Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[rvg]

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.

Preambles are great. Great because they allow one to declare lofty goals and at the same time hold zero legal weight.

You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

transitions and negotiations are great when they don't require centuries to actually bear fruit.

Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?

Oh, I'm sure he'd pick the king. His king though, not the British one.

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

How does it suggest that? It took Britain three wars to subdue the unified Marathan resistance. If anything, the history suggests otherwise.

Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.

Paternalism, eh? No wonder they couldn't wait any longer.

But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.

Lincoln was a small time lawyer from Illinois, a one term Congressman and a virtual unknown as far as the nation was concerned. Yet, he became president.

I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.

Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

Meh to the rest, because I'm suddenly more interested in this:

Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

[rvg]

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

I have one word for you: Skraelings...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=rvg;2053441942]You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

I have one word for you: Skraelings...

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

[rvg]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053441965]

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

What, sales tax?

THe US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates

Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

[rvg]

What, sales tax?

Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.

The US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates

Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....-us-taxes.html

George Bush is a stronger believer in income equality than Gordon Brown.
These figures (pdf) from the CBO (via Greg Mankiw and the Kruse Kronicle) show that the poorest fifth of Americans paid an average of 4.3% of their income in federal taxes whilst the richest fifth paid 25.5%.
How do these figures compare to the UK? Table 16A here gives the answer. The poorest quintile in the UK paid 36.5% of their income in tax, whilst the richest fifth actually paid less - 35.5%.

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.