Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 17

Tariffs

I read somewhere about tariffs but unable to understand why would tariffs hurt farmers? In case you want to know the period time. It is around 19 century to early 20th century.65.128.159.201 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if every nation puts stiffer and stiffer tariffs on imported goods in a trade war, eventually it becomes too expensive to import anything, and all international trade stops. This hurts farmers who would like to export their goods, but now can't. But, of course, a nation unilaterally dropping all tariffs and allowing other nations to keep tariffs or other trade restrictions may lose their export markets and their domestic markets may be damaged by cheap imports, doubly hurting domestic producers, including farmers. The goal, then, is to use the threat of tariffs to keep other nations from restricting trade. StuRat (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tariffs represent one of those areas of economics where game theory plays a big role in helping one understand it. This is one of those unstable equilibria whereby the best option for all, no tarrifs on anything, is unstable, because the second best option is high tarrifs on everything. The intermediate forms (one country has tarrifs while another does not) are the worst case scenarios, which is why punitive tarrifs tend to accelerate rather than decelerate. This is a varient of the Prisoner's dilemma in the sense that the best outcome (cooperation) is unlikely as the penalty for cooperating when the other player does not is far too punitive. That's why organizations such as the World Trade Organization exist: to enforce what is in everyone's best interest, because no one would get there on their own. --Jayron32 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's break down the input costs on commercial farming in the late 19th century:

• "Fixed capital" Land (rent, taxes, etc)
• Labour (wages, including payments to the owner), in particular we can split this into food and manufactured goods
• "Variable capital" Seed stock / animal stock
• "Fixed capital" Transport, mechanical devices (including rentals), and in general manufactures required for production

Tariffs on manufactured goods from overseas (threshers, railyway engines, pianos, silk) increase the cost of Labour and manufactured fixed capital. This makes the farm less profitable (and credit has to be serviced), and bites into the consumption of the owning farmer themselves. The other costs (land, labour, seed) are relatively static, whereas manufactured goods tariffs appear as controlled by human beings ("the state"). Tariffs are then seen as an impost on the agricultural sector, giving free profit to the manufacturing sector. For the inverse situation, where tariffs benefited the owners of capital in the form of agricultural land, and harmed the economic interests of manufacturers, see the Corn Laws in England; where land owners maintained a tariff on agricultural products to their great benefit at the expense of (primarily) cloth manufactures. In the United States, in your period, small farmers saw "money capital" as emblematic of manufacturing benefitting from agricultural capital, this feeds into Populism, Free Silver and Progressivism; the histories of which extensively discuss this conflict within the American bourgeoisie of the time. In relation to the current period, StuRat and Jayron32's contributions are far more enlightening than my own. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well i think there is a misunderstanding in my question. I meant in the scenario where let say only the United States have high tariffs but no the other countries. So in that scenario, why do high tariffs hurt farmers?65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In your hypothetical scenario, US manufactured goods, a primary consumption item of farmers (both of productive consumption, and personal consumption) would have an artificially inflated price compared to imported goods; and, that farmers would be well aware of this artificial price inflation due to the tariff being a clear act by the state. Farmers would therefore have their income reduced due to cost increases, and this income would be paid, in turn, to either the state (as the recipient of tariffs) or to private US manufacturing capital as super profits from a rigged market in manufactured goods. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is the impossibility of your scenario: Why would another country tolerate a high tariff to sell goods in the U.S. and yet freely accept cheap U.S. produced goods? It makes no sense that that would ever happen. Look at the situation surrounding the Hawley-Smoot Tariff: it killed global trade at a time when the economy was already contracting; there is serious consideration that the H-S tariff exacerbated or added significantly to the misery of the Depression. The effect should not have been unexpected: Adam Smith predicted this exact situation in The Wealth of Nations which is why he advocates so strongly against protective tariffs: some things which you need to buy cheaply you can't get because it is too expensive to important them, and other things you need to make money on by exporting them to foreign markets, markets closed off because off mutual tariff wars. There just isn't a situation where one major world economic power could raise tariffs to very high levels, and then no other country would respond in kind. --Jayron32 01:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This statement doesn't make sense to me "Why would another country tolerate a high tariff to sell goods in the U.S. and yet freely accept cheap U.S. produced goods?" Let say in case of the US has high tariffs, other countries don't have to tolerate anything! The one who are tolerating is who importing goods from other countries in the United States. It is not impossible. It is not like the scenario never happen before. Some countries, they need imports and they don't have a strong industrial economy yet. The US has high tariffs is the US's business. It has nothing to do with other countries. Some countries would do the same thing to protect their business if they have one while others may not due to the lack of... As a fact, some countries rely mainly on importation. That's a case where those countries have too much of something but don't have other goods. So they will export mainly one thing and import many other things. Plus remember that high tariffs don't mean it affects everything. The government always can make exception on importation when they feel the country needs it and if the US manufacturers are unable to provide enough. High tariffs are something each country will decide whether or not they do it. They will choose the best option which will benefit them the best. Pendragon5 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the income tax, much of the America federal government's income came from tariffs. This was one of the issues that fed the Civil War, as those tariffs were seen as hurting the south while helping the north. Still, a tariff is essentially a "voluntary" tax, in the sense that you choose to buy or not buy something. But everyone has to work (or to try to), and presto, there came the non-voluntary income tax, and tariffs came down over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't they just suspend states from the United Nations?

If the UN gets too mad at Syria and North Korea about their human rights violations, as a last resort, instead of imposing sanctions on them, why can't they just suspend their UN membership until their human rights violations stop? The African Union suspended Madagascar and Mali because of instability there, so why can't the UN do the same? I don't think they should do so however, it would be too extreme and radical, but have they ever thought of doing so? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see it helping much. This just cuts off dialog, which is needed to resolve such issues. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they don't care? Hot Stop 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"They" who? In any case, the whole point of the UN is for nations to talk to each other. Suspending a nation doesn't really further that aim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing...
I honestly think that the UN is completely useless with resolving conflict, internal or otherwise. They talk to much, not enough doing, bureaucracy gone insane. The just keep saying peace, peace, while countries are destroying each other or themselves. By the time they decide to take slightly offensive action, it's too late. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As others have mentioned: What purpose would such a suspension serve? Suspension would certainly send a signal, but would it acheive its goal? Keeping states in to allow further dialogue/continous confrontation on HR violations could be more effective.

The question which we must ask is what is goal we want to acheive and how can we best acheive it? To me, it would seem that if you suspend North Korea from the UN, they might not want to change their ways, but might just as well be tempted to give the world the finger, and launch a couple of missiles in a non-specified direction.

I think the comparison with the African Union, or potentially with the European Union suspending Austria after Jörg Haider was elected PM, is somewhat flawed. As far as I know, these are not parallel institutions and do not function in the same way. First of all, to my knowledge, there is nothing in the UN known as 'suspended membership': Either a country is a member, or it is not. On the other hand, apparently, both the AU and the EU has a system of suspending membership to send symbols to memberstates behaving 'inappropriately'.

Secondly, there's the question of how decisions are made within the various institutions. The UN makes decisions by votes. Even if all memberstates would state that human rights violations are bad, there are surely many who would be reluctant to vote to suspend member states due to HR violations. The two most obvious reasons for this are: 1) They want to be friendly with the current regime, despite their HR abuses (to maintain trade, or alliances); 2) they don't want a 'slippery slope' precedent whereby HR abuses lead to suspension of membership - if North Korea or Syria is suspended for human rights violations, how long till the US is suspended over Gitmo? or China? or Russia? And then we have an interesting question to answer: What happens when a permanent member of the Security Council is suspened? V85 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

From PrimeHunter's link below, it appears that any suspension or expulsion requires Security Council action, and therefore (in theory) cannot be accomplished without the permanent member's consent. Of course it didn't help the Republic of China. --Trovatore (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a related question to which the refdesk might actually be able to provide a solid answer: Is there actually any mechanism for "suspending" a member state from the UN? Genuine question; I don't know the answer. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

See Member states of the United Nations#Suspension, expulsion, and withdrawal of members. There is a procedure but it has never been used. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are no qualifications for UN membership with respect to democracy or human rights has led to many flagrant and blatant hypocrisies, and to the "alliance of dictatorships against democracies" that was prominent at the UN during the 1970s and 1980s, but probably not much can be done about it. However it would be nice if the UN system would stop cynically elevating blatant and flagrant violators of human rights to the UN Human Rights Council itself! The old United Nations Commission on Human Rights was abolished because it had systematically destroyed its own credibility with a constant unceasing flow of hypocrisies and double standards; the new Human Rights Council was supposed to be a brand new start, but has returned to most of the bad old tricks of the Commission... AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is completely wrong "The fact that there are no qualifications for UN membership with respect to democracy or human rights". There is one: the United States has veto power, and its own understanding of democracy and human rights. This is why palestine couldn't be admitted as a state, since us would veto it. Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP is right. It would be nice if the UN system would cynically stop elevating blatant and flagrant violators of human rights to the Permanent Membership of the Security Council. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

True. The only state that has ever been "elevated" to permanent membership is the People's Republic of China, when it took over the spot from the Republic of China. The others were all there from the beginning. --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Russia - they took over the Soviet Union's membership in the Security Council after the latter's collapse. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all. The Soviet Union no longer existed; the Republic of China did. --Trovatore (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Russia is technically the USSR's successor, but officially all the members of the CIS are the successors of the Soviet Union. It's just that Russia is the largest and most prominent, and whose capital was also the capital of the Soviet Union. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe in successor states — pure legal bullshit if you ask me. In effect, Russia was the Soviet Union, in terms of political authority anyway, whereas the RoC was really Taiwan. So, glossing over some minor points, Taiwan was the original permanent member, but was expelled (illegally, I'd say, but that's my POV) and replaced by China. --Trovatore (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That Taiwan was the original permanent member is an extremely odd position. How could it be, considering the dates? China was the original permanent member state which was governed by the Nationalists in 1945 when the UN was formed. The RoC, the government of the UN member certainly was not Taiwan then. The Communists took over & the PRC was declared & the Nationalists fled in 1949. Nobody, no government of Taiwan or the mainland, or any Taiwanese independence party has ever thought that tiny Taiwan "should" have a Security Council seat. The question was always over who should control China's seat. The conception of the UN was that the "Four Policemen" - FDR's phrase - those with outsized real world power in the coalition against the Axis - should have outsized say in the UN & its Security Council. PRC China fits the original conception better than RoC China/Taiwan, irrespective of the fact that Taiwan was probably unnecessarily screwed in 1971 by being kicked out of the UN altogether.John Z (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is the beauty of rule of law, you don't have to believe in it for it to be true. I'm being glib, and you have a small point, but that's the dumbest lack of explanation for a rather intellectual point I've heard in a very long time. You can be as agnostic about the U.N. as you want, but it helps if you backup your statements with, at least, an explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As a philosophical anarchist I don't, of course, really believe in states at all, in the final analysis. But the PRC is the worst novel state to come along in a very long time. That the world let them get away with these obscure legalisms about successor states to displace Taiwan (and get around the Security Council, where of course it would have been blocked by Taiwan and the US) is shameful.

That's the moral argument. For the legal argument, the key point is novel state. I can say the PRC is the worst because the other examples, like Nazi Germany, were not novel states; there's a continuity to the previous state. Russia is not a novel state either. The PRC is; the Maoists just marched in and took over by force. --Trovatore (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is different than the United States, France, the Netherlands, or any of a number of other countries how? The fact remains that within any number of modern nations, there exists a time when either a) they were created by force or b) there was a change of government by force. It doesn't make their entire history from that point forward illegitimate. You don't have to like the PRC to recognize that they have actual control over the bulk of the territory of what is meant by the word China. You don't have to agree with how they came into power, how they maintain power, or how that government operates. You don't even have to agree with a single thing they have every done, but your agreement doesn't mean that that government doesn't, in a very tangible way, have actual control over the bulk of the people and land known as China in a way that the KMT/ROC government in Taiwan has not in over half a century. If your sole criteria is that the Communist Party took control by force and that means they don't actually govern China; does that mean that the U.K. Parliament gets to pass laws which are enforcable in the U.S. or that the King of Spain can levy taxes on the residents of Amsterdam? Cuz I don't think those are practical possibilities any more than the Taipei government could enforce any similar acts on Mainland China. --Jayron32 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the US was a novel state after the American Revolution, and France after the French Revolution. These states were not the continuation of what had gone before. But there weren't any UN memberships to argue about.

The PRC certainly governs China. But they are not the continuation of the state that had the permanent security council membership, and they shouldn't have it now. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, because having the government which has direct, real governance over 1/5th of the world's population on the Security Council, and with the largest active military in the world, is somehow an impractical or unwise thing? Again, you don't have to agree with anything the PRC does in the slightest in order to recognize that they might have something worth listening to at that table. You can call them anything you want, successor state, novel state, you can call them Ralph and it wouldn't change what they are: a major power with a real practical claim to having a voice in matters of global security, calling them a successor state or a novel state doesn't change anything about what they are today: A major power that the world needs at the bargaining table in ways that it doesn't really need Taiwan, regardless of what history says. --Jayron32 18:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite so sure I see it as a firm distinction. The Maoists were still Chinese. The ROC were not themselves democratic. If the ROC had not escaped to Taiwan, it would have been considered a revolution. Because the ROC survived and was re-located (as opposed to completely purged), you consider the PRC a novel state, rather than a revolution? I find this a very strange distinction to make. (I'm no fan of the PRC, mind you, but I don't think the ROC was any more "legitimate" from a moral standpoint. They were both regimes ruled by force; it was only in the late 1980s that Taiwan became anything more than a dictatorship.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'd still consider it a novel state if the ROC government had not escaped. Revolutions create novel states; that's what they're for. As for "legitimacy", see above; to me legitimate state is pretty much a contradiction-in-terms. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Successor states are important - it's what stops countries defaulting on all their debts whenever they have a revolution. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Likewise wealth should be passed on from generation to generation, otherwise there is nothing to balance the obviously only correct situation where a person whose parents died in debt should be born into debt - without anyone even supporting them to grow up to pay it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and states should be afforded the same responsibility, since they receieve the same privilege. (Totally sarcastic here.)--80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet I suspect that you're totally opposed to the concept of corporate personhood, so let's not pretend that treating individual human beings and their various agglomerations and associations equally and identically under the law is something that is automatically a good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The concept of a security council where a small select group of countries have permanent membership while all the others take their chances on a rotating basis, has always seemed weird to me. This first- and second-class country concept is inimical to the basic concept of the UN, where every country, no matter how large and powerful or obscure and puny, has the same equal voice. But then, I suppose there have always been entrenched injustices; like how the USSR got 3 votes in the General Assembly (its own, plus those of Ukraine and Byelorussia, which at the time were not sovereign countries but constituent parts of the USSR). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is very much the same process and reason by which Vermont or Wyoming have the same number of Senators than California or New York. Sometime we call it "entrenched injustices", and sometimes "The Great Compromise". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But California has only 2 senators, like every other state; not 2 for California as a whole, plus 2 more for Los Angeles and 2 more for San Francisco, making 6 in total. That's the deal the USSR had, effectively. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

California has one Senator per 20 million people. Wyoming has 80 times better representation in the Senate than California. So it's actually much worse than in the UN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Senators are per-state, not per-population. If the founding fathers had not come up with the Senate idea, there would have been no USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Such apparent "injustices" don't seem so injust when the rationale is protection against tyranny of the majority: The interests of the 49% need to be protected against getting trampled by the 51%, and if everything was purely proportional, that could happen. Also, as long as one recognizes a universal standard of justice, then one's goal is to meet that standard, and not allow it to be trampled just because 51% of the people wish to act unjust. --Jayron32 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're both missing the point (and the original question). The idea of bi-cameral legislation does in no way require unequal representation in one of the chambers. And the equal representations of states in the Senate was not due to some high ideal of protection against the tyranny of the majority, it was, as the term "Great Compromise" indicates, a pragmatic solution hammered out mostly by Madison to get the small states to agree to the constitution. And it included the even less high-minded Three-Fifths Compromise, too, and for much the same reason. The South wanted slaves to count for representatives (but not for tax burden allocation among the states), the North only wanted the free population to count for representation. And then they sat down to find an unjust and unprincipled but workable compromise. Exactly the same happened when the UN was founded - the West very much wanted the UN, but needed the Soviet block to make it more than a farce, and so they agreed to give the Soviet Union (in effect) multiple votes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, whether or not protection against tyranny of the majority was intended, I think it does indeed have that effect, at least to some extent. By forcing legislation to pass two bodies elected according to different formulas, the system makes it more difficult to pass legislation. By and large, this is a good thing, because most legislation is bad. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the protection effect is due to the bicameral system, not the "unfair" composition. John Adams, e.g., originally suggested Senators to be elected for life, to create a "real" senatorial class similar to ancient Rome (or life peers in Britain). The idea of the senate was always to provide a more stable, less directly influenced body to balance the shorter-term interests of the assembly ("Senate" literally refers to "the Elders"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's partly due to the composition. Federal legislation has to be approved by both the representatives of "the people" (the House) and the representatives of "the states" (the Senate). That's a tighter path to negotiate than it would be if both bodies represented the people. --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm always curious of one point in the reasoning of those who find the 3/5 compromise unjust. No doubt of course that the underlying situation for slaves was horrifyingly unjust, to the point that the word "unjust" seems silly and inadequate. But what would have been the "just" weight to count slaves at, for purposes of representation? Equal weight to free persons, as the South wanted? But the representatives thereby elected would not have been elected by the slaves nor represented them in any meaningful sense, quite the opposite. Wouldn't a more just weight — or at least, a weight more conducive to the interests of the slaves themselves — have been zero, or perhaps even negative? --Trovatore (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, 0 or negative would have been "just" in the larger sense, and we might have avoided the Civil War as we know it, because the south would have walked away and formed their own country right then and there. The various compromises were a means to a end, that end being to unite all of the states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: the "just" thing to do would have been freeing the slaves. Of course, we all know that was not realistic. At the least, they could have not counted the slaves at all since, as you correctly point out, the politicians weren't "representing" the slaves at all. Zero should have been the number. Counting them as 3/5ths was both politically underhanded and just plain insulting to the slaves. Mind you, they had worse things to worry about at the time (being slaves), but the 3/5ths compromise is just a cherry on top of a shit sundae. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but 3/5 is closer to zero than 1 is. I'm just saying the "3/5 of a person" narrative doesn't make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspending nations for human-rights violations would open up a whole can of worms. There are many laudable democracies that fall afoul of SOME points of human rights. Absolutely free expression is not allowed in most of Europe (they ban "hate speech" and in Germany singing the first verse of their erstwhile national anthem is actually a crime), they argue that this is necessary to prevent a greater evil. Likewise the banning of political parties usually draws strong international condemnation in an emerging democracy; but in many European countries either Communist or Fascist/Neo-Nazi parties are barred from electoral contests. In Britain super-injunctions that prevent reporters from covering criminal and civil matters fall afoul of traditional concepts of fair law, though again it's argued it prevents a greater injustice of trial by public opinion. The United States' election process would not meet international observer standards for an emerging democracy thanks to low turnouts and the way votes are counted in some cases, as well as widespread corruption allegations. A simple and obvious example is Capital Punishment: The US and China (two permanent members of the UN Security Council) practice it yet, as do most developing nations, but it is reviled by most of the first world; should that disqualify the two biggest economies in the world from UN membership? China and India practice it as well, should that disqualify nearly half the planet's population from representation in UN agencies? HominidMachinae (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If the UN tried to remove the US and China, the UN would crumble. As with the compromises that led all the states to ratify the US Constitution, the larger vision overshadows other priorities. And as regards "revulsion" for capital punishment, I'm sure that every Norwegian citizen is thrilled to pieces that they get to spend their tax dollars giving that guy free room and board for the rest of his born days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor point — I too had heard (from a German, I think) that certain lyrics of Deutschland über Alles were illegal to sing, but our Deutschlandlied article appears to directly contradict that, saying that all three stanzas may be sung, but that only the last stanza is the national anthem. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's completely legal to print, distribute, recite, and sing all three stanzas of the Lied der Deutschen in Germany. Up to reunification, the official position was that the whole song was the national anthem, but only the third stanza would be performed. Shortly after reunification there was a debate, and as the result, now the third stanza alone is the national anthem of the reunited Germany (due to one of the rare acts of the Bundespräsident, with somewhat unclear legal foundation, but following general consensus). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I also heard this from a German, actually, apparently I stand corrected. The point remains however, no nation has a spotless record on human rights, what some nations would view as egregious violations (banning speech, political parties, capital punishment, etc) are viewed as necessary and proper in otherwise upstanding democratic nations. Arguing "well their violations are worse than ours!" would be rank hypocracy except in very few situations of serious and fundamental human rights violations. Even then the problem remains of disenfranchising large portions of the world. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a common misconception in Germany. Anyway, I disagree with your "hypocracy" comment - while there may not be perfectly pure black and white in this debate, the substantially different shades of grey do certainly allow one to characterise some countries as substantially worse violators than others. (I doubt any reliable source would seriously claim that "the United States' election process would not meet international observer standards for an emerging democracy"; and capital punishment does not violate the UN human rights charter AFAIK.) Also, large portions of the world population are already disenfranchised: in a dictatorial country, the government does not usually speak for more than a tiny minority of his populace. And the UN itself is evidently far from democratic: the five veto powers wield almost all the power, while only comprising about 30% of the world population. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Omero

I'm looking for information on someone named Omero. I found a page at another language wiki, here, that seems to be about him, but I was wondering if someone knew where I could find an English source giving background on him. Lord Arador (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ginen that the Italian article seems to be about Homer, I'd think that finding sources shouldn't be much of a problem - though whether there really ever was an individual by the name of Ὅμηρος/Omero/Homer is a matter of some dispute... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that there's a theory that Homer never existed, and that the works attributed to him were written by another Greek of the same name. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How embarrassing. Right, this is just the Italian name for Homer. (of antiquity). --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bamoidōkishin

What is the "Bamoidōkishin" mentioned in the article Seito Sakakibara? A god, spirit, or ghost? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since that's a proper name which Seito apparently made up, only Seito knows what type of being it is meant to be. My guess, though, is a shinigami. (If, in his twisted mind, he was helping the shinigami, then, perhaps, he expected some help in return.) StuRat (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Cathedral height of nave

I suppose it might be faster to ask here than at Talk:Canterbury Cathedral - does anyone know the height of the nave? I haven't been able to find a number anywhere. It would be a useful addition to the article and to the list of highest church naves. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll check my copy of Banister Fletcher in an hour or so when it's at hand and get back to you: I think Fletcher gives a dimension. It's higher than most English churches, but low in comparison with French vaulting. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir Banister's let me down. No sign of a figure at all, in two different editions. I'd suggest consulting the appropriate Pevsner, if you can find one. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This reliable-looking site gives the height as 80 feet, and a whole load of other stats as well. --Antiquary (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! That is low compared to France. It looks enormous though. I was sure it was a lot higher than my local cathedral, which is 113 feet. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Canterbury guide; or Travellers pocket companion confirms the 80' figure. Another source talks of the nave's "enormous height compared to its breadth" which may make it look higher than it actually is. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See Forced perspective. Dru of Id (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Memoirs of Henry Obookiah

There are many portraits/engravings of Henry Obookiah from different publications of Memoirs of Henry Obookiah at commons:Category:Henry Opukahaia and on the web. I was wondering who is the artist/engraver behind each one and the dates when they were created. Also which was the original version?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf no longer banned in 2016?

Is it possible that Mein Kampf is still copyrighted in 2016? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Banned, or copyrighted? They are completely different things... You can read about both subjects in our article, Mein Kampf, though. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Was the possession of Mein Kampf legal in the DDR? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a popular misconception about the ban on Mein Kampf? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read our article onMein Kampf? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What "ban" are you talking about? That would help us narrow down our answers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Darf Mein Kampf antiquarisch vertrieben werden? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(May Mein Kampf be traded second-hand?) Yes. See List of books banned by governments - "It is legal to own or distribute existing copies" - and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9131766/German-court-bans-Mein-Kampf-extracts-from-being-printed.html - "It is not banned as such in Germany but since the end of World War II, Bavaria [...] has not permitted reprints." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is not banned in Germany, but there are some legal restrictions. The state of Bavaria won't let anyone publish any edition without a critical introduction. MangoNr1 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was Zeitungszeugen not allowed to include parts of Mein Kampf? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How many 8-bit characters are needed for Mein Kampf? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

84.61 is kinda trollish, I think. MangoNr1 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes a known troll, check out the talk archives. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Can Mein Kampf, when its copyright has been expired, be stored on a single 1.44 MB floppy disk? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Will there still be 1.44 MB floppy disks in 2016? Mein Kampf has about 800 pages of low-density, repetitive, boring text. One page of a book is typically around 4k characters, so it should come in at 3.2 MB raw, but maybe about 1M if e.g. gzipped. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you put "5¼ inch floppy" into Google, you can find people who will still sell you new boxes of even more obsolete diskettes... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does this section still exist? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good poets borrow, great poets steal

The above phrase; "Good poets borrow, great poets steal" is oten mis-attributed to T. S. Eliot, who was in fact quite a bit more subtle in what he was saying. However, I want to translate "good poets borrow, great poets steal" into Latin. My Latin is pretty shakey. Google Translate comes up with "Bonum poetarum mutuum, poetae furtum" which firstly isn't grammatical, and secondly doesn't really make any sense. Can anyone suggest a more accurate translation? Thank you, Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Poetae boni mutuantur, magni furantur"? (Amusingly, what you have could read "a good loan from many poets, a good steal from one poet".) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

oldest known man-eating animal

What is the oldest known man-eating animal whose name has survived? I'm not talking about species but instead famed individuals like the Beast of Gévaudan.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that we don't know what the Beast of Gévaudan was, or how old it was (or any of them were, if plural), it's hardly a useful comparison. And come to think of it, do you mean oldest as in longest-lived, or as in most distant in time? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a funny story recorded by Usama ibn Munqidh where a leopard attacks and kills crusaders, but not Muslims, so the Muslims called it "the leopard of jihad". If that counts as a name, then that's one example from the twelfth century. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There's the Beast's contemporary, the Wolf of Soissons. And the dread Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh

I read in the Princeton review US history book of 2012 edition that President Wilson has met Ho Chi Minh at the Versailles Peace Conference. I wonder if this is real or not? Can someone point out to me another source, a book or an online source to prove it?Pendragon5 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "met". But he certainly was at the conference, and according to our article, he did petition Wilson to replace the French colonial government with a national Vietnamese government. The article gives two sources, one of which is this library of congress record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

White tie

Our article states that men are to wear "black silk socks or stockings". Other white tie dress codes I've seen specify stockings only. Are these the same kinds of stockings that women would wear or is there actually such a thing as "mens' stockings"? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe "stockings", in the case of men, can mean socks. I believe this is how they are using it here. Thus, they are using "or" not to mean two different items, but rather two different names for the same item. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, men's stockings traditionally go over the knee (and more traditionally are kept there by ribbons tied above the knee). Socks are a modern abomination, as is the whole concept of "elastic" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But there is the term "knee socks", so apparently we now use the word "socks" for anything which stops short of the thigh. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

When Queen Elizabeth visited the White House during Bush 43's presidency, Bush acquiesed and went "white tie" for the dinner. A newspaper article gave side-by-side dress codes for "black tie" (customary for White House events) and "white tie". Black tie said "black silk socks", while white tie said "black stockings". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like they go farther up the leg, but are otherwise similar to socks, not the sheer stockings worn by women. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

18th-century knee breeches

This is a partial relic of eighteenth century western clothing, where men's stockings were constantly on display from the calf down to the shoe, while women's stockings weren't usually too visible unless her clothing was disarranged. As late as the 1920s, knee breeches were standard formal wear in Britain for certain occasions; when the first Labour government came in in 1923, King George V "obligingly relaxed the rule that [cabinet ministers] should wear black knee-breeches and white silk stockings". AnonMoos (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As recently as 2000, Michael Martin the Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) "chose not to wear knee breeches, silk stockings or the traditional buckled shoes favouring flannel trousers and Oxford shoes." He thereby further eroded a birthright of all freeborn Britons; that is the principle that anyone given a position of great authority should be made to wear a ridiculous outfit. In contrast, Black Rod and the Serjeant at Arms of the British House of Commons still dutifully wear their silly breeches and stockings. You can see them in action (and a lot of other amusing costumes) here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, since nobody can see what's under your pants, most men can probably get away with wearing normal dress socks. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. These chaps aren't about to hitch-up their trousers. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet that Phillip is wearing the stockings. Not so sure about W. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

All gentlemen know that dressing well is never about what one can "get away with". Now, as for GWB ... :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And many jokes are based precisely on the idea of an incongruity between masculine state functions (often in the joke, the judiciary) and the opinion from within proletarian discourses that aristocratic and bourgeois forms of dress are feminising. Does his Honour have a garter belt to go with his stockings? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm picturing the judges from the Monty Python sketch disrobing in the change room to show their women's lingerie underneath. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deism

Deists believe that there is a god. But what do they mean by God? Do they believe that God is personal? Do they believe that God is an actual person? Do they believe that God is actually a person, or some kind of force, power, or influence?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Deism article should be able to answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are variety of beliefs among deists. See, for example, Panendeism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)