Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
So Paris and Amsterdam as new hosts to EBA and EMA (replacing London because Brexit). I was hoping at least one of those will go to "New" EU member state. Obviously not Poland (since right now we are the Bad Boy of EU) but Prague or Bratislava would be nice.
Fifth one located in France (third in Paris) and third in Netherlands. Yay.
On November 21 2017 19:18 Silvanel wrote: So Paris and Amsterdam as new hosts to EBA and EMA (replacing London cuase Brexit). I was hoping at least one of those will go to "New" EU member state. Obviously not Poland (since right now we are the Bad Boy of EU) but Prague or Bratislava would be nice.
Fifth one located in France (third in Paris) and third in Netherlands. Yay.
Damn, all of the ass licking from our government didn't pay off What should we do now ? Judging from the latest statements of our (precious) prime minister, we are Turkey's bitch now.
Ljubljana, Prague, Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn already have their agencies. Even Valletta has one. Budapest sounds cool so it got 2. Considering how late we joined. I think we shouldn't complain about this. Slovaks just need to git gud at lobbying.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation. The downside is obvious - there's a larger incentive than normal for the government to pick winners in business - but it's a better idea than any of the more subjective alternatives.
If I had to take a guess, I would say Austria is probably lobbying against Bratislava. Vienna/Austria's East are already bleeding out Service Agencies.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation. The downside is obvious - there's a larger incentive than normal for the government to pick winners in business - but it's a better idea than any of the more subjective alternatives.
How is money not completely subjective? You may as well just give yourself any amount of votes, if you bind it on an arbitrary good that you may or may not long for, completely dependend on your own choice.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation. The downside is obvious - there's a larger incentive than normal for the government to pick winners in business - but it's a better idea than any of the more subjective alternatives.
How is money not completely subjective? You may as well just give yourself any amount of votes, if you bind it on an arbitrary good that you may or may not long for, completely dependend on your own choice.
Because you would need to actually pay those taxes to get the bonus vote.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation.
And again, how does the state prevent the poor from simply rioting and destroying that system which is basically an aristocracy? More money means more rights and protecting from the state. Just cut the BS, give the wealthy titles like “Greatest Contributor to the State of New York” and allow them to pass that title to their children so long as they continued to contribute.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation. The downside is obvious - there's a larger incentive than normal for the government to pick winners in business - but it's a better idea than any of the more subjective alternatives.
How is money not completely subjective? You may as well just give yourself any amount of votes, if you bind it on an arbitrary good that you may or may not long for, completely dependend on your own choice.
Because you would need to actually pay those taxes to get the bonus vote.
So? You are still stuck with the basic problem that at first you would have to universally establish what is "good for society" and then this universal "goodness" needs to be largely capitalized so that money can start to become a measure. It's always the same old communist problem. If you had a universal goal then yes, you could deduce what is good for "society". But in reality there are individuals and only they know what they really want. There is only one acceptable "contribution to society" and that is the empowerment of the individuals.
For all the talk about EU27 unity against British negotiators, the competition for the European Medicines Agency, one of Brexit's biggest spoils, is exposing some of the Continent's deepest East-West fault lines, especially on social attitudes and values.
Rasi said he understands the concerns of the agency's LGBT staff who wrote to him and other EU leaders about their fear of moving to a place that won't protect their rights or recognize their marriages when the agency leaves London after Brexit.
"We have to do everything we can to ensure the new location can be reconciled with the life choices our staff have made, so that we can retain as many of them as possible to guarantee the continuity of EMA's operations." Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria do not have an EU agency.
All three joined the bloc more than a decade ago, and as the U.K. walks out, they argue there is no justification for denying them the full trappings of membership, including playing host to the €322 million agency.
"EU countries talk about solidarity, but they only support it when it goes one way ," said one Brussels-based diplomat from Eastern Europe, hinting at the clash pitting the European Commission and countries like Germany against Central and Eastern European countries over migrant quotas.
Even though there are at most 70 LGBT staff at the agency, about 250 employees signed the letter of concern, the writers said.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation. The downside is obvious - there's a larger incentive than normal for the government to pick winners in business - but it's a better idea than any of the more subjective alternatives.
How is money not completely subjective? You may as well just give yourself any amount of votes, if you bind it on an arbitrary good that you may or may not long for, completely dependend on your own choice.
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO.
- Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision.
Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person.
We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain.
You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts.
The only answer I'm aware of here that has any chance of working out is "money"; people who pay enough taxes get extra an extra vote as compensation. The downside is obvious - there's a larger incentive than normal for the government to pick winners in business - but it's a better idea than any of the more subjective alternatives.
How is money not completely subjective? You may as well just give yourself any amount of votes, if you bind it on an arbitrary good that you may or may not long for, completely dependend on your own choice.
Is this because of the prices or something else?
Well I would say so, as I define a price as the difference between making one decision over another (or none). And since 99% of my decisions are not monetarized decisions and I can't replace them through money I don't see why that 1% of capitalized decisions and the taxes I pay for them would somehow define whether I'm worth more or less from a voting point of view. It's not like I earn money from some angelic being called "society", I earn it by selling something to someone else. Which creates a monetarized trade that benefits me and the other person and noone else.
And all of that is written under the presumption that I was somehow in a decent position to make free trades to begin with. Which in reality is absolutely not the case, since the government forces me to accept completely undynamically guaranteed tools of power like eternal property rights, so I don't even have that "free" starting position to begin with and will always have to buckle down and take trades that I know benefit the other side more than they benefit me, but they can live without me, I can't without their goods. So in reality, it is not even a choice for me to try and earn more, it's much, much, much harder for me to earn the same amount as someone who inherited a better trading position.
On November 22 2017 04:22 sc-darkness wrote: New elections in Germany or not likely?
Possible, but not certain. There are some other possibilities that might work, like a minority government or something like that.
Don't know exactly how likely that is, but as far as i know, most people in Berlin would like to avoid new elections.
Still, i can't really give odds on whether or not we will get another election.
Didn't Merkel say she doesn't like minority government?
I wouldn't put too much weight on what Merkel wants anymore. Surely, these types of decision will still see her in a central role. But her star is falling, and it is falling fast. A re-election with her in the leading position might lead to disaster for the CDU in my opinion and there don't seem to be any alternatives. My guess is that the CDU will be trying to get a minority government working (either alone or with the Greens or Liberals) with a weak Merkel and distinctively placing her successors in publically noticeable positions and then try for a re-election in 1-2 years.
Also there is that AfD offer for CDU/FDP to form a minority government without Merkel and them supporting the minority government. It's not going to be considered at this point for reasons of public opinion, but it's probably in their books for the future.
New elections not that likely imo,it wont solve anything either. The polls give about the same result as with the election. New elections could be preferable to a minority government though,but only if they would give the potential for a majority government. There is quiet some risk that it goes the "wrong" way. Merkel will probably lose more votes as I see it now,taking the backlash from not being able to form a government (even though it might not be her fault at all) Germany does need a majority government if the eu wants to make any progress in the important coming years. Proceeding with this without majority government would give the opposition to many arguments and could destabilize Germany which would be a complete disaster.
I do hope they work it out,maybe the liberals will come back if merkel will make some concessions or else maybe the social democrats.
EPT
What should we do now ? Judging from the latest statements of our (precious) prime minister, we are Turkey's bitch now.
