss that point. Do you agree that you were wrong to portray the book as attributing the American institutions to European imports rather than the conditions and institutions the Europeans found when they got there? Or have you not actually read the book?

So, the first point on the comparison is actually what I’ve been arguing all this time. You seem to have not admitted this before and are now backtracking to say that it is a comparison.

The conditions in those societies influenced how the European institutions took effect tot a certain extent; but the countries as they stand now had more to do with the colonial institutions that the Europeans implanted there. Sure, the British couldn’t coerce the native Americans like the British could, but that’s hardly a significant impact in of itself, and doesn’t adequately explain how the differences arose. James Robinson spends only a fraction of the book on the local conditions of the natives.

Initially you said that the book had nothing to with the comparison of institutions between the Spanish and British. You only mentioned that institutions are resilient, which means nothing as to how to resolve the issue of poverty. The book was a blueprint not a thesis. If the only thing you got out of it was your initial assertion then you’ve missed the point of the book, in my humble opinion.

Are you denying the impact of the glorious revolution and the institution of parliamentary democracy on the success of the British?

It seems to me that your interpretation of the book was biased based on your worldview: you seem to believe that some cultures are fixed and cannot adapt or change, no matter what happens.

The whole point of the book was to say that the development of societies has nothing to do with culture but with institutions, and given that institutions are structures that can be adopted or discarded, any society can develop if they adopt those institutions, irrespective of their culture.

Quote:

That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that?

And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty.

Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that...

Superior culture, innit?

Quote:

And what a jolly laugh seeing FD mock Iranian democracy

I was mocking Brian.


Quote:

So, the first point on the comparison is actually what I’ve been arguing all this time. You seem to have not admitted this

What exactly do you want me to 'admit'? That you got it half right? How do you go from you being half right to me being wrong when I point out the bits you got completely backwards? And what exactly am I obfuscating on?


Quote:

It seems to me that your interpretation of the book was biased based on your worldview

It is based on what the book says. You should try reading it, rather than relying on videos about it.


Quote:

you seem to believe that some cultures are fixed and cannot adapt or change, no matter what happens.

Did you see this in a youtube video about me?

The supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Khamanei on Israel-



https://endtimebibleprophecy.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/iran-khamenei-twitter.jpg?w=830

Auggie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit?

Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument.

How can you trust them with democracy?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:

nobody knew who the sunni and shia were before 9/11.

That's because nobody cared.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 1:39pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy?

Never mind that they are one of the oldest civilizations on earth. Islam killed that, you see?

issuevoter wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 9:53pm:

Iranian democra...  ;D ;D  ;D

I know.....it's as hilarious as the "Islamic Reformation" Gandalf has been telling us all about  ::)

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 1:39pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy?

Oh thats unfair K. I'm sure he includes a few memes about the slaughter of 700 jews in one day, kill the mushriken wherever you find them and Abu.

Auggie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 3:28pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? Never mind that they are one of the oldest civilizations on earth. Islam killed that, you see?

Islam killed the Roman Empire too, Augie, don't forget that. It started the dark ages, the crusades, the Great Plague, the Hundred Years' War. Islam is the source of every problem the West has ever faced, retarded subspecies that it is. Without Islam, the white race would have liberated the world.

Not racist, of course. Islam is not a race.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 3:42pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? Oh thats unfair K. I'm sure he includes a few memes about the slaughter of 700 jews in one day, kill the mushriken wherever you find them and Abu.

Here you go, FD. G just agreed with Abu.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 12:09pm:

Quote: And what a jolly laugh seeing FD mock Iranian democracy I was mocking Brian. [quote]So, the first point on the comparison is actually what I’ve been arguing all this time. You seem to have not admitted this

What exactly do you want me to 'admit'? That you got it half right? How do you go from you being half right to me being wrong when I point out the bits you got completely backwards? And what exactly am I obfuscating on?


Quote:

It seems to me that your interpretation of the book was biased based on your worldview

It is based on what the book says. You should try reading it, rather than relying on videos about it.


Quote:

you seem to believe that some cultures are fixed and cannot adapt or change, no matter what happens.

Did you see this in a youtube video about me?

[/quote]

The video would cover the core contents of the book. I’m happy to quote other book reviews made by other people about the book.

Where’s your evidence to support your claim? If you can quote directly from the book. By all means go ahead.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 1:39pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy?

If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist. You don't even have to buy it. Just understanding what it says would help.


Quote:

The video would cover the core contents of the book.

Just as I thought. Why did you pretend you had read the book, and what made you think you would get away with telling me I was wrong about a book that I had actually read and you had merely watched a youtube video about?

I offer you the same advice. Read the book.


Quote:

Where’s your evidence to support your claim?

I'll give you three guesses.

Auggie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:09pm: Quote: And what a jolly laugh seeing FD mock Iranian democracy I was mocking Brian. [quote]So, the first point on the comparison is actually what I’ve been arguing all this time. You seem to have not admitted this What exactly do you want me to 'admit'? That you got it half right? How do you go from you being half right to me being wrong when I point out the bits you got completely backwards? And what exactly am I obfuscating on? [quote]It seems to me that your interpretation of the book was biased based on your worldview

It is based on what the book says. You should try reading it, rather than relying on videos about it.


Quote:

you seem to believe that some cultures are fixed and cannot adapt or change, no matter what happens.

Did you see this in a youtube video about me?

[/quote]

The video would cover the core contents of the book. I’m happy to quote other book reviews made by other people about the book.

Where’s your evidence to support your claim? If you can quote directly from the book. By all means go ahead. [/quote]

FD only quotes from the Wiki, Augie. And that consists of posts made by FD.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:15pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist.

Oh, I don't think you're a closet racist, FD.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:15pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist. You don't even have to buy it. Just understanding what it says would help. [quote]The video would cover the core contents of the book.

Just as I thought. Why did you pretend you had read the book, and what made you think you would get away with telling me I was wrong about a book that I had actually read and you had merely watched a youtube video about?

I offer you the same advice. Read the book.


Quote:

Where’s your evidence to support your claim?

I'll give you three guesses.[/quote]

So the  answer is no to evidence???

Auggie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:41pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:15pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist. You don't even have to buy it. Just understanding what it says would help. [quote]The video would cover the core contents of the book. Just as I thought. Why did you pretend you had read the book, and what made you think you would get away with telling me I was wrong about a book that I had actually read and you had merely watched a youtube video about? I offer you the same advice. Read the book. [quote]Where’s your evidence to support your claim?

I'll give you three guesses.[/quote]

So the  answer is no to evidence???
[/quote]

The answer is yes. If you still can't figure out where the evidence is after three guesses, I will tell you. I bet Karnal could get it in two guesses.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:41pm: freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:15pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist. You don't even have to buy it. Just understanding what it says would help. [quote]The video would cover the core contents of the book. Just as I thought. Why did you pretend you had read the book, and what made you think you would get away with telling me I was wrong about a book that I had actually read and you had merely watched a youtube video about? I offer you the same advice. Read the book. [quote]Where’s your evidence to support your claim? I'll give you three guesses.

So the  answer is no to evidence???
[/quote]

The answer is yes. If you still can't figure out where the evidence is after three guesses, I will tell you. I bet Karnal could get it in two guesses.[/quote]

Yes, but Karnal would just say.

You?

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:41pm: freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:15pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist. You don't even have to buy it. Just understanding what it says would help. [quote]The video would cover the core contents of the book. Just as I thought. Why did you pretend you had read the book, and what made you think you would get away with telling me I was wrong about a book that I had actually read and you had merely watched a youtube video about? I offer you the same advice. Read the book. [quote]Where’s your evidence to support your claim? I'll give you three guesses.

So the  answer is no to evidence???
[/quote]

The answer is yes. If you still can't figure out where the evidence is after three guesses, I will tell you. I bet Karnal could get it in two guesses.[/quote]

So, is this like the Quran? You have one interpretation and I have another?

Quote:

Iranian leadership addicted to opium? Politics in ’The Islamic Republic of Heroin’] For those wondering about the logic and sanity of the Iranian leadership in its conduct of international affairs, recent presidential election and the massive protests following, perhaps the delusional effects of long-term narcotic use should be considered. Kabulpress sources in and outside of Iran have compiled eyewitness, photographic, and circumstantial evidence that 82 year-old Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenai has been a long-time opium addict and even directly involved in the narcotic drug trade. 1. Kabulpress sources have attended private events organized by Ayatollah Khamenai featuring Iranian poets reading and discussing each others’ works. These poets, like many noted poets across the globe indulge themselves in smoking opium; for example, noted Iranian poet Muhammad Hussain Shahryar regularly extolled opium in his work. Sharriad who died about eleven years ago, was a close friend of Khamenai and participated in these opium-laced soirees where especially favored poets received gifts ranging from gold nuggets to new cars and new houses. Kabulpress sources in Iran attended these same events and personally witnessed Khamenai pass the pipe to his poetical comrades. 2. Rumors regularly spread through Iranian communities that Khamenei became a heavy user of opium after an injury to his arm several decades ago. 3. Statistics from the UN regarding narcotics use in Iran include: about five percent of its population of approximately 75 million is addicted to opiates— about 5 million addicts, many of whom steal to support their addiction; an estimated 50% of opium from poppies harvested in Afghanistan travel through Iran on its way to Europe and beyond. With this level of trafficking, it is hard to believe that governmental involvement is not significant. 4. Opium is a cheap drug in Iran. Along with strong black tea, it fuels Iran’s long-range truck drivers and is blamed on the horrific number of truck and bus wrecks that regularly occur on Iran’s highways. 5. A noted effect of opium on long-term users is long speeches; Khamenei is known for 2-3 hour rants that blame the U.S. and Israel exclusively for the world’s troubles while ignoring Iran’s breadlines, unemployment, human rights violations—and rampant drug addiction. Millions of Iranians blame their monumental internal problems not on Israel, but on their own corrupt “theocratic monarchy.” 6. Due to the number of addicts among them, Iranians easily recognize opium users through their sunken faces, black circles under their eyes, and their thin, shrunken frames. To them it is obvious that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei fit that unfortunate profile. 7. The sad cultural entrenchment of opium addiction is illustrated by Iranian jokes like “Ahmadinejad says America spends billions of dollars in technology to send people into space, but every young Iranian can get there with just one ‘cigari’ (opium laced cigarette)” and “Don’t drink and drive, smoke and fly.” 8. Opium is a drug of dreams and delusions. Official pronouncements like, ‘there are no homosexuals in Iran,’ and ‘there are no human rights violations in Iran,’ suggest to many that Iranian leadership’s grasp on reality should be questioned https://www.kabulpress.org/article3733.html

Auggie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 9:17pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:44pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:41pm: freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 8:15pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 1:39pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 21st, 2017 at 12:01pm: Quote: That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that? And that also they should’ve accepted the rotten deal as a condition for their sovereignty. Is he saying that if a previous government in Australia for eg, which was corrupt,, make a bad deal that it shouldn’t be overturned by a future government if that’s the what the people wanted? What if the Chinese instigated a coup because we renegotiated a mining deal? I bet FD wouldn’t support that... Superior culture, innit? Exactly. The Iranians are an inferior, retarded subspecies who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards. This is the crux of FD's argument. How can you trust them with democracy? If you read the book Augie and I are discussing, you might stop making a fool of yourself by pretending I am a closet racist. You don't even have to buy it. Just understanding what it says would help. [quote]The video would cover the core contents of the book. Just as I thought. Why did you pretend you had read the book, and what made you think you would get away with telling me I was wrong about a book that I had actually read and you had merely watched a youtube video about? I offer you the same advice. Read the book. [quote]Where’s your evidence to support your claim? I'll give you three guesses. So the  answer is no to evidence???

The answer is yes. If you still can't figure out where the evidence is after three guesses, I will tell you. I bet Karnal could get it in two guesses.[/quote]

So, is this like the Quran? You have one interpretation and I have another?
[/quote]

No, Augie, with the Koran, you just read a sentence in chapter 9 and leave it at that.

Thousands take part in anti-government protests in Iran   8-)

Good on 'em. Taking to the streets to fight corruption of the Government.

Come on, Iran. Get your poo together.

Oh, how Cyrus the Great would be spinning in his grave....

OK let's go back to the facts.

Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected.
British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected.
Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state.
So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard.

capitosinora wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 8:10am:

OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard.

Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia?

There can be no democracy in Iran until/unless the Revolutionary Guard cuts & runs.
Which is a bit like asking the PLA to cut & run in China.
And even IF that happens, you won't get any kind of democracy until their Islam morphs into a more relaxed Indonesian-style Islam.

capitosinora wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 8:10am:

OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard.

Clearly, you Americans have no idea about distinctions. The monarchy is purely a figurehead; the Iranian supreme leader is not. Not to mention that there are other theocratic institutions.

I suspect your intelligent enough to know the difference and are just trolling.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 12:34pm:

capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia?

Ready to concede that you were wrong about Why Nations Fail?

capitosonora is one of these people like Unforgiven who resents the success of the English speaking peoples. In both cases, they probably have to look around at the cultures they spring from and admit they have made no progress that was not instigated by English speaking cultures. The accusation that Australia is a British colony is not a statement of belief or fact. It is a flimsy attempt at insult which ends up being a backhanded compliment. Cap, look at your own cultural heritage, and show us how much it has contributed to the world. And while you are at it, ask yourself why almost every emerging nation since the end of WW2 had tried to introduce a parliamentary system . . . even Iran.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 12:34pm:

capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia?

What we think is irrelevant only facts and basic knowledge count.
Democracy Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people"
Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos literally "rule of the elite"
If you have a head of state who is not democratically elected and who has right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister and parliament than this is not democracy.

Do you think Australia is more democratic than Russia?[/quote]

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 2:00pm:

There can be no democracy in Iran until/unless the Revolutionary Guard cuts & runs. Which is a bit like asking the PLA to cut & run in China. And even IF that happens, you won't get any kind of democracy until their Islam morphs into a more relaxed Indonesian-style Islam.

There can be no democracy in Australia until/unless the British Queen cuts & runs.

Auggie wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 2:10pm:

capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Clearly, you Americans have no idea about distinctions. The monarchy is purely a figurehead; the Iranian supreme leader is not. Not to mention that there are other theocratic institutions. I suspect your intelligent enough to know the difference and are just trolling.

I suspect your intelligent enough to acknowledge the facts and the truth and are just trolling with your inferiority complex emotions.
This  "figurehead" of yours has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament.
This  "figurehead" of yours in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam.
As long as this is the case Australia will not be either democratic or sovereign country.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 4:35pm:

capitosonora is one of these people like Unforgiven who resents the success of the English speaking peoples. In both cases, they probably have to look around at the cultures they spring from and admit they have made no progress that was not instigated by English speaking cultures. The accusation that Australia is a British colony is not a statement of belief or fact. It is a flimsy attempt at insult which ends up being a backhanded compliment. Cap, look at your own cultural heritage, and show us how much it has contributed to the world. And while you are at it, ask yourself why almost every emerging nation since the end of WW2 had tried to introduce a parliamentary system . . . even Iran.

I am living in English speaking country (World power).
We are democracy because we liberated our self from British colonial rule, developed own cultural i national identity and finally as a result of that became a world power.
Unfortunately not all British colonies managed to do that and that's why the greatest Aussie intellectual Robert Hughes wrote about his "country" of birth: "Australia is spaciously huge, culturally tiny and politically insignificant".

Auggie wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 12:34pm: capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia? Ready to concede that you were wrong about Why Nations Fail?

I guessed correctly after about 5 seconds that you had not actually read the book. Guess how I knew?


capitosinora wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 7:43pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 12:34pm: capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia? What we think is irrelevant only facts and basic knowledge count. Democracy Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people" Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos literally "rule of the elite" If you have a head of state who is not democratically elected and who has right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister and parliament than this is not democracy. Do you think Australia is more democratic than Russia?

Would you like to have another go at answering the question?


Quote:

We are democracy because we liberated our self from British colonial rule, developed own cultural i national identity and finally as a result of that became a world power.

None of that makes your country a democracy.

Quote:

I suspect your intelligent enough to acknowledge the facts and the truth and are just trolling with your inferiority complex emotions. This  "figurehead" of yours has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament. This  "figurehead" of yours in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam. As long as this is the case Australia will not be either democratic or sovereign country.

And you're intelligent enough to understand that no system is perfect. The dismissal in 1974 was a once-off anomaly which would never, and I repeat, ever happen again.

The Queen has no authority to dismiss a Prime Minister; convention dictates that he/she cannot do this.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 9:47am:

I guessed correctly after about 5 seconds that you had not actually read the book. Guess how I knew?

I have read the book. Unless you're calling me a liar, which I assume you are.

Do you have the book on you? Perhaps you would like to quote certain passages of the book, which support your claim? I don't have the book on me, so I'm happy to provide you with reviews of the book, which support my claim.

Are you?

Or are you FD the infallible?

Auggie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 2:20pm:

Quote: I suspect your intelligent enough to acknowledge the facts and the truth and are just trolling with your inferiority complex emotions. This  "figurehead" of yours has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament. This  "figurehead" of yours in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam. As long as this is the case Australia will not be either democratic or sovereign country. And you're intelligent enough to understand that no system is perfect. The dismissal in 1974 was a once-off anomaly which would never, and I repeat, ever happen again. The Queen has no authority to dismiss a Prime Minister; convention dictates that he/she cannot do this.

Inferiority complex dreams that prevent you to face reality. You can afford that as long as you think you are protected by USA.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 9:47am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 12:34pm: capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia? Ready to concede that you were wrong about Why Nations Fail? I guessed correctly after about 5 seconds that you had not actually read the book. Guess how I knew? capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 7:43pm: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 12:34pm: capitosinora wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: OK let's go back to the facts. Iranian head of state is supreme leader who is also the highest religious authority and is not democratically elected. British and Australian head of state is a British monarch who is also religious authority (Head of Anglican church) and has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected parliament and prime minister and is not democratically elected. Iran is a sovereign country with Iranian head of state and Australia is a British colony with British head of state. So before you hypocrites criticise someone else's democracy first look at your back yard. Do you think Iran is more democratic than Australia? What we think is irrelevant only facts and basic knowledge count. Democracy Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people" Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos literally "rule of the elite" If you have a head of state who is not democratically elected and who has right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister and parliament than this is not democracy. Do you think Australia is more democratic than Russia? Would you like to have another go at answering the question? Quote: We are democracy because we liberated our self from British colonial rule, developed own cultural i national identity and finally as a result of that became a world power. None of that makes your country a democracy.

We have own democratically elected head of state and the senate.
Britain and USA share Australia as a common prostitute.

capitosinora wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 4:35pm: capitosonora is one of these people like Unforgiven who resents the success of the English speaking peoples. In both cases, they probably have to look around at the cultures they spring from and admit they have made no progress that was not instigated by English speaking cultures. The accusation that Australia is a British colony is not a statement of belief or fact. It is a flimsy attempt at insult which ends up being a backhanded compliment. Cap, look at your own cultural heritage, and show us how much it has contributed to the world. And while you are at it, ask yourself why almost every emerging nation since the end of WW2 had tried to introduce a parliamentary system . . . even Iran. I am living in English speaking country (World power). We are democracy because we liberated our self from British colonial rule, developed own cultural i national identity and finally as a result of that became a world power. Unfortunately not all British colonies managed to do that and that's why the greatest Aussie intellectual Robert Hughes wrote about his "country" of birth: "Australia is spaciously huge, culturally tiny and politically insignificant".

Hughes was an art historian, not a real historian.  His work is flawed, like most of what he wrote about.  His social commentary is too overly coloured and biased by his political views.

Apart from that, you raise some interesting points.  Tell me, if you believe that it is impossible for a Head of State that is unelected to lead a truly democratic nation, how is the US President who is not elected by the people but by the Electoral College, able to lead the US which you claim is a Democratic State?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:15pm:

Hughes was an art historian, not a real historian.  His work is flawed, like most of what he wrote about.  His social commentary is too overly coloured and biased by his political views.

And yours are not, shitehead??


From a principled, intelligent man I would allow that objection but not from a spineless, lying, hypocritical and low-brow worm like you.

Quote:

We have own democratically elected head of state and the senate. Britain and USA share Australia as a common prostitute.

Sure, you do have a 'democratically-elected head of State'. It's also true that you've had a history of very bad Presidents (as well as very good Presidents); whereas the Westminster system consistently produces good Prime Ministers comparatively. Our worst Prime Minister (whoever that may be) is not as bad as the worst American president.

Ergo, our system is superior because it's able to produce leaders.

BTW, your Senate wasn't popularly-elected until 1912.

capitosinora wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 8:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 2:20pm: Quote: I suspect your intelligent enough to acknowledge the facts and the truth and are just trolling with your inferiority complex emotions. This  "figurehead" of yours has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament. This  "figurehead" of yours in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam. As long as this is the case Australia will not be either democratic or sovereign country. And you're intelligent enough to understand that no system is perfect. The dismissal in 1974 was a once-off anomaly which would never, and I repeat, ever happen again. The Queen has no authority to dismiss a Prime Minister; convention dictates that he/she cannot do this. Inferiority complex dreams that prevent you to face reality. You can afford that as long as you think you are protected by USA.

And you are ignorant of our system. If you truly understand our system of Government, you'll soon realize that it is governed by convention more so than by hard-and-fast rules, like many other political systems, even the American one.

Convention dictates that the Queen has no political power.

Auggie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 2:21pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 9:47am: I guessed correctly after about 5 seconds that you had not actually read the book. Guess how I knew? I have read the book. Unless you're calling me a liar, which I assume you are. Do you have the book on you? Perhaps you would like to quote certain passages of the book, which support your claim? I don't have the book on me, so I'm happy to provide you with reviews of the book, which support my claim. Are you? Or are you FD the infallible?

You want me to type out passages from the book because you don't have it on you?

You have ignored every single post of mine (about a dozen of them) where I tried to explain why you are wrong and tried to change the subject instead, so I have every expectation that if I went to that effort you still would not realise or acknowledge what I am saying to you.

A country controlled by religious fanatics can never be democratic.

Auggie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 11:36pm:

capitosinora wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 8:15pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 2:20pm: Quote: I suspect your intelligent enough to acknowledge the facts and the truth and are just trolling with your inferiority complex emotions. This  "figurehead" of yours has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament. This  "figurehead" of yours in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam. As long as this is the case Australia will not be either democratic or sovereign country. And you're intelligent enough to understand that no system is perfect. The dismissal in 1974 was a once-off anomaly which would never, and I repeat, ever happen again. The Queen has no authority to dismiss a Prime Minister; convention dictates that he/she cannot do this. Inferiority complex dreams that prevent you to face reality. You can afford that as long as you think you are protected by USA. And you are ignorant of our system. If you truly understand our system of Government, you'll soon realize that it is governed by convention more so than by hard-and-fast rules, like many other political systems, even the American one. Convention dictates that the Queen has no political power.

Burying your head in the sand and, ignoring outside world and being arrogant,
because of need to avoid negative feelings, won't change reality in which you live.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/18/article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408.jpg