But no one has ever done that (except, perhaps the British)

lol, yeah england did. by following in the US's footsteps- like capitalism, freedom of speech, parliament (we call it the senate) passing laws instead of a royal lineage, the ability to impeach your leader(representative) etc.

rome went bankrupt, this is true. but the truth is as far as moral position goes, rome didn't have the freedom americans have (actually). you could be put to death w/o trial etc. they weren't as free as the greeks though some people think they were. and the level of corruption in the roman senate was more reminisant of the 'glory days' of the US from post civil war to about the 1960's...

there...

But no one has ever done that (except, perhaps the British)

lol, yeah england did. by following in the US's footsteps- like capitalism, freedom of speech, parliament (we call it the senate) passing laws instead of a royal lineage, the ability to impeach your leader(representative) etc.

rome went bankrupt, this is true. but the truth is as far as moral position goes, rome didn't have the freedom americans have (actually). you could be put to death w/o trial etc. they weren't as free as the greeks though some people think they were. and the level of corruption in the roman senate was more reminisant of the 'glory days' of the US from post civil war to about the 1960's...

there's a saying that i remember and one that john adams (the most politically affluent of the founding fathers) liked, 'rome controlled the world and the senate controlled rome."

Uh... some points need to be corrected axelsenzon:

by following in the US's footsteps- like capitalism, freedom of speech, parliament (we call it the senate)

Actually, it's vice versa. Capitalism found its first mature form in England about a century before it was exported to the New world colonies. Likewise, the English parliament is more than 140 years older than the United States, even if we mark Oliver Cromwell's revolution as the beginning. The 1640 radical movement in England was the first successful revolution in Europe and it brought many new rights and liberties including free speech to the British (thanks to The Levellers' contributions.)

rome didn't have ...

read more»

Uh... some points need to be corrected axelsenzon:

by following in the US's footsteps- like capitalism, freedom of speech, parliament (we call it the senate)

Actually, it's vice versa. Capitalism found its first mature form in England about a century before it was exported to the New world colonies. Likewise, the English parliament is more than 140 years older than the United States, even if we mark Oliver Cromwell's revolution as the beginning. The 1640 radical movement in England was the first successful revolution in Europe and it brought many new rights and liberties including free speech to the British (thanks to The Levellers' contributions.)

rome didn't have the freedom americans have (actually). you could be put to death w/o trial etc.

Theoretically it's not very meaningful (and fair) to compare two states according to the "freedom", when there's at least 1400 years between the fall of the old and the rise of the new one. On the other hand, Rome's life span was around 1000 years and thr roman history had never been a "homogenous" one. So your second sentence does not make much sense if you don't mention which phase (era) you meant in Roman history. If you meant the late Empire (post Augustus) "being put to death without trial" could be correct at some cases (especially for the Christian Rome). But if you meant The Republic, it's totally wrong. No penalty could be executed without trial in Republican Rome. We can criticise the justice concept of Roman courts, this is totally another thing. But Ancient Rome had its own law and justice system since the very beginning of the Republic (just remember "The 12 Tables" of 450 BCE.)

they weren't as free as the greeks though some people think they were.

Again, a vague argument. Which Greeks, you meant? If it was the Ancient Greek city states of ca. 1000 BCE and you were comparing it with Roman Republic, sorry but it's wrong again.

ratilfar,
history is on your side with that point. though, to metaphor, you can play a stock or two and be certain it will make money- history would be on you side as well (if you wait long enough, and if it doesn't go bankrupt), but will it happen in you lifetime shouldn't be so obvious, at least not with a country....
america could stand strong for an other 800 years in my opinion.
i think, personally, the way to achieve more of what people want done (whether your the majority or think you're the majority) people will have to stop looking east when the action is west. and understand where the power of this country lie. like it or not (this isn;t directed at anyone) niether ny times nor fo...

ratilfar,
history is on your side with that point. though, to metaphor, you can play a stock or two and be certain it will make money- history would be on you side as well (if you wait long enough, and if it doesn't go bankrupt), but will it happen in you lifetime shouldn't be so obvious, at least not with a country....
america could stand strong for an other 800 years in my opinion.
i think, personally, the way to achieve more of what people want done (whether your the majority or think you're the majority) people will have to stop looking east when the action is west. and understand where the power of this country lie. like it or not (this isn;t directed at anyone) niether ny times nor fox news nor msnbc have anything to do with passing laws, though right and left act like it matters. further, the president is a red herring. the house of reps is a red herring.
ultimately, what i'm trying to say is not that public opinion doesn't matter in america- what i'm saying is it never did. and wasn't made to.

Axelsenzon, thanks for your replies. But I must say:

* First, you confuse "liberalism" and capitalism. The first one is based upon the question of how to practice a certain form of production, while the latter is the very essence of that form itself.

"Laissez-passer, Laissez-faire" was the motto of the physiocrats that flourished in France in the 18th century, who were against the government interference in economic activities, defending private initiative. The motto became a generally accepted attitude among British liberals (like Richard Cobden) in early 19th century. Though he never used the term laissez-passer, Adam Smith was among the earliest defenders of free trade and he was Scott...

Axelsenzon, thanks for your replies. But I must say:

* First, you confuse "liberalism" and capitalism. The first one is based upon the question of how to practice a certain form of production, while the latter is the very essence of that form itself.

"Laissez-passer, Laissez-faire" was the motto of the physiocrats that flourished in France in the 18th century, who were against the government interference in economic activities, defending private initiative. The motto became a generally accepted attitude among British liberals (like Richard Cobden) in early 19th century. Though he never used the term laissez-passer, Adam Smith was among the earliest defenders of free trade and he was Scottish, not American.

The "free market" ideology became a central point of American revolutionaries in the second half of the 18th century, imported from France and England, following Adam Smith and David Ricardo's thesis on economic development.

Summary: Capitalism was around Europe since late 15th century, classical liberalism and laissez-passer appeared in mid 18th century. Neither one was introduced by the U.S. Americans imported it from Europe and practiced it very succesfuly for some time.

And no, capitalism was not "invented" by the French. It was a certain stage on a long process of economical and social development in Europe and its first seeds appeared in Renaissance Italy. If we are to attribute some principles of capitalism to French, we need to go back to the Cathars of Southern France in 13th century. Even Marx and Engels built their criticism on capitalism, taking England as a typical example. America became the "flag carrier" of capitalism, only after the late 19th - Early 20th century.

So, how about to browse your Economics 102 textbooks (along with Humanities 101) again?

Continueing:

* You said:

i said taking power away from a single entity (namely the king and queen of england) wasn't an attribute of the british as a sole proprietor of this- clearly america did this before england- and they followed in their steed.

Actually, 1640 English Revolution did exactly that. The Parliament took the power from the King (Charles I) and even finally decapitated him. The Parliament became the main power in the country until Cromwell's death and the Restoration period. In other words, clearly England did this before America. It was the excitement of the 1640 spirit which triggered later revolutions in both Europe and America.

If you mean the "first mode...

Continueing:

* You said:

i said taking power away from a single entity (namely the king and queen of england) wasn't an attribute of the british as a sole proprietor of this- clearly america did this before england- and they followed in their steed.

Actually, 1640 English Revolution did exactly that. The Parliament took the power from the King (Charles I) and even finally decapitated him. The Parliament became the main power in the country until Cromwell's death and the Restoration period. In other words, clearly England did this before America. It was the excitement of the 1640 spirit which triggered later revolutions in both Europe and America.

If you mean the "first modern republic" in the West, you need to go back to 17th century again and look at the Dutch.

i think i and most people who compare one government to another, be it past or present- should be allowed to and not have it been said there is no merit to the idea of comparison.

I never talked about "allowance". Of course anyone can make any comparison, anytime as he/she wishes. I was just expressing my opinion, saying it was not very meaningful and fair to compare two societies when they have sociologically, politically and economically very deep differences. It's not just a matter of 1000 years, but also a matter of entirely different social classes and production forms. I personally believe, no one should expect to see "more freedom and liberty" in a state/country of the...

i think i and most people who compare one government to another, be it past or present- should be allowed to and not have it been said there is no merit to the idea of comparison.

I never talked about "allowance". Of course anyone can make any comparison, anytime as he/she wishes. I was just expressing my opinion, saying it was not very meaningful and fair to compare two societies when they have sociologically, politically and economically very deep differences. It's not just a matter of 1000 years, but also a matter of entirely different social classes and production forms. I personally believe, no one should expect to see "more freedom and liberty" in a state/country of the ancient history, than any contemporary Western society, be it America or England or Spain.

inviticus, i certainly am not confusing liberalism and capitalism, but you may be confusing commerce, mercantilism and capitalism. there is merit to what your saying in certain aspects but, for example, 15th century england did not have capitalism, i think your right about my remark on the french's role (i did check out my book), etc. but thanks for putting me in my place....

ratilfar: I guess your confusing two things, America the nation-state and the American Empire. The first could well survive for a long time (many nation states have and do) but Empire's fall and I am afraid that this one is on the decline.

I think you need to stop using your own definative terms, becau...

inviticus, i certainly am not confusing liberalism and capitalism, but you may be confusing commerce, mercantilism and capitalism. there is merit to what your saying in certain aspects but, for example, 15th century england did not have capitalism, i think your right about my remark on the french's role (i did check out my book), etc. but thanks for putting me in my place....

ratilfar: I guess your confusing two things, America the nation-state and the American Empire. The first could well survive for a long time (many nation states have and do) but Empire's fall and I am afraid that this one is on the decline.

I think you need to stop using your own definative terms, because I officially dont know what you saying.
maybe its just me, but do you want to explain what your definition of an american empire vs nation-states?? does american empire refer to america having an embassy (and whatnot) in basically every country, or their ability to 'bully' other (oil producing countries) or something else, and does nation state refer to the internal working of the federal gov or state sovernty? (i basically narrowed it down to those options, let me know what ur talking about though....

Hey you guys sound like Plato in the opening of the "Dialogs"
What a bitch- I mean it, quibbling over semantics and such-
We live in the greatest country on this planet!
It sucks that we have leaders, that have for the first time in our history, gone to war w/out justifiable provocation.(the possible exception being the Spanish American war). But lets give George the benefit of the doubt. We were right to go to war in Afghanistan, the Taliban were responsible for the deaths of 3000 of my fellow citizens (non-combatants as well)
and I'm no Sadam Hussain fan, but we invaded a sovereign nation w/out the proper intelligence info and thats why we are likely to fall like Rome did when the rest of ...

Hey you guys sound like Plato in the opening of the "Dialogs"
What a bitch- I mean it, quibbling over semantics and such-
We live in the greatest country on this planet!
It sucks that we have leaders, that have for the first time in our history, gone to war w/out justifiable provocation.(the possible exception being the Spanish American war). But lets give George the benefit of the doubt. We were right to go to war in Afghanistan, the Taliban were responsible for the deaths of 3000 of my fellow citizens (non-combatants as well)
and I'm no Sadam Hussain fan, but we invaded a sovereign nation w/out the proper intelligence info and thats why we are likely to fall like Rome did when the rest of the world has had enough of our "world police bullshit". (like the goths and vandals and so on-).
But truly- none of us were on capitol hill on 9/11, so if it really is "us or them", well I pick "US". we can be whatever we want- just as true we are free to succeed- or on the downside "fail". Thats what freedom is- a real crapshoot.
I love all my fellow citizens and I'm glad I'm not George.
I don't know that I would have the brass gonads to be strong in this "very":" very" dangerous world like he chose to be.
I would avoid war and corruption at all costs, and that won't save my neighbors from dirty bombs or from suicide bombers or whatever.
No sane man loves war-
Thats why we need a guy like George, ( LOL) and if it leads to the fall of "Rome", at least we fell strong and with the dignity our way of life has given us.
I'm sure we will fall if we don't use our strength to prevent radical fundamentalist thinking to prevail.
Pray for our soldiers, pray for our neighbors in the world and pray we get leadership that is both strong and "wise" in the next election or you may be forced to pray to the east the next time you fall to your knee's. ( no offense intended to my muslim friends and neighbors,) but at least now we have a choice! I love you all and believe we can live in peace-