Is the USA uncivilised?

[Blind groper]

Just for the record.
I do not need other people defending me against Seth. I do not take offense when he uses obscenities or insults. I do think it is kind of pathetic, but I do not take offense. I am a firm believer in the principle that you cannot be insulted against your will, and nothing Seth (or anyone else) says can insult me unless I agree to be insulted.

On the other hand, I do understand that some Americans think my question (Is the USA uncivilised?) is an insult, and take umbrage. I am sorry they feel that way, since the question is genuine, and it would be better if they simply debated the idea without frothing at the mouth.

In my humble opinion, going to war without a damn good reason is uncivilised. It is getting back to barbarian times, when tribes attacked other tribes to steal stuff. The first Gulf War could be justified in that the USA was defending Kuwait. However, the second Gulf War was utterly unjustified and unjustifiable. I am sure the Americans on this forum do realise that at some level of their being.

In the same way, the war on Afghanistan was waged for selfish political reasons. It was not a war against Al Qaeda, who just moved to Pakistan, to allow the poor Afghani people take the brunt of Dubyas troops.

A much better alternative existed, which was done in parallel, which was to increase intelligence efforts, to find out what Al Qaeda was doing, and take more targeted, surgical action against them. This approach has killed bin Laden, and crippled their organisation. However, the war in Afghanistan was utterly and totally unnecessary, and unjustified. This kind of attack is characteristic of a barbaric and uncivilised government.

[pErvinalia]

They should have invaded Saudi Arabia [/expert foreign policy analysis]

[Jason]

Just for the record.
I do not need other people defending me against Seth.

I'm not defending you. I am trying to give Seth a little advice.

For all the good it will do.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I'm not particularly defending him either. I just like pointing out when Seth is wrong.

[Jason]

Don't forget the US economy is made up, in large part, by the military-industrial complex. They have to go to war. Things were easier, and better, for them when the cold war was still chilly, but now they have to go picking fights. It's the nature of the beast.

If there is at least some truth to that, then that adds weight to BG's argument, at least in so far as the US government and economic system. The zeitgeist of civilisation has moved beyond naked power and self interest, one hopes...

Perhaps, as Audley was implying, not the people themselves...

Although ultimately, a people must take some responsibility for the actions of their government.

I agree. People are ultimately responsible for their governments. This is true in theory and practice as evidenced by the development of successful systems of governance, not by the previous governments, but by the people. In revolts, rebellions, and change from within following the public will. Democracy is the prime and most obvious example. Representative democracy is a half-step backwards, but necessary due to population constraints. The US is the largest representative democracy of all time. It remains to be seen if it will outlast the great direct democracies of history. Communism, in all its forms, has all but failed. Monarchy is little more than a spectacle for the people of a representative democracy, most notably, the UK.

But I digress.. I think history has proven that the people are ultimately responsible for their government is almost an axiom.

[JimC]

But I digress.. I think history has proven that the people are ultimately responsible for their government is almost an axiom.

In an ideal world, yes. However, in large, modern nations, governments, their bureaucracies, and the economic and military systems develop a force and inertia which makes it hard to people to make a real difference, particularly a timely difference. You may have to wait 4 years to vote a government out, and if the opposition are pathetic fools that may not happen, even if the incumbent is a knave...

So, if it is very difficult for a people to change the direction of a government, then their degree of responsibility is diminished...

(add to that the apathy of many, and the distraction of bread and circuses, and the disconnect between populace and the trajectory of a nation grows...)

[Jason]

Then the people need to side with the dominant force and make their will known. Corporations become your representatives and they buy your votes with products.

But does all this, if there is any truth to it, make the US any less of a civilised state? I don't think so. These are not the metrics of civilisation. At least, not as I was taught. Cilivisation status is not subject to moral judgment.

[JimC]

Then the people need to side with the dominant force and make their will known. Corporations become your representatives and they buy your votes with products.

But does all this, if there is any truth to it, make the US any less of a civilised state? I don't think so. These are not the metrics of civilisation. At least, not as I was taught. Cilivisation status is not subject to moral judgment.

The issue of people being relatively powerless in many circumstances to alter the trajectory of their nation is by no means unique to the US, it seems to be a phenomena of the modern, large nation state; and there are times and places where "people power" of one kind or another will make a real impact - I'm not advocating despairing fatalism, it's always worth having a go...

Not sure it really has a direct connection to "the metrics of civilisation" - I was digressing to respond to the issue of people's responsibility for their government's actions...

[Jason]

That's what I think too. It's really a systemic problem of a large state of any kind.

No need to despair though, it should last long enough until we're all dead.

[JimC]

That's what I think too. It's really a systemic problem of a large state of any kind.

No need to despair though, it should last long enough until we're all dead.

[Warren Dew]

I agree. People are ultimately responsible for their governments. This is true in theory and practice as evidenced by the development of successful systems of governance, not by the previous governments, but by the people. In revolts, rebellions, and change from within following the public will. Democracy is the prime and most obvious example. Representative democracy is a half-step backwards, but necessary due to population constraints. The US is the largest representative democracy of all time. It remains to be seen if it will outlast the great direct democracies of history. Communism, in all its forms, has all but failed. Monarchy is little more than a spectacle for the people of a representative democracy, most notably, the UK.

"Direct democracies of history"? You mean like slaveholding Athens?

[pErvinalia]

Don't forget the US economy is made up, in large part, by the military-industrial complex. They have to go to war. Things were easier, and better, for them when the cold war was still chilly, but now they have to go picking fights. It's the nature of the beast.

If there is at least some truth to that, then that adds weight to BG's argument, at least in so far as the US government and economic system. The zeitgeist of civilisation has moved beyond naked power and self interest, one hopes...

Perhaps, as Audley was implying, not the people themselves...

Although ultimately, a people must take some responsibility for the actions of their government.

I agree. People are ultimately responsible for their governments. This is true in theory and practice as evidenced by the development of successful systems of governance, not by the previous governments, but by the people. In revolts, rebellions, and change from within following the public will. Democracy is the prime and most obvious example. Representative democracy is a half-step backwards, but necessary due to population constraints. The US is the largest representative democracy of all time. It remains to be seen if it will outlast the great direct democracies of history. Communism, in all its forms, has all but failed. Monarchy is little more than a spectacle for the people of a representative democracy, most notably, the UK.

But I digress.. I think history has proven that the people are ultimately responsible for their government is almost an axiom.

True, but progress comes in steps/bursts. It's hard to hold people 'X' specifically responsible for government 'Y' at any particular point in time. It's more of an averaged out thing.

[pErvinalia]

Then the people need to side with the dominant force and make their will known. Corporations become your representatives and they buy your votes with products.

But does all this, if there is any truth to it, make the US any less of a civilised state? I don't think so. These are not the metrics of civilisation. At least, not as I was taught. Cilivisation status is not subject to moral judgment.

The issue of people being relatively powerless in many circumstances to alter the trajectory of their nation is by no means unique to the US, it seems to be a phenomena of the modern, large nation state; and there are times and places where "people power" of one kind or another will make a real impact - I'm not advocating despairing fatalism, it's always worth having a go...

My view is that the modern corporatised "democracies" are actually a more insidious form of population control/coercion than outright communism. It's insidious because it's not out in the open and people really don't realise how much they are being influenced to buy brands and conform to certain behaviours. The advertising industry and corporate media these days dwarfs any form of propaganda effort that the Soviets every came up with, as today it is pervasive and it is focussed grouped to within an inch of it's life. Edward Bernays would be staggered to know what became of his work in the late 21st century and onwards.

[Blind groper]

I see civilisation as a progress. It is not an absolute measure, but rather a relative measure of how far individuals or natons have moved towards the goal of humane behaviour.

We can see this best by looking at the past. Even 100 years ago, there were many things within western society that are almost unthinkable today. WWI began 99 years ago, as the result of five great empires all wanting to grow through military conquest. With the possible exception of Israel, that attitude is not acceptable today. Monarchies were strong back then. Today, they are no more than tourist attractions. Religiosity has been falling throughout most of the western world, as those nations move towards a more humane and civilised way of life. Blasphemy can no longer, in most places, be labelled a crime, with designated punishment.

If we look further back, we see torture in use to elicit confessions, we see the death penalty widely used, slavery in many of its dreadful forms, body mutilation as punishments, and so on.

Many nations today are still uncivilised by those standards. Sharia law which permits body mutilations, like cutting off a thief's hand, is a form of lack of civilisation. In the western world, imprisonment is the standard punishment (and it is difficult to think of practical alternatives). Such imprisonment becomes uncivilised in the relative sense when it is cruel. Such as using small and confining cells, or crowding the prisons. The death penalty remains a mark of relative lack of civilised behaviour.

Laws and practices by authorities that lead to human misery and death are also uncivilised. This is why the American second amendment is uncivilised. But a lack of availability of good medical care to all would be equally another mark of lack of civilisation, by today's standards.

We can see high levels of civilised behaviour and civilised laws in Scandinavian nations, where the laws protect the people rather than put them at risk, and where medical care is readily available.

So again, I ask. Is the USA uncivilised?

[pErvinalia]

And I say again, No, because the cut-off between civilised and uncivilised is subjective and not well defined. It's better to talk in terms of less or more civilised. I happen to think that many of the red states in the US are far less civilised than the rest of the developed world. The Blue states, however, are just as civilised (and in some cases more civilised) than elsewhere. And as I said, you have to remember that the US is a strong republic of STATES. The federal government only has limited power. The US isn't like New Zealand or Canada or the UK. Australia is a federal republic, but the federal government has much more power here relative to the states, than in the US.