NationStates Jolt Archive


What UN catagory does the US fall into?

South Lizasauria
06-12-2006, 05:33
Hello all,

What UN category do you beleive the US falls into? Why?
Sheni
06-12-2006, 05:42
Hello all,

What UN category do you beleive the US falls into? Why?

What catagory is economy, civl rights, and political rights all relatively good, but not really good?
Posi
06-12-2006, 05:45
Hello all,

What UN category do you beleive the US falls into? Why?

Left Wing Utopia
Soheran
06-12-2006, 05:49
Economically conservative, moderate on civil rights and political freedom.

Not sure what that comes out to.
South Lizasauria
06-12-2006, 05:50
Left Wing Utopia

I don't agree, even though they are obseesed with having everyone happy they still house nasty religions that could care less about happiness, and the radicals constantly fighting kind of ensure that no ones happy.
Ultraextreme Sanity
06-12-2006, 05:51
Fools that pay the bills .
South Lizasauria
06-12-2006, 05:52
Fools that pay the bills .

LOL :D
Greater Trostia
06-12-2006, 05:52
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Leaning towards a Moralistic Democracy or possibly even Iron Fist Consumerists.
South Lizasauria
06-12-2006, 05:55
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Leaning towards a Moralistic Democracy or possibly even Iron Fist Consumerists.

I know what Iron Fist Consumerist is, they aren't, or they would use resources more wisely :rolleyes: They'd have to remove so many civil rights for the sake of resources (human or otherwise) for that to happen. Americans are not inoffensive and centrist and they definately aren't moralistic either... :(
Greater Trostia
06-12-2006, 06:03
I know what Iron Fist Consumerist is, they aren't, or they would use resources more wisely :rolleyes: They'd have to remove so many civil rights for the sake of resources (human or otherwise) for that to happen. Americans are not inoffensive and centrist and they definately aren't moralistic either... :(

The UN categories are based off political, personal and economic freedom scores; nothing else. So "Inoffensive Centrist Democracy" does NOT mean that their foreign policy is automatically considered "inoffensive," nor that other countries consider them "centrist." It just means it has a middling amount of, in this case, all three types of freedoms.

To get Iron Fist Consumerist, the US would have to decrease both political and personal freedoms. And Iron Fist Consumerists again has nothing to do with "using resources wisely." It just means low personal and political freedom, but middle economic freedom.
South Lizasauria
06-12-2006, 06:17
Out of curiousity. What exactly does it take to be either a Pshycotic dicatatorship or a corrupt one?
Greater Trostia
06-12-2006, 06:19
Out of curiousity. What exactly does it take to be either a Pshycotic dicatatorship or a corrupt one?

Psychotic dictatorships have the lowest values for all three types of freedoms, corrupt is the same but with middle value personal freedom.
Holyawesomeness
06-12-2006, 06:27
It is probably a capitalist paradise. Mid Pol, Mid Per, and High Econ.
Greater Trostia
06-12-2006, 06:31
It is probably a capitalist paradise. Mid Pol, Mid Per, and High Econ.

I disagree. Economic freedom is something that is pretty limited. Business is regulated by the government. Taxes are pretty high. The IRS loves to eat small businesses for breakfast.
Neu Leonstein
06-12-2006, 06:37
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392208

I'd say medium social, high political (even though there have been the occasional hick-ups recently) and moderate or high in economic.

Which would give us either a New York Times Democracy or a Corporate Bordello.
Kyronea
06-12-2006, 06:43
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392208

I'd say medium social, high political (even though there have been the occasional hick-ups recently) and moderate or high in economic.

Which would give us either a New York Times Democracy or a Corporate Bordello.

I'd lean towards Corporate Bordello as well. Calling the U.S. a "New York Times Democracy" would make for a lot of "right-wing" pundits going crazy, which would be hilarious, but it's not exactly applicable.

I'm still not entirely certain about high on political freedom, if only due to our two party system.
Holyawesomeness
06-12-2006, 07:03
I disagree. Economic freedom is something that is pretty limited. Business is regulated by the government. Taxes are pretty high. The IRS loves to eat small businesses for breakfast.
Economic freedom is still pretty high and the US is in the top ten nations for economic freedom. Business is relatively less regulated than it is in other developed nations. Really, I was tempted to put Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, however, I believe that economic freedom in the US is above average.
Holyawesomeness
06-12-2006, 07:04
I am not sure about high political. I guess that might be based upon a lack of control on political donations, however, we are not extremely democratic given our electoral college and we are only a 2 party system.
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:05
high political

Why?
Neu Leonstein
06-12-2006, 07:07
Why?
Well, it's got free elections and stuff. And generally people aren't being persecuted in the States for their political opinions (at least by the government).
South Lizasauria
06-12-2006, 07:09
Well, it's got free elections and stuff. And generally people aren't being persecuted in the States for their political opinions (at least by the government).

It did a while back, all peole who hinted on wanting Bush dead were visited by CIA.
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:11
Well, it's got free elections and stuff.

Sure, but that's covered under moderate political freedom. Why High?

Especially considering the Electoral College, the winner-take-all system, and the strong executive.

And generally people aren't being persecuted in the States for their political opinions (at least by the government).

That falls under civil freedom, I think. In certain respects there, the US is indeed significant - its relatively absolutist defense of free speech, for instance - but in others it falls noticeably short, as our regressive stances on gay marriage and drug laws indicate.
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:13
It did a while back, all peole who hinted on wanting Bush dead were visited by CIA.
The goverment investigating people saying they want the president killed is persecuting certain political positions? Alhough one would have thought it would be the Secret Service doing the visiting or maybe the FBI, since the CIA isn't suppose to opperate within the country.
The Most Glorious Hack
06-12-2006, 07:15
Especially considering the Electoral CollegeNot that different from parlimentary systems, really.

That falls under civil freedom, I think.Actually, for NS, the ability to bitch about the government is Political Freedoms. Euthanasia, drugs laws, protection from illegal searches, and the ability to say mean things about minorities all fall under Civil Rights.
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:16
Sure, but that's covered under moderate political freedom. Why High?

Especially considering the Electoral College, the winner-take-all system, and the strong executive.



That falls under civil freedom, I think. In certain respects there, the US is indeed significant - its relatively absolutist defense of free speech, for instance - but in others it falls noticeably short, as our regressive stances on gay marriage and drug laws indicate.
Hey, that winner take all bit in the electoral college is a state by state thing. Some of us are sensible and divide the votes at least partially porportionatlly.
The Most Glorious Hack
06-12-2006, 07:16
The goverment investigating people saying they want the president killed is persecuting certain political positions? Alhough one would have thought it would be the Secret Service doing the visiting or maybe the FBI, since the CIA isn't suppose to opperate within the country.Not under the FBI's jurisdiction either. The FBI only gets involved if the Secret Service fails to prevent an assassination.
Neu Leonstein
06-12-2006, 07:17
That falls under civil freedom, I think.
Well, if you want, we can put it at "moderate", in which case the alternatives are either an inoffensive centrist democracy or a capitalist paradise.

Now, to have some more fun, let's pick other countries:

Venezuela
Germany
Iran
Russia
Vietnam
United Arab Emirates
Congo--Kinshasa
06-12-2006, 07:17
We have very low political freedoms. Elections are always rigged so that one of two identical parties wins. :(
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:18
Not under the FBI's jurisdiction either. The FBI only gets involved if the Secret Service fails to prevent an assassination.

Which is why I mentioned the Secret Service first, and the FBI as a maybe since they are a little less right out then the CIA.
Congo--Kinshasa
06-12-2006, 07:18
Well, if you want, we can put it at "moderate", in which case the alternatives are either an inoffensive centrist democracy or a capitalist paradise.

Now, to have some more fun, let's pick other countries:

Venezuela
Germany
Iran
Russia
Vietnam
United Arab Emirates

Venezuela = Democratic Socialists
Germany = Left-Leaning College State
Iran, Russia, Vietnam, U.A.E. = Psychotic Dictatorship
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:19
Some of us are sensible and divide the votes at least partially porportionatlly.

Not "sensible" at all. It makes the state substantially less powerful and harms the majority party there.
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:21
Not "sensible" at all. It makes the state substantially less powerful and harms the majority party there.

If the state actually ever split than yes, but the votes would beter represent the people and thats whats important.
The Most Glorious Hack
06-12-2006, 07:21
Which is why I mentioned the Secret Service first, and the FBI as a maybe since they are a little less right out then the CIA.Fair enough, I suppose. CIA (and NSA) are certainly right out as they aren't enforcement anyway.


As for where I'd put the US...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/nspoliticalmap.jpg

I'd put it between Inoffensive Centrist Democracy and Capitalist Paradise. Keeping in mind, of course, that the NS rankings are skewed for satire.
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:23
Not that different from parlimentary systems, really.

Sure, except for the lack of votes of no confidence and the winner-take-all selection of representatives from multi-member districts.
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:25
but the votes would beter represent the people and thats whats important.

I agree, but it won't work unless all the states do it.

Otherwise you just introduce other imbalances.
The Most Glorious Hack
06-12-2006, 07:26
Sure, except for the lack of votes of no confidence and the winner-take-all selection of representatives from multi-member districts.Impeachment is quite similar to no-confidence, just harder to manage. Also, I would say the parlimentary system places excessive power in the hands of the Legislative branch, turning the Executive into little more than a figurehead.

I'll take imperfect balance over imperfect imbalance.
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:27
I agree, but it won't work unless all the states do it.

Otherwise you just introduce other imbalances.

Well, we have it and I believe Maine has a similar set up so the rest of you just need to catch up;)
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:31
Impeachment is quite similar to no-confidence, just harder to manage.

How many Presidents have been removed from office by Congress in US history?

Also, I would say the parlimentary system places excessive power in the hands of the Legislative branch, turning the Executive into little more than a figurehead.

I'll take imperfect balance over imperfect imbalance.

"Balanced" is not the same as "democratic." The legislative branch tends to be more representative of the public than the chief executive, because either it is elected proportionally or on the basis of (comparatively) decentralized districts. In the US this is distorted due to a very high legislative re-election rate, though - another reason not to give it a "High" political freedom rating.
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:37
How many Presidents have been removed from office by Congress in US history?



"Balanced" is not the same as "democratic." The legislative branch tends to be more representative of the public than the chief executive, because either it is elected proportionally or on the basis of (comparatively) decentralized districts. In the US this is distorted due to a very high legislative re-election rate, though - another reason not to give it a "High" political freedom rating.I don't see how that is a sign of poor political freedom so long as the people are choosing to re-elect the people its their decision. If they keep electing incompetent or corrupt legislatures so long as it is not rigged to change the results at the polls it is their own fault.
The Most Glorious Hack
06-12-2006, 07:38
How many Presidents have been removed from office by Congress in US history?None (although Nixon probably would have lost an impeachment trial). And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Being able to toss out the executive at the drop of a hat is part of what guts the parilmentary system and make the Prime Minister largely useless.

"Balanced" is not the same as "democratic." The legislative branch tends to be more representative of the public than the chief executive, because either it is elected proportionally or on the basis of (comparatively) decentralized districts.I never claimed they were, and trying direct democracy in a nation of 300 million would be a disaster. However, limiting the powers of the branches to make them as equal as possible is a good way to prevent excessive abuses by any one branch. The extreme difficulty in eliminating the President keeps the Congress from throwing out public will by continually dumping him until they get someone who will do what they want.

Especially since the Speaker of the House is third in line.

In the US this is distorted due to a very high legislative re-election rate, though - another reason not to give it a "High" political freedom rating.I never claimed that the US had a "high" ranking. Indeed, the two categories I picked were medium for political freedoms.
Dosuun
06-12-2006, 07:41
We are definately not a capitalist paradise. We were a long time ago but not now with so many taxes and lawyers and restirctions. Being one of the most open markets in the world doesn't make it truely free. When there are no restrictions and little or no regulations on trade, then this nation could be considered a capitalist paradise. Right now I'd place the US smack dab in the middle.

The Republicans would probably fall into the Corporate Bordello, Capitalist paradise, Free-market paradise, or Right-Wing Utopia categories.

The Democrats would probably fall into the Left-Wing Utopia, Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, or any of the 3 Socialist categories.

The US usually has something close to a balance of the 2 major parties which would put it into an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy category.

No further discussion is required. Case closed, class dismissed.
PJM
06-12-2006, 07:44
personally i'd put it in father knows best or police state (thats what it looks like though how well it fits is debatable)

Social freedoms seem to be going down at a pace and from my point of view havn't ever been that high, Economically the US is going down the pan (from being a powerhouse in the 1950's its now about the same as the EU in economic clout (also it seems that a lot of the actual movement of money is internal) it's currance is very very low right about now (one pound is worth about 2 dollars which means the Euro is also worth more (its 0.69 of a pound)) also the fact that the US is in hock to European and Chinese banks, personal freedoms don't seem that high (you can't drink till 21, abortion is very hard to get, being gay/muslim/black/asian/native american/mexican/left wing seems to be very hard, while you are able to drive earlier then most places and it seems ridiculusly easy to buy a gun (something that strikes me as being an inherent sign of national instability if the population feels the need to be armed against itself and the state so badly that they fight tooth and nail to keep it) add to this the fact that the death penalty is quite a major thing in the US......

Basicly from a impartial viewpoint the US is a rogue nation that is a danger to itself and others and its economy should be under the auspices of the world bank.........

however for some reason these things don't apply to the US as it has all the guns.............
The Psyker
06-12-2006, 07:45
None (although Nixon probably would have lost an impeachment trial). And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Being able to toss out the executive at the drop of a hat is part of what guts the parilmentary system and make the Prime Minister largely useless.

I never claimed they were, and trying direct democracy in a nation of 300 million would be a disaster. However, limiting the powers of the branches to make them as equal as possible is a good way to prevent excessive abuses by any one branch. The extreme difficulty in eliminating the President keeps the Congress from throwing out public will by continually dumping him until they get someone who will do what they want.

Especially since the Speaker of the House is third in line.

I never claimed that the US had a "high" ranking. Indeed, the two categories I picked were medium for political freedoms.It can also be nice at times when it leads to a bit of deadlock with each side checking the other, of course at other times this can be a bit annoying, but that probably depends on which side you agree with in any given situation.;)
Neu Leonstein
06-12-2006, 07:47
Venezuela = Democratic Socialists
Germany = Left-Leaning College State
Iran, Russia, Vietnam, U.A.E. = Psychotic Dictatorship
I'm thinking Venezuela is a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise (just because of the high relatively civil freedoms, particularly for gay people).
Germany I pick as a Civil Rights Lovefest.
Iran...well, as weird as it sounds, since they do have some economic freedom, they'd come out as Iron Fist Consumerists.
Russia I'd say medium social, medium economic and low political...a Father knows Best State
Vietnam I'd give low scores in political freedoms, medium in economic (they're following the Chinese example, so there's lots of Vietnamese businesspeople out there) and low to medium social freedom. Which would make them either Iron Fist Consumerists or a Father knows Best State.
And finally the UAE, they're extremely restrictive politically and socially, but very free economically. Which makes them a Corporate Police State.
Soheran
06-12-2006, 07:47
None (although Nixon probably would have lost an impeachment trial).

I'll give you Nixon.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Being able to toss out the executive at the drop of a hat is part of what guts the parilmentary system and make the Prime Minister largely useless.

The Prime Minister ought to be largely useless. She should be a figurehead, not a policymaker.

The extreme difficulty in eliminating the President keeps the Congress from throwing out public will by continually dumping him until they get someone who will do what they want.

And why would that constitute "throwing out public will"?

Since when has the President represented the will of the people?

Especially since the Speaker of the House is third in line.

By majority vote, Congress should be able to make whoever they want President. And the veto should go.

Putting that much power in one person's hands is never a good idea.

I never claimed that the US had a "high" ranking. Indeed, the two categories I picked were medium for political freedoms.

I saw your choices, but it was my response to Neu Leonstein's designation that brought up this discussion, and it is to that that I was referring.
PJM
06-12-2006, 08:13
Venezuela = Democratic Socialists I agree
Germany = Left-Leaning College State no the government is neoconservative so don't know what you were thinking here....


Iran, Russia, Vietnam, U.A.E. = Psychotic Dictatorship
Actually the Iranian government is backed by a popular mandate...... admitadly the elections arn't free and fair but then neither is the United States...

Russia i'd put as a father knows best state or police state

vietnam I don't think really comes under most of them but then i'm out of touch with what they've been up to since cambodia....

U.A.E. Is an absolute monachy I think

Britain is a right/centre right democracy but i'm not sure what that comes under.....
The Lone Alliance
06-12-2006, 09:21
New York Times Democracy.