View Full Version : Not Again...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-08-2009, 23:34
First English link (http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-video-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm) I could find (courtesy of Paradox forums, thanks). I couldn't find this in Die Welt (after an admittedly brief scan), so I hope it's fake. But somehow, I doubt it.
Really? Please. No. There is only one bright side to this - the hope that eventually they'll push a little too far and get the people really riled up. More personal involvement in politics, a return to basic freedoms, a real democracy.
Then again, this is Germany. :shame:
If the Constitutional Court doesn't strike this down, I'm doing something. I'll join a party (I'd even consider making my own if I could ever get the free time), I'll write letters, whatever, I don't care, but this cannot stand. It is something small, yes - but it is the last straw on the camel's back.
Wow... uh that really sucks for gamers
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-08-2009, 23:41
Chances are it won't get passed - as you could see with the paintball thing, we occasionally have ridiculous proposals that amount to nothing, especially at this time of year. The problem is that it doesn't seem like the normal ones, since there are sixteen Ministers of the Interior agreeing to it.
InsaneApache
06-09-2009, 00:01
Quite right to. You can't be trusted. :o)
Hooahguy
06-09-2009, 00:03
thats pretty aggravating...
but as EMFM said, i doubt it would be passed.
Vladimir
06-09-2009, 00:22
Wow. This isn't more guilt over that WW II thing is it? Get over it people (not anyone here, of course).
Rhyfelwyr
06-09-2009, 00:35
All violent video games is a bit vague... does it include things like the TW series, or is it only for more personal violence?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-09-2009, 00:45
All violent video games is a bit vague... does it include things like the TW series, or is it only for more personal violence?
"where the main part is to realistically play the killing of people or other cruel or unhuman acts of violence against humans or manlike characters."
That potentially includes Total War.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-09-2009, 00:48
Well, if you play the HRE in TW you can conquer the world as Germany, so...
Yeah, this is crazy.
Hopefully you can still download Mount & Blade.
Crazed Rabbit
06-09-2009, 01:27
You mean I won't be able to play this game (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/hot_new_video_game_consists) (if I lived in Germany)?
Seriously, in Washington (state) a judge ruled a law prohibiting games that involved shooting police was unconstitutional, noting that a game may be set in a despotic future where the police are enforcers of tyranny, and saying it violated freedom of expression. Ah, bill of rights, how I cherish thee.
This is simply stupid.
CR
If I recall, a lot of violent games with "gibbing" are edited, take for example TF2. If you explode, bits of you don't fly around, machine parts and confetti does.
Also Nazi Germany is prohibited in Historical games, like HoI2.
Marshal Murat
06-09-2009, 02:15
"where the main part is to realistically play the killing of people or other cruel or unhuman acts of violence against humans or manlike characters."
So we can still kill octopi, rabbits, mice, rats, dogs, cats, pigeons, and all other non "manlike characters".
What if you're playing as a robot/human committing violence? What if you're a female robot?
So we can still kill octopi, rabbits, mice, rats, dogs, cats, pigeons, and all other non "manlike characters".
What if you're playing as a robot/human committing violence? What if you're a female robot?
Aliens aren't human, that works. What if you order a soldier to kill a human? You're not killing him, just ordering the soldier to.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-09-2009, 02:36
Aliens aren't human, that works. What if you order a soldier to kill a human? You're not killing him, just ordering the soldier to.
Human-like aliens, like Klingon, may be banned I think.
Marshal Murat
06-09-2009, 02:39
But when does an alien become "human-like"?
Hooahguy
06-09-2009, 02:50
zombies?
You need to tell that German minister something.
They all had Guns! They all ate food! They all watched violet movies! They all watched porn! They all voted for you!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-09-2009, 03:25
You need to tell that German minister something.
They all had Guns! They all ate food! They all watched violet movies! They all watched porn! They all voted for you!
I'm considering sending sixteen copies of a rather angry letter to the ministers in question.
Papewaio
06-09-2009, 06:15
Maybe not the best tactic to prove their dubious point...
rasoforos
06-09-2009, 07:28
http://ps2.ign.com/objects/545/545789.html
Plenty of great games still available for our German friends to play. Don't worry EMFM, you will adapt ;)
CountArach
06-09-2009, 07:41
I'm considering sending sixteen copies of a rather angry letter to the ministers in question.
Do it - this proposal is utterly ridiculous and completely moronic. If you don't let the government know what you think they will just continue to ignore you (Chances are they will ignore you anyway, but if enough people get together they can be stopped). Consider sending letters to the editor of local newspapers as well - that helps to get public riled up.
seireikhaan
06-09-2009, 07:45
Utterly ridiculous proposal. Those ministers don't deserve their jobs.
Furunculus
06-09-2009, 09:48
sucks. :(
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-09-2009, 21:05
http://ps2.ign.com/objects/545/545789.html
Plenty of great games still available for our German friends to play. Don't worry EMFM, you will adapt ;)
Do you think I buy my games in Germany anyway? ;)
I am therefore I can
Unfortunately that seems to be the attitude of our politicians.
Utterly ridiculous proposal. Those ministers don't deserve their jobs.
Quite. I'd already decided that the main parties in Germany probably don't deserve my vote. A thing like this just confirms it.
Do it - this proposal is utterly ridiculous and completely moronic. If you don't let the government know what you think they will just continue to ignore you (Chances are they will ignore you anyway, but if enough people get together they can be stopped). Consider sending letters to the editor of local newspapers as well - that helps to get public riled up.
I'm drafting the letters right now (I'll post a copy here when I'm done if I can) and I am going to try to send letters to some local newspapers as well (though obviously not the same letter).
This seems really stupid from an economical stance. From the OP article:
German ministers have today agreed to ban the production and distribution of all violent video games, with the law only having to go through parliament in the next few weeks.
production - lost jobs and business tax revenue.
distribution - lost sales tax, and pointless when combined with the EU and digital distribution.
How does Germany handle games with Nazis being downloaded via Steam?
Kadagar_AV
06-09-2009, 23:51
"where the main part is to realistically play the killing of people or other cruel or unhuman acts of violence against humans or manlike characters."
Thank GOD (just a saying) that thet loophole is so big...
Main part would translate to < 50%
Now... I cant think of a game where you spend more than 50% of the time killing stuff.
Run around waiting for stuff to be killed, sure...
World of Warcract, I spend more time running around than killing...
Counter Strike, I spend more time running around than killing.
Total War, I spend more time with the stupid "AI" than killing. On a sidenote, I think CA should be held up in court for the reference of AI in correspondance to their games.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-10-2009, 00:52
Thank GOD (just a saying) that thet loophole is so big...
Loophole means it will be exploited. By the politicians in question.
Main part would translate to < 50%
Only according to your arbitrary definition. Really it means whatever the drafted legislation in question will say it is.
Louis VI the Fat
06-10-2009, 13:35
Militarism has been on a steady rise in the past decade.
I, for one, applaud Germany's ongoing quest to turn the tide. Guns, murder, slaughter are not cartoon violence, but a real and existing threat to society.
As with smoking or alcohol, the excesses and abuse can be greatly reduced by banning a positive portrayal of these dangerous goods. Gun culture can be countered as much as alcohol culture.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-10-2009, 21:30
I concur with Louis, and would like to propose additionally the immediate ban of all games portraying drugs and alcohol in any way whatsoever. I look forward to the immediate banning of Victoria: Revolutions and Harvest Moon.
Kadagar_AV
06-11-2009, 01:15
Remember Battlefield: Vietnam?
I got my account blocked when I on the forums suggested that the US troops should look a bit younger than 30, like, something like the five 16 year olds who got killed...
I also suggested the game should show some blood when people got shot, and that when you ran into a village you would see children crying and women being raped.
Obviosly my ideas were not popular.
It sickens me when games portray war as something glorious... On the other hand, I dont believe in a ban against violence.
PLEASE do show violence, but do it in a realistic way.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-11-2009, 01:54
PLEASE do show violence, but do it in a realistic way.
Super Mario and Super Smash Brothers are out then, I presume.
LittleGrizzly
06-11-2009, 03:02
Think of all the flattened mushrooms!
I kind of agree with Kadagar i don't think it would be terrible if they showed war to be fairly brutal and horrible... i can understand slight problems with glorifying violence..
Banning violent games is not going to help anything... and there are other good targets if there are... if a game is very sick then i don't mind it being banned (that rape game comes to mind....) but i don't see why it should be any more critically looked at than movies or TV...
Aemilius Paulus
06-11-2009, 04:34
I sense more Germans will get on certain sites we are not supposed to mention and illegally obtain those games... No wonder France is not creating a similar law. The lawmakers may have a grain of truth in their proposal, as I cannot imagine the violence being actually beneficial, especially if the smaller children are playing it, which they will, as parents do not check the video games their children buy. Mostly.
However, as Louis suggested sometime earlier, alcohol should be banned as well. Much more harmful. But we all know the problem, as booze is too deeply rooted, especially beer, in Germany. So the lawmakers go after a weak, under-represented in lobbies, issue. However, soon, this will change. Soon, the 20-year-olds will grow up, as will the teens, and both grew up playing video games. Then the politicians will have to contend with them.
Even if the law is passed, it will fail. I do recall other kids saying that in the 90s video game sin Germany would feature various alternatives when some video-game character got shot. Such as convulsing and then dissipating. The article noted that too. This ban will not live.
Piracy will rise, and the game developers will attempt to lobby. Their lobby is unsubstantial however. Despite this, as I said, gamers will grow up, and video games will become inseparable part of out society. Then the politicians will be more circumspect to not altercate with the gamers, just as politicians tread more carefully along alcohol and gun right.
Although, this is Germany, not US. Lobbies are not as influential in Germany as I understand. And guns are controlled. But US is the one with the gun culture. Who knows? The politicians are of advanced age, and they know not of the joys of video games. Most of their constituents are mostly strangers to digital gaming as well. When this changes, more lax laws are expected.
Prodigal
06-11-2009, 10:59
But when does an alien become "human-like"?
Based on most film certification blood colour has alot to do with it, red = human = bad. Blue, green etc. = alien = good. Brown could be bad too if its in black & white, (see Psycho).
Ok, yes, this is rediculous, it's way too vague, they could ban the sims because they can die in a fire and could somehow claim that's the point of the game or something.
Import bans were discussed before, if the distribution is prohibited, maybe the customs will sort imported games out, Steam just does what our government wants anyway as we only get censored versions for download here. And since we got providers prohibiting access to child pornography, well, who knows...
Maybe I should finally start looking into this pirate bay thing...
Not like it's enacted yet, I still hope it won't get though congress because it shouldn't.
Louis VI the Fat
06-11-2009, 14:16
Not like it's enacted yet, I still hope it won't get though congress because it shouldn't.Congress? Gah!
An Americanism! Europeans, basking as we do in the glory of nearby Britain, ought to refer in English to our parliaments as 'parliament'.
Alternatively, one can leave it untranslated, to respect the different powers that assemblies in different countries have. Bundestag, or Bundesrat will do.
Having said that, back to more important matters: how does one burn Sims? Can I turn my neighbours into Protestants and then burn them at the stake for heresy? Do they scream? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif
Property taxes cause violence! Ban them! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)
The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb) in Bath Township (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Township,_Michigan), Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan), USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_stages) (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Consolidated_School). Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder) in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_board) member Andrew Kehoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe), who was upset by a -> property tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax) <- that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreclosure) proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack.
Congress? Gah!
An Americanism! Europeans, basking as we do in the glory of nearby Britain, ought to refer in English to our parliaments as 'parliament'.
Alternatively, one can leave it untranslated, to respect the different powers that assemblies in different countries have. Bundestag, or Bundesrat will do.
Having said that, back to more important matters: how does one burn Sims? Can I turn my neighbours into Protestants and then burn them at the stake for heresy? Do they scream? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif
I adapt things sometimes without thinking too much, I think EMFM said congress so I just adapted his use of the word. So much about the workings of a lazy brain....
Sims burn when their oven is set on fire because they can't cook and they stay around the fire for too long, I think you can help them a bit by telling them to go closer, alternatively you can wall them in without doors or let them go swimming, then remove the ladder, one of the more well-known methods. It's obviously a killer game that does not belong in the hands of little girls.
I just came across another (CDU) politician who now talks about what i mentioned earlier, using those child pornography internet blockage laws to block homepages about "killer games"...
The article (http://www.computerbase.de/news/wirtschaft/recht_gesetz/2009/juni/cdu-politiker_internetsperren_killerspiele/) is in german though, just like the good news about an open letter from an (SPD) politician who says this whole discussion is a completely baseless farce(not exactly his words) and activism and that gamers should not be criminalized like this. Oh, yes, it's here (http://www.demonews.de/kurznachrichten/index.php?shortnews=20844) for the german-speaking crowd.
Good to know that he says there are politicians in all parties who think this is rather baseless activism which it really is.
My guess is some politicians underestimated the spread of computer gaming and thought it's a nice minority of people who can be blamed for some school shootings. Turns out they were/are wrong so let's hope most of the members of our congregation of politicans who decide about introducing such a law see it that way as well.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-11-2009, 21:01
I adapt things sometimes without thinking too much, I think EMFM said congress so I just adapted his use of the word. So much about the workings of a lazy brain....
I didn't mention it, but the article might have.
KukriKhan
06-11-2009, 21:13
Meanwhile, French Courts have gone the other way (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6478542.ece), and declared unfettered internet access a 'basic human right'.
Samurai Waki
06-13-2009, 09:12
If this ban is passed, I do sense that there will be a massive surge in Piracy... I wonder if the German government forgot that most Germans are bi-lingual?
Are they?
Overall my impression is that the knowledge of foreign languages among Germans isn't all that great though it probably gets better with the younger generations.
Aemilius Paulus
06-13-2009, 17:18
If this ban is passed, I do sense that there will be a massive surge in Piracy...
I know, right? That is what I said too. If Germany does go with this, I also sense they may attempt to pull off a Sarkozy and strike down piracy with hardline laws.
So piracy is a factor in school shootings? Because that is the justification they use, that school shooters own video games and thus the games must be a cause for these horrible acts....
Louis VI the Fat
06-16-2009, 13:47
Meanwhile, French Courts have gone the other way (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6478542.ece), and declared unfettered internet access a 'basic human right'.Curse the République and her pre-occupation with human rights as the last word in everything!
See, nuisances like these are why I no longer want to install a Sixth Republic. I now want to forge myself a Third Empire, that I can execute my grand designs properly. The motto will be: Liberté, Égalité, Louisité.
Meneldil
06-16-2009, 13:59
Can you seriously not play as Nazi Germany with the german edition of HoI2 ?
Kadagar_AV
06-16-2009, 15:05
I am a bit torn...
On one hand, videogames should be videogames..
On the other hand, violence should not be glorious, it should porttray.. well... violence.
My problem is: I do believe in freedom over state laws....
So I will budge with "let it be".
In my perfect world (where I am dictator) violence should be allowed, but only if they show the REAL violence. Not the "shoot a guy in the head and he respawns in 30 sec"- type of violence.
Now for the REAL question....
The nutters who commit crime after having played _insert_game_here_..
How many of them would have done so regardless?
Before that question is answered, I see no reason to discuss this.
If a ban on violence can save a couple of school shootings or whatever, then I am all for it. If those same school shootings would have happened regardless of games, then why ban it?
From my point of view, science has let us down on this issue.
From my point of view, science has let us down on this issue.
The SPD guy I linked to somewhere before actually points out that studies and experts so far say that computer games are not a cause for school shootings, but we wouldn't let that get into the way of an easy ban that let's some politicians act like they actually did something about the issue, would we?
CountArach
06-17-2009, 09:11
Can you seriously not play as Nazi Germany with the german edition of HoI2 ?
I believe the only difference is that Nazi Germany has the varioous leader portraits removed. Germany is still playable - its just that they do not have the Nazi flag in any of the languages of the game. Of course, that doesn't stop people from modding them in.
This is the gaming prohibition of the 30ies. Mobsters will be replaced with TPB nerds and money will flow to piracy institutions instead of goverment taxes.
Don't worry, even if the law gets passed, which I doubt, it won't work and it will be reversed sooner or later.
Gamers won't stop playing games just because the goverment says so. It's like that.
KukriKhan
06-17-2009, 14:15
I am a bit torn...
On one hand, videogames should be videogames..
On the other hand, violence should not be glorious, it should porttray.. well... violence.
My problem is: I do believe in freedom over state laws....
So I will budge with "let it be".
In my perfect world (where I am dictator) violence should be allowed, but only if they show the REAL violence. Not the "shoot a guy in the head and he respawns in 30 sec"- type of violence.
Now for the REAL question....
The nutters who commit crime after having played _insert_game_here_..
How many of them would have done so regardless?
Before that question is answered, I see no reason to discuss this.
If a ban on violence can save a couple of school shootings or whatever, then I am all for it. If those same school shootings would have happened regardless of games, then why ban it?
From my point of view, science has let us down on this issue.
Hold on...
I (gulp)
agree
with
Kadagar_AV.
Truly, pigs shall fly, and the end is nigh. :)
Kadagar_AV
06-17-2009, 15:20
I'm dictator in your perfect world too?
;)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-17-2009, 20:52
I am a bit torn...
On one hand, videogames should be videogames..
On the other hand, violence should not be glorious, it should porttray.. well... violence.
Who are you to say how an artist should present his work?
KukriKhan
06-18-2009, 14:18
I'm dictator in your perfect world too?
;)
No, I am. But the concept is the same. :)
A benevolent dictatorship is the most effective, efficient type of gov't, IMO. Trouble is: I only trust myself in that position, and haven't worked out a good succession plan yet.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-19-2009, 00:40
No, I am. But the concept is the same. :)
A benevolent dictatorship is the most effective, efficient type of gov't, IMO. Trouble is: I only trust myself in that position, and haven't worked out a good succession plan yet.
Kukri for King of the World!
I agree with the principle, but then so did Aristotle and I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
CountArach
06-19-2009, 00:59
No, I am. But the concept is the same. :)
A benevolent dictatorship is the most effective, efficient type of gov't, IMO. Trouble is: I only trust myself in that position, and haven't worked out a good succession plan yet.
I would rather an ineffective Democracy to a benevolent Dictatorship. At least then I have the illusion of some sort of freedom.
I would rather an ineffective Democracy to a benevolent Dictatorship. At least then I have the illusion of some sort of freedom.
You can have freedom under a dictatorship, or at least under a monarchy, which is almost the same anyway if it's really benevolent.
Meneldil
06-19-2009, 18:03
It's not. Most European monarchs have little/no political power. They are monarchs of democratic countries.
It's not. Most European monarchs have little/no political power. They are monarchs of democratic countries.
Those aren't really monarchies precisely because the monarchs aren't in power.
Lord Winter
06-19-2009, 20:40
You can have freedom under a dictatorship, or at least under a monarchy, which is almost the same anyway if it's really benevolent.
And we can always hope for a democratic leader as effective as an enlightened absolutist. There's nothing about monarchy that means only the competent will rule. All it means is that when a good leader comes to power he rules longer then he would in a democracy. Sadly, the same applies to bad rulers as well.
CountArach
06-19-2009, 23:01
And we can always hope for a democratic leader as effective as an enlightened absolutist. There's nothing about monarchy that means only the competent will rule. All it means is that when a good leader comes to power he rules longer then he would in a democracy. Sadly, the same applies to bad rulers as well.
Actually in a Democracy without term limits (Which is to say most Western Democracies) a good ruler can keep on ruling for as long as he remains a good ruler and wishes to keep the job.
And we can always hope for a democratic leader as effective as an enlightened absolutist. There's nothing about monarchy that means only the competent will rule. All it means is that when a good leader comes to power he rules longer then he would in a democracy. Sadly, the same applies to bad rulers as well.
nd we can always have a good monarch who raises his kids well or a good dictator who makes a wise choice as to who shall be his successor. There is nothing about democracy that means there will be a competent candidate at all. All it means is that a bunch of easily influencable people will vote on who promises them the most.
CountArach
06-20-2009, 10:51
nd we can always have a good monarch who raises his kids well or a good dictator who makes a wise choice as to who shall be his successor. There is nothing about democracy that means there will be a competent candidate at all. All it means is that a bunch of easily influencable people will vote on who promises them the most.
But the difference is under a Democracy if I do not believe there is a good candidate - I can run for the purposes of changing that. If people are happy with the competence of the candidates they have then I won't be elected - the point then becomes that my view of competency may not be shared by everyone. Thus the majority wins out.
But the difference is under a Democracy if I do not believe there is a good candidate - I can run for the purposes of changing that. If people are happy with the competence of the candidates they have then I won't be elected - the point then becomes that my view of competency may not be shared by everyone. Thus the majority wins out.
Originally we were talking about the freedom, this democracy where I live just made another step towards curbing my freedomsby censoring access to childporn on the internet, the majority even seems to support this and there is at least one guy who wants to exploit it by extending the censorship to websites for "killergames" now that we have our first internet censorship law...
Now maybe my view of freedom is not shared by everyone and maybe I'll have to accept running around in shackles in a prison as freedom some day because the majority will think that's the best form of freedom. ~:rolleyes:
CountArach
06-20-2009, 12:17
Originally we were talking about the freedom, this democracy where I live just made another step towards curbing my freedomsby censoring access to childporn on the internet, the majority even seems to support this and there is at least one guy who wants to exploit it by extending the censorship to websites for "killergames" now that we have our first internet censorship law...
Now maybe my view of freedom is not shared by everyone and maybe I'll have to accept running around in shackles in a prison as freedom some day because the majority will think that's the best form of freedom. ~:rolleyes:
Which is why freedom should have protection against a 'tyranny of the majority' in any real Democracy. That is why the court system and a bill of rights are supposed to exist (Still no Bill of Rights here... *mumble* *mumble*).
Which is why freedom should have protection against a 'tyranny of the majority' in any real Democracy. That is why the court system and a bill of rights are supposed to exist (Still no Bill of Rights here... *mumble* *mumble*).
I'm talking about the fact that the majority has a tendency not to mind any curbing of their own freedom as long as they have their daily dose of talkshows or whatever entertainment they prefer.
If you had a benevolent dictator, he might just come up with a bill of rights. :laugh4:
Which is why freedom should have protection against a 'tyranny of the majority' in any real Democracy. That is why the court system and a bill of rights are supposed to exist (Still no Bill of Rights here... *mumble* *mumble*).
We don't need a bill of rights. Our current system mightn't be perfect, but it's pretty bloody good. There is no point of change for the sake of change. Why risk messing up a system that already works well? In what way do you feel that your freedom is threatened?
Anywho, in a democracy, if we get a good leading party we keep re-electing them and if we get a bunch of tossers we shaft them at the next election. If enough people don't like the current system it is reletively simple to change it, well, there's always the red tape and :daisy: to get through but compared to any form of dictatorship it is rather simple.
Lord Winter
06-21-2009, 06:53
nd we can always have a good monarch who raises his kids well or a good dictator who makes a wise choice as to who shall be his successor. There is nothing about democracy that means there will be a competent candidate at all. All it means is that a bunch of easily influencable people will vote on who promises them the most.
Except history shows that all monarchies will eventually have a weak ruler and when that happens the whole country goes down. Even the "good" ones may pull the country down in the longterm. For example, France. You have Louis XIV, who's egotism plunged France into debt. As time went by in the 18th century the situation kept worsening until it the whole country crashed down with Louis XVI and the French Revolution.
Alternatively there is the option of a constitutional republic. Like Churchill said we don't chose democracy because its the best, we chose it because all the other options are worse.
CountArach
06-21-2009, 09:03
We don't need a bill of rights. Our current system mightn't be perfect, but it's pretty bloody good. There is no point of change for the sake of change. Why risk messing up a system that already works well? In what way do you feel that your freedom is threatened?
My rights aren't at risk - I am a part of the white, wealthy majority. I am not concerned for my rights - It is the rights of other people that I am concerned for, whic have no constitutional protection. We are only protected as long as at least one major party in parliament is willing to stand up for us or it is covered under Common Law. Here is one educated opinion on the matter of a Bill of Rights:
"The common law system, supplemented as it presently is by statutes designed to protect fundamental human rights, does not protect fundamental rights as comprehensively as do constitutional guarantees and conventions on human rights"
- 1986 - Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Anthony Mason (http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v5n3/malcolm53_text.html#t28)
There are numerous other Constitutional changes that we need, but this is the second most important (Right after the Republic...).
There are numerous other Constitutional changes that we need, but this is the second most important (Right after the Republic...).
:shocked: You want a republic!?!?
Are one of those who wants a republic system that is basically identical to the system we have now or one of those ones who wants a complete overhaul of our current system. In the first case I would argue that it will be exactly the same, so why bother. And in the second case... ARE YOU NUTS!?!?!? You would have the final authority in the land be a *shudders* politician?
Sure, the governor general will only remain the head of state so long as she doesn't actually try to run the country (yeah I know, us Aussies are weird :sweatdrop:) but its a hell of a lot better that the head of state being a bloody pollie.
Except history shows that all monarchies will eventually have a weak ruler and when that happens the whole country goes down. Even the "good" ones may pull the country down in the longterm. For example, France. You have Louis XIV, who's egotism plunged France into debt. As time went by in the 18th century the situation kept worsening until it the whole country crashed down with Louis XVI and the French Revolution.
Historically, there have been at least two republics that turned into dictatorships, Rome and Weimar, a republic isn't a guarantee for anything.
CountArach
06-22-2009, 10:14
:shocked: You want a republic!?!?
Are one of those who wants a republic system that is basically identical to the system we have now or one of those ones who wants a complete overhaul of our current system. In the first case I would argue that it will be exactly the same, so why bother. And in the second case... ARE YOU NUTS!?!?!? You would have the final authority in the land be a *shudders* politician?
Sure, the governor general will only remain the head of state so long as she doesn't actually try to run the country (yeah I know, us Aussies are weird :sweatdrop:) but its a hell of a lot better that the head of state being a bloody pollie.
I want an elected representative at the head of my country. I trust myself to choose the right person. On the other hand I do not trust politicians to post the most competent person to the job...
Adrian II
06-22-2009, 10:30
This is as bad as banning books. If I were to write a letter to those ministers, I would remind them that Germany has a history of banning books that lasted until 1989 (remember the GDR) and that banning video games is merely an extension of same in cyberspace.
Why isn't there a protest movement burning games (if only in effigy) on the steps of the various Landesparlamente? Big palls of smoke and cries of 'Grand Theft Auto, I commend thee to the flames' would rattle some brains at least.
Meneldil
06-22-2009, 14:54
nd we can always have a good monarch who raises his kids well or a good dictator who makes a wise choice as to who shall be his successor. There is nothing about democracy that means there will be a competent candidate at all. All it means is that a bunch of easily influencable people will vote on who promises them the most.
Two things:
1 - As far as I know, most authoritarian monarchies (as in 'power belongs to the king') ain't doing very well at the moment. The cambodian royal family is a joke, Nepal faced several murders among members of the royal family and a revolution caused by incompetence, most african kingdoms turned into orwellian playgrounds for their leaders, and I'm not even talking about Saudi Arabia and other arabian monarchies.
2 - A republic works according to a few assumptions. Firstly, people who play a role in politics (vote, chose, rule, whatever) are supposed to be enlightened. Note that this might only concern a few elites or the whole nation.
Now, this assumption is clearly misled in the case of a liberal democracy. Though you can expect a council of nobles or the richest and upper class of citizens to be somewhat educated, the same cannot be said about a nation composed of million of people with various sociological backgrounds.
Secondly, a republic assume that people who are concerned by politics can change things by gaining power. If you think the leader is an absolute moron, you can try to 'overthrow' him through peaceful means. You think all candidates are incompetent? Then make your own party and try to get elected.
(Of course that's only a theory, Joe the plumber could hardly create a party and get elected. But in the case he somehow finds a way to do it, nobody will prevent him from doing so - In short, I prefer a theory that allows for change over one that does not).
Adrian II
06-22-2009, 16:23
If you think the leader is an absolute moron, you can try to 'overthrow' him through peaceful means. You think all candidates are incompetent? Then make your own party and try to get elected.Even though most people don't know their belly buttons from a hole in the ground, they recognize a moron when they see one and will vote him out of office. Put in less raucous terms: most citizens are unable to govern a country, yet they are the only ones who can legitimately appoint others to do it for them. Anyone who challenges this principle is hereby invited to take a one-way ticket to Tehran and gather some vox pop.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.