Separating executive and legislative is not the same as allowing and encouraging stasis. Lots of ways to arrange legislative branch and all of its rules that can allow for action or stasis. Of course many things have changed in the US over the centuries, I don't pretend otherwise and I don't follow the details.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Geyserville '09?
- Thread starter Saina Nieminen
- Start date
Separating executive and legislative is not the same as allowing and encouraging stasis. Lots of ways to arrange legislative branch and all of its rules that can allow for action or stasis. Of course many things have changed in the US over the centuries, I don't pretend otherwise and I don't follow the details.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg: If it is our separation of executive and legislative, allowing and encouraging stasis...
Separating executive and legislative is not the same as allowing and encouraging stasis. Lots of ways to arrange legislative branch and all of its rules that can allow for action or stasis. Of course many things have changed in the US over the centuries, I don't pretend otherwise and I don't follow the details.
But the best way is to choose the executive from the ruling legislative party (and of course allow laws to be passed by a simple majority). This does make it easier for the party that wins an election to get to do what it said it would do. This works OK as long as you have majority outcomes, thus best with two parties, but it has worked for the UK for some time, even when it was a parliamentary monarchy. It, of course, also elected Hitler, so I suppose it has its drawbacks.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Godwin's law? On WD?
This thread is despicable.
This thread is despicable.
We can fix that.originally posted by Rahsaan:
people who think we're stuck with outdated 18th century political infrastructure.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
A new lowGodwin's law? On WD?
This thread is despicable.
As a matter of self-defense, I note that Godwin's Law covers analogies, not mere citations of historical examples. I would have to say something on the order of "saying that the above post is an example of Godwin's Law is an attempt to discourage free discourse on the order of the policies of Hitler and the Nazis" which I haven't actually said and do not actually maintain. I maintain it is an erroneous invocation.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
The electoral college. It was useful when a bunch of citizens put a guy on horseback and sent him to Phildelphia with instructions on who to vote for. It's less useful now.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If the 18th century infrastructure is ...
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
... It, of course, also elected Hitler...
You're letting Hindenburg and his cronies off the hook here.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Cliff:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
... It, of course, also elected Hitler...
You're letting Hindenburg and his cronies off the hook here.
I don't know that it exculpates Hindenburg et. al. to note that the Nazi party did win a plurality in the election. Perhaps someone of more courage would have refused to negotiate. And Hindenberg didn't act even as if he was forced against his will. But still... However, to avoid the taint of Godwin and the debate of who was to blame, we could surely move to other cases in the second third of the 20th century in which plurality parliamentary victories led to the first stage of a fascist government.
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933. But I agree entirely with your larger point that representative government does not necessarily produce stable or desirable outcomes. Look at the U.S. South after the Civil War, or just about anyplace in Europe, apart from France and Britain, in the 1930s.
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933.
Godwin's Law. This thread must end.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933. But I agree entirely with your larger point that representative government does not necessarily produce stable or desirable outcomes. Look at the U.S. South after the Civil War, or just about anyplace in Europe, apart from France and Britain, in the 1930s.
This is, of course, an old argument. I believe its central point--without regard to minor details like historical accuracy--is whether democratic elections can produce dictatorial regimes. I don't really think the answer to this is in doubt.
With regard to our argument, Hindenburg could have refused to call a general election for 1933, of course,though there is really no guarantee that this would have averted some form of parliamentary crisis. And, since Hitler had only 34% of the seats from the prior election, Hindenburg could have refused to appoint him Chancellor at all. And finally, even the election of 1933, aided by the Reichstag fire didn't give Hitler a governing majority (though they did give him increased representation). And he never won a Presidential election. But in the end, the stages to dictatorship were elections and parliamentary maneuvering of a kind that is hardly inimical to how such things worked in England going back into the early 18th century.
There are a lot of villains in this story. Hindenburg is one. But he really is the Peter Lorre character in the Maltese Falcon. Pinning it on him is an alibi for the larger problems of what happens to democracy when it doesn't have the economic and cultural underpinnings that are necessary to it.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933.
Godwin's Law. This thread must end.
As I said, this is an inaccurate invocation of the law, which is not intended to get rid of debate about Hitler, just to discourage analogies to Hitler and Nazis, since those analogies are always logically silly and rhetorically excessive.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933. But I agree entirely with your larger point that representative government does not necessarily produce stable or desirable outcomes. Look at the U.S. South after the Civil War, or just about anyplace in Europe, apart from France and Britain, in the 1930s.
This is, of course, an old argument. I believe its central point--without regard to minor details like historical accuracy--is whether democratic elections can produce dictatorial regimes. I don't really think the answer to this is in doubt.
With regard to our argument, Hindenburg could have refused to call a general election for 1933, of course,though there is really no guarantee that this would have averted some form of parliamentary crisis. And, since Hitler had only 34% of the seats from the prior election, Hindenburg could have refused to appoint him Chancellor at all. And finally, even the election of 1933, aided by the Reichstag fire didn't give Hitler a governing majority (though they did give him increased representation). And he never won a Presidential election. But in the end, the stages to dictatorship were elections and parliamentary maneuvering of a kind that is hardly inimical to how such things worked in England going back into the early 18th century.
There are a lot of villains in this story. Hindenburg is one. But he really is the Peter Lorre character in the Maltese Falcon. Pinning it on him is an alibi for the larger problems of what happens to democracy when it doesn't have the economic and cultural underpinnings that are necessary to it.
I was merely quibbling with your use of the word "produce" and making the pedantic point that Hitler didn't actually get elected. Can dictatorships follow democracies? Of course they can. I don't think it is possible to have a fascist takeover without first having had a reasonably democratic government first.
Sorry Brad.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
A new lowGodwin's law? On WD?
This thread is despicable.
As a matter of self-defense, I note that Godwin's Law covers analogies, not mere citations of historical examples. I would have to say something on the order of "saying that the above post is an example of Godwin's Law is an attempt to discourage free discourse on the order of the policies of Hitler and the Nazis" which I haven't actually said and do not actually maintain. I maintain it is an erroneous invocation.
Loading…
xkcd.com
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933.
Godwin's Law. This thread must end.
As I said, this is an inaccurate invocation of the law, which is not intended to get rid of debate about Hitler, just to discourage analogies to Hitler and Nazis, since those analogies are always logically silly and rhetorically excessive.
All would be well advised to read the (surprisingly) informative Wikipedia page on Godwin's Law. Contrary to popular usage, it was never intended by its creator to signify an end to discussion, but rather was an empirical observation about online discussions. In any other forum, I'd just let this slide, but among you gathered pedants I feel compelled to offer up a wee corrective.
Mark Lipton
originally posted by MLipton:
Prescription vs. Descriptionoriginally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933.
Godwin's Law. This thread must end.
As I said, this is an inaccurate invocation of the law, which is not intended to get rid of debate about Hitler, just to discourage analogies to Hitler and Nazis, since those analogies are always logically silly and rhetorically excessive.
All would be well advised to read the (surprisingly) informative Wikipedia page on Godwin's Law. Contrary to popular usage, it was never intended by its creator to signify an end to discussion, but rather was an empirical observation about online discussions. In any other forum, I'd just let this slide, but among you gathered pedants I feel compelled to offer up a wee corrective.
Mark Lipton
Disorder Law- The inevitability of thread drift by pedants.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by MLipton:
Prescription vs. Descriptionoriginally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Cliff:
It exculpates Hindenburg because the Nazis' electoral fortunes were declining when he named Hitler Chancellor. The Weimar system was a mess, to be sure, but it did not require Hitler's appointment in 1933.
Godwin's Law. This thread must end.
As I said, this is an inaccurate invocation of the law, which is not intended to get rid of debate about Hitler, just to discourage analogies to Hitler and Nazis, since those analogies are always logically silly and rhetorically excessive.
All would be well advised to read the (surprisingly) informative Wikipedia page on Godwin's Law. Contrary to popular usage, it was never intended by its creator to signify an end to discussion, but rather was an empirical observation about online discussions. In any other forum, I'd just let this slide, but among you gathered pedants I feel compelled to offer up a wee corrective.
Mark Lipton
I think the Wiki articled makes clear that the observation always entailed a judgment about the value of the analogy. And certainly, the corollaries that follow do. But perhaps both Sharon and Brad should have invoked the still inappropriate but properly judgmental term, reductio ad hitlerum.
If we can keep this silliness on the proper and improper uses of Godwin's law going, perhaps we can create a thread drift worth of the naming of a new law.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If we can keep this silliness on the proper and improper uses of Godwin's law going, perhaps we can create a thread drift worth of the naming of a new law.
See Brad's post above.
Mark Lipton
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I think the Wiki articled makes clear that the observation always entailed a judgment about the value of the analogy. [...]
I got just the opposite, viz., that the law entails no judgment: it "only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it's appropriate or not."
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I think the Wiki articled makes clear that the observation always entailed a judgment about the value of the analogy. [...]
I got just the opposite, viz., that the law entails no judgment: it "only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it's appropriate or not."
I would argue that the very concept, and precisely as described here, is a judgmental one. The analogy appears inevitably for all the reasons it is a bad one.I recognize, however, that, in saying this, I am begging the question and making an unfalsibiable assertion. So I quote Godwin, from farther down, as a back up:
"Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written