|
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. |
On November 30 2017 17:03 Big J wrote:
I'm a mathematician. I need axioms and a logical consistent reasoning. If you define freedom as a physical trait it can be taken as an axiom, because it is undeniably there.
Only then can you argue for a liberal society, because you can argue based on that axiom and deduce your rules and rights in a way to maximize freedom in a world in which interactions of people necessarily restrict it.
If you start off as a socialist, so with the notion that there is a society and then base your argumentation on a fundamental process how that society makes rules then you will never end up with a system seeking to maximize freedom. The fundamental right will always be the one that the society can make any right, it doesn't have to serve freedom. Freedom in itself becomes a mere right that can be given or withdrawn.
I really think the English language doesn't yield itself to axioms in that way. When you say
You are always fundamentally free, even when you are in jail, even when you are in the process of being killed, even when you are in a coma
it just isn't that useful. Freedom in society needs to be separate, and has historically been so. Dictatorships jail political dissidents, they deprive them of their freedom. One step removed, people of that society do not have the freedom to protest their government, publish fliers, hold meetings. The same applies to lawless and vigilante areas. The American reconstruction era guaranteed certain rights for blacks, but the KKK would take you down in addition to/instead of the law. So I say let freedom stand for its historical understanding (the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint) with its historical modifiers (economic freeedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech), and you unlock a rich vocabulary of related words (positive and negative liberties, civil liberties, rights (to own property, to a fair trial).
|
I was writing a reply to Big J, got pulled into a meeting, and got back to this post by Danglars that says it a lot clearer than I was going to.
You simply cannot speak of absolute freedom in the way you do. It doesn't exist, and it really shouldn't exist. Speaking of specific freedoms in their historical context (and understanding the philosophies that led to us aspiring to having and granting these freedoms) is far far far more useful in any discussion.
Although I am surprised to hear these words from someone who flirts with Ayn Rand's twisted concepts of "freedom" from time to time.
|
On November 30 2017 20:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 19:37 xM(Z wrote:
for your picture to be whole Big J, what you need to do know is realize that people, as in every single one of us, are not special snowflakes but are grouped in countable, finite sets(descriptive at first but my guess is that science could make them prescriptive). once you know/figure out that people can be grouped to within degrees of freedom, you realize how socialism can and does work.
yes, you can, do, and will grasp the happiness of other people.
also, know that freedom(as a concept) is taught and that its universal constrains are the same/equal for everyone. Only if you disregard the freedom of those who are special snowflakes. Of course we are all physically very similar and therefore we have a very high chance to understand the needs of each other if we really try. Point is, most people don't try. So any form of socialism (in the modern sense of state socialism) is always confronted with the problem that most people don't care enough, at least for people they are not interacting with, and there is no sure mechanism to elect those who try and even those who try will often be gravely mistaken trying to regulate in areas they don't understand. Which is why you have to split power a lot and make sure it can only be acquired in consentual, mutual benefitial mechanisms to begin with. Which is the typical problem with modern capitalism. It doesn't weight power by people or effort, but by money. Which, when it gets started from an egalitarian situation is pretty much the same, but it diverges because a) people who have acquired money from effort win more, even when they stop making that extra effort, as they can use money as a source of power b) inheritance gives individuals power without effort. It just diverges a little slower from freedom (and all the benefits that come with it) than giving all power in the hands of state leaders to begin with, but in reality it ends in the same place without reset mechanisms (like extreme heritage taxes) and punishment mechanisms for bad (=mutually unbenefitial) resource management (like wealth taxes and enviromental taxes/regulations that force owners to work more efficient for mutual benefit than if the resource wasn't made exclusively owned). you chose to point/explain things out by example while i was merely aiming for an informal discussion on a theoretical framework of sorts and maybe a heading(direction of/entropy) on the issue.
now, while your example is valid but also limited to the contextual frame of reference as defined(or implied) by you, freedom/happiness = money, it is not something i care to dabble in right now + Show Spoiler +but to briefly touch on your points: to me, it comes down to - what would one do(me) if put in a position of power?.
i would pull the biggest confiscation of goods and deprivation of liberties the world has ever seen; just reset everything then observe what happens, see what naturally sticks, perceive a heading if one will form, listen to feedback etc.
Ex: i'll witness Danglars trying to explain to an angry mob his rights to 'his' propriety seconds before getting lynched. that in itself would be a teachable moment: do we have property for everyone?; the obvious answer here is no, so then by virtue of feedback, property rights would never exist.
i'd compromise with a lifetime renting of a personal space of sorts, perhaps ...
abstract: in absolute terms, people don't rule anything; rules rule with people only being enforcers. from the hippie libertarian to the authoritarian communist, they all follow rules(existing ones or their own; here, that distinction is irrelevant).
with that in mind, you now know that all you need is rules and enforcers(initially only because eventually, rules within a context and with the right heading will be enough of a guideline for a society to grow/develop), but not rulers.
|
The reason for the continued disagreement might very well be found in how we define free.
|
On December 01 2017 04:11 Artisreal wrote:
The reason for the continued disagreement might very well be found in how we define free.
I think this has been rather clear by now. But what we call it aside, I would be more interested in hearing what's so wrong about my thought system that is simple based on the physical truth, that "only I can control my actions" and which from there on only seeks a ruleset for people, which aims at minimizing the restrictions that one person can impose on another one.
I can clearly not look in your head and know better what you want to eat, to work or to buy. This has been the basic conception of liberalism all along in my eyes. I find it somewhat astounding how everyone seems to put socialist existance axioms first ("there is a society" - which in my eyes is not true; there are people, they become a society when they give themselves rules. For that they have to consent to goals. Which there is only one of, that everyone can agree with for him-/herself, to be free in their decisions. They may consent to being restricted as well, but they can only consent when they are free to begin with.) and then say the society should be allowed to decide upon rules. And only in that rule making process, they want to get freedom rights. Not that the rulesetting process should be set up for freedom to begin with, but the ruler(s) should provide them freedom.
|
Actually I get the point of free speech allowing everything, expression of love, hate, whatnot. Although it's sexual harassment of you're too plump with that, even in the us.
This just hasn't got any basis in reality where any freedom that restricts cannot be true freedom.
My freedom to advocate for your extermination, without following through of course, is nothing worth protecting in any moral framework.
It's an inherent contradiction. Freedom of one stops where the freedom of another begins.
Seeing how a black person per se can be threatening enough to a white person to shoot them dead, how terribly terrifying must a white person, who's ancestors oppressed Black's in the past, advocating for their extermination be.
It's apples and oranges.
It's not restricting free speech, it's restricting hate speech.
And yes, that might arguably be close to a moral censorship. But that's exactly how common sense works so I don't really see a restriction in that.
If it ain't harmful but wrong, like flat earthers or creationists, it should be publicly shamed as such. If it both wrong and harmful it is to be publicly shamed and put under penalty. Just like Nazi grandma.
I'll gladly let you reply if you want to and leave it at that.
Our difference in how we approach the concept of freedom and free speech differs way too much to merit a useful exchange. Sorry for being unnecessarily unclear before.
|
On December 01 2017 07:25 Artisreal wrote:
Actually I get the point of free speech allowing everything, expression of love, hate, whatnot. Although it's sexual harassment of you're too plump with that, even in the us.
This just hasn't got any basis in reality where any freedom that restricts cannot be true freedom.
My freedom to advocate for your extermination, without following through of course, is nothing worth protecting in any moral framework.
It's an inherent contradiction. Freedom of one stops where the freedom of another begins.
Seeing how a black person per se can be threatening enough to a white person to shoot them dead, how terribly terrifying must a white person, who's ancestors oppressed Black's in the past, advocating for their extermination be.
It's apples and oranges.
It's not restricting free speech, it's restricting hate speech.
And yes, that might arguably be close to a moral censorship. But that's exactly how common sense works so I don't really see a restriction in that.
If it ain't harmful but wrong, like flat earthers or creationists, it should be publicly shamed as such. If it both wrong and harmful it is to be publicly shamed and put under penalty. Just like Nazi grandma.
I'll gladly let you reply if you want to and leave it at that.
Our difference in how we approach the concept of freedom and free speech differs way too much to merit a useful exchange. Sorry for being unnecessarily unclear before.
Well, I mean free speech is one of the things that has rarely any impact that one would be strongly against. Therefore most people would usually consent to people being allowed to speak their mind regardless of content. Hate speech however is one of the cases that many simply don't consent to. Private organizations like internet forums usually regulate it. Parents usually regulate it in their houses. It is more often than not seen as a case of speech that has a negative, non-consensual impact on the (potential) audience. That's why people do restrict it, even when governing people often don't for obvious, power-abusing, often rightfully seen as ideologically-motivated reasoning. I don't believe the outcome of how I argue and how you argue is different, I just believe that my argumentation is much clearer, because I have a clearly quantifyable base axiom, which is the freedom of the audience to not be bothered with the shit one has to say and the freedom of those members of society, that the hatred is directed towards, to demand protection from something that is generally seen as aggression. I argue that by breaking with freedom of speech (even if it is not the general law that may do it, just the reality of people shutting the haters up) in the case of hate speech the actual freedom within the society is increased, not decreased. Since you can clearly be a xenophob or talk all sorts of bullshit and only types of speech that very clearly pro-Nationalsocialism are forbidden, a type of ideology that very simply did decrease freedom, yet you can pretty much demand all the things Nazis did without being punished, I don't even see what's the big deal with explicitely banning that case of free speech. If you want gas chambers demand gas chambers, just don't subscribe to Nazism and you are probably fine.
On another front, the government of the Austrian state of Carinthia believes to have found a legal way to ban Glyphosat to a large degree locally. The topic has been pushed by the Greens and the FPÖ and now even the local conservatives seem to be in line. (The coalition there is led by the social-democrats and includes the conservatives and greens. The actual government is formed by members of all parties. The state is the traditional heartland of the FPÖ and a race between SPÖ and FPÖ is expected in the upcoming elections, though first polls show a clear lead for the SPÖ and a stable outcome for the coalition parties, with the FPÖ only reacquiring the votes they lost due to their latest two party splits).
|
On December 01 2017 04:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 04:11 Artisreal wrote:
The reason for the continued disagreement might very well be found in how we define free. I think this has been rather clear by now. But what we call it aside, I would be more interested in hearing what's so wrong about my thought system that is simple based on the physical truth, that "only I can control my actions" and which from there on only seeks a ruleset for people, which aims at minimizing the restrictions that one person can impose on another one. I can clearly not look in your head and know better what you want to eat, to work or to buy. This has been the basic conception of liberalism all along in my eyes. I find it somewhat astounding how everyone seems to put socialist existance axioms first ("there is a society" - which in my eyes is not true; there are people, they become a society when they give themselves rules. For that they have to consent to goals. Which there is only one of, that everyone can agree with for him-/herself, to be free in their decisions. They may consent to being restricted as well, but they can only consent when they are free to begin with.) and then say the society should be allowed to decide upon rules. And only in that rule making process, they want to get freedom rights. Not that the rulesetting process should be set up for freedom to begin with, but the ruler(s) should provide them freedom. you're missing the "opt in" option; in the sense that it ... doesn't exist.
mainly, for your math to work out you'd need a society then a let's call it 'land of the free' as separate, totally divided entities, then an opt in option for the free(or viceversa) with which they'd consent to goals before entering said society.
you're some tens of thousands of years late on that. when born in a society, your ancestors made all the consenting for you already.
(even if nitpicking with 'but i can go in the forests and blablabla', the society still has rights over you and if you cross their rules you'll receive their judgement; consenting or otherwise)
|
On December 01 2017 18:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 04:40 Big J wrote:On December 01 2017 04:11 Artisreal wrote:
The reason for the continued disagreement might very well be found in how we define free. I think this has been rather clear by now. But what we call it aside, I would be more interested in hearing what's so wrong about my thought system that is simple based on the physical truth, that "only I can control my actions" and which from there on only seeks a ruleset for people, which aims at minimizing the restrictions that one person can impose on another one. I can clearly not look in your head and know better what you want to eat, to work or to buy. This has been the basic conception of liberalism all along in my eyes. I find it somewhat astounding how everyone seems to put socialist existance axioms first ("there is a society" - which in my eyes is not true; there are people, they become a society when they give themselves rules. For that they have to consent to goals. Which there is only one of, that everyone can agree with for him-/herself, to be free in their decisions. They may consent to being restricted as well, but they can only consent when they are free to begin with.) and then say the society should be allowed to decide upon rules. And only in that rule making process, they want to get freedom rights. Not that the rulesetting process should be set up for freedom to begin with, but the ruler(s) should provide them freedom. you're missing the "opt in" option; in the sense that it ... doesn't exist. mainly, for your math to work out you'd need a society then a let's call it 'land of the free' as separate, totally divided entities, then an opt in option for the free(or viceversa) with which they'd consent to goals before entering said society. you're some tens of thousands of years late on that. when born in a society, your ancestors made all the consenting for you already. (even if nitpicking with 'but i can go in the forests and blablabla', the society still has rights over you and if you cross their rules you'll receive their judgement; consenting or otherwise)
I reject this deterministic view of people always reacting in certain ways and there being no way for willfull change. Determinism may be right and we are all just physical particles behaving without a choice or even without randomness at all, but Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle at least suggests that we can never know. For all practical purposes of interaction between people it seems to be useful to start with a free will that can decide one way or another. It is human supression and bad influence over one another that makes it difficult to find happiness. This supression can be changed by willful change of behavior, for which you need consent. Ancestor's made decisions, but it is the living that follow their orders and it is them who can simply stop to do so, when it seems unbenefitial by some criteria. The base criterion to determine other, such criteria (laws, morals etc.) being a mutual respect for each others needs, hence, respecting each others freedom.
And yes, I do not see myself as "part of a society" that I do not opt into. I believe I do opt in willfully into different societies, based on the effort I make to do so and their acceptance of me. I am in no way part of the Chinese society, but I consider myself to belong to a large degree to the Austrian society, although I only consider a passport a social necessity, and a voting right a personal liberal empowerment, neither of which I is defining for my personality. Just like being on TL is not defining for my personality, yet I enjoy spending time here and I believe to be a part of this society, although the degree has certainly changed over the years. I do so willfully. If you force me to post here against my will, I would not consider myself part of this society, I would merely be a person that posts here.
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/02/daphne-caruana-galizia-malta-death-of-journalist-meps
MEPs on a fact-finding mission to Malta after the killing of the investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia have said they arrived “seriously concerned” about the rule of law on the island and were leaving “even more worried”.
Dispatched after the European parliament demanded that EU authorities open a formal dialogue with Malta over the death, the delegation said an apparent reluctance to investigate and prosecute major cases had created a “perception of impunity”.
The Portuguese Socialist MEP Ana Gomes said the delegation found it “extremely disturbing” that some of the officials it met did not answer its questions. One, prime minister Joseph Muscat’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri, read out a prepared statement, she said, while another “never showed up”.
|
On December 01 2017 19:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 18:31 xM(Z wrote:On December 01 2017 04:40 Big J wrote:On December 01 2017 04:11 Artisreal wrote:
The reason for the continued disagreement might very well be found in how we define free. I think this has been rather clear by now. But what we call it aside, I would be more interested in hearing what's so wrong about my thought system that is simple based on the physical truth, that "only I can control my actions" and which from there on only seeks a ruleset for people, which aims at minimizing the restrictions that one person can impose on another one. I can clearly not look in your head and know better what you want to eat, to work or to buy. This has been the basic conception of liberalism all along in my eyes. I find it somewhat astounding how everyone seems to put socialist existance axioms first ("there is a society" - which in my eyes is not true; there are people, they become a society when they give themselves rules. For that they have to consent to goals. Which there is only one of, that everyone can agree with for him-/herself, to be free in their decisions. They may consent to being restricted as well, but they can only consent when they are free to begin with.) and then say the society should be allowed to decide upon rules. And only in that rule making process, they want to get freedom rights. Not that the rulesetting process should be set up for freedom to begin with, but the ruler(s) should provide them freedom. you're missing the "opt in" option; in the sense that it ... doesn't exist. mainly, for your math to work out you'd need a society then a let's call it 'land of the free' as separate, totally divided entities, then an opt in option for the free(or viceversa) with which they'd consent to goals before entering said society. you're some tens of thousands of years late on that. when born in a society, your ancestors made all the consenting for you already. (even if nitpicking with 'but i can go in the forests and blablabla', the society still has rights over you and if you cross their rules you'll receive their judgement; consenting or otherwise) I reject this deterministic view of people always reacting in certain ways and there being no way for willfull change. Determinism may be right and we are all just physical particles behaving without a choice or even without randomness at all, but Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle at least suggests that we can never know. For all practical purposes of interaction between people it seems to be useful to start with a free will that can decide one way or another. It is human supression and bad influence over one another that makes it difficult to find happiness. This supression can be changed by willful change of behavior, for which you need consent. Ancestor's made decisions, but it is the living that follow their orders and it is them who can simply stop to do so, when it seems unbenefitial by some criteria. The base criterion to determine other, such criteria (laws, morals etc.) being a mutual respect for each others needs, hence, respecting each others freedom. And yes, I do not see myself as "part of a society" that I do not opt into. I believe I do opt in willfully into different societies, based on the effort I make to do so and their acceptance of me. I am in no way part of the Chinese society, but I consider myself to belong to a large degree to the Austrian society, although I only consider a passport a social necessity, and a voting right a personal liberal empowerment, neither of which I is defining for my personality. Just like being on TL is not defining for my personality, yet I enjoy spending time here and I believe to be a part of this society, although the degree has certainly changed over the years. I do so willfully. If you force me to post here against my will, I would not consider myself part of this society, I would merely be a person that posts here. you started the argumentation with an ideology - infinite freedoms for everyone to opt in, but failed to see that they'd have a finite physical space to express themselves, then finished, while coming back to earth a little, with a half assed acknowledgement that freedoms do require a physical space(austrian society, chinese society etc) to develop but then failed to deliver on 'what happens when you run out of space?'.
austrian society vs chinese society = born into the first vs have a choice about the later. what you fail here is that when/after choosing the chinese society, they would then need to(choose to) accept you else you my friend are fucked.
those(obliviousness to spatial limitation and infringing on others hospitality) are classical imperialism tenets - '...the defense and justification of empire-building based on seemingly rational grounds.'.
on other points: your view on determinism and its meaning is very narrow so i don't know, maybe you could look into (neo)environmental determinism as a framing exercise. it's not that 'there being no way for willfull change' but that the thing you willful change into is limited by <factors>.
|
An interesting take on the various attitudes towards EU :
https://reader.chathamhouse.org/europes-political-tribes
Europe’s political tribes: who are they?
We have assigned names to each of the six political classes or ‘tribes’ identified, based on their attitudinal profiles. In order of size, from largest to smallest, the tribes are:
- Hesitant Europeans (36 per cent of the sample)
- Contented Europeans (23 per cent)
- EU Rejecters (14 per cent)
- Frustrated Pro-Europeans (9 per cent)
- Austerity Rebels (9 per cent)
- Federalists (8 per cent)
These tribes differ in terms of their members’ social and demographic characteristics and attitudes towards a wide range of issues, including European integration, immigration and political responsiveness.
+ Show Spoiler +
Go Austerity Rebels!
|
|
|
"reserved status quo" seems to be the popular mood at the moment, those tribes seem plausible. Hopefully the econ recovery strengthens the will for deeper reform a little. It would also help if we had a government obviously
On December 03 2017 04:15 TheDwf wrote:
Go Austerity Rebels!
I hope the irony that this again mirrors the sentiment of the right-wing 'eu-rejecters' is at least noticed. It's either the EU or barbarism, stop strengthening your worst political enemy.
|
On December 03 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:"reserved status quo" seems to be the popular mood at the moment, those tribes seem plausible. Hopefully the econ recovery strengthens the will for deeper reform a little. It would also help if we had a government obviously I hope the irony that this again mirrors the sentiment of the right-wing 'eu-rejecters' is at least noticed. It's either the EU or barbarism, stop strengthening your worst political enemy.
Official Inflation is around 2.1% and my personal inflation around 2.8% and I'm saving half of my money to eventually buy property which is increasing at around 4-5%. Which means my actual personal inflation if I average over the inflation + the inflation-excluded property costs is somewhere between 3.5% and 4%. My wage increase this year is 2.3%.
Sadly there is no econ recovery for me 
|
I take it federalists in DWF’s article means pro federalization of Europe (closer union?), and somewhat close to contented Europe?
|
On December 03 2017 09:41 Danglars wrote:
I take it federalists in DWF’s article means pro federalization of Europe (closer union?), and somewhat close to contented Europe?
yep, they had a description on one of the pages
Federalists are the most pro-European group and also, on average, the wealthiest. People in this group are the most likely to feel that they have benefited from the EU and to feel very satisfied with their lives. This group is also the most positive about immigration. Its members want a more deeply integrated EU, and support the eventual creation of a ‘United States of Europe’. This group tends to be split across the political spectrum, although its members are the least likely to occupy the centre. They feel happy and confident about the EU. Our analysis suggests that 8 per cent of respondents belong to this tribe, making it the smallest of all the groups.The Federalists tribe has more men than women, and its composition is in fact the most male – and the least gender-balanced – of all the tribes. It is also, on average, the oldest tribe and the most likely to include people who are retired from work. Its members are the most likely of any tribe to be university educated and to have lots of friends from other countries – their social networks are wide and deep (consisting of friends across a range of occupations, from cleaners to company executives). Federalists are spread across the continent, but are most likely to live in southern Europe. This tribe is firmly committed to the idea of an ever closer union in the EU.
On December 03 2017 08:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:"reserved status quo" seems to be the popular mood at the moment, those tribes seem plausible. Hopefully the econ recovery strengthens the will for deeper reform a little. It would also help if we had a government obviously On December 03 2017 04:15 TheDwf wrote:
Go Austerity Rebels! I hope the irony that this again mirrors the sentiment of the right-wing 'eu-rejecters' is at least noticed. It's either the EU or barbarism, stop strengthening your worst political enemy. Official Inflation is around 2.1% and my personal inflation around 2.8% and I'm saving half of my money to eventually buy property which is increasing at around 4-5%. Which means my actual personal inflation if I average over the inflation + the inflation-excluded property costs is somewhere between 3.5% and 4%. My wage increase this year is 2.3%. Sadly there is no econ recovery for me
At this point you're honestly better off if you put your money into stock or wait for a price correction on the housing market. Property is too expensive right now.
|
On December 03 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:"reserved status quo" seems to be the popular mood at the moment, those tribes seem plausible. Hopefully the econ recovery strengthens the will for deeper reform a little. It would also help if we had a government obviously I hope the irony that this again mirrors the sentiment of the right-wing 'eu-rejecters' is at least noticed. It's either the EU or barbarism, stop strengthening your worst political enemy.
ye, cause the effects austerity arent barbaric at all
"xyz or barbarism" is rich coming from an agenda 2010 social democrat like you
|
On December 03 2017 13:26 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:"reserved status quo" seems to be the popular mood at the moment, those tribes seem plausible. Hopefully the econ recovery strengthens the will for deeper reform a little. It would also help if we had a government obviously On December 03 2017 04:15 TheDwf wrote:
Go Austerity Rebels! I hope the irony that this again mirrors the sentiment of the right-wing 'eu-rejecters' is at least noticed. It's either the EU or barbarism, stop strengthening your worst political enemy. ye, cause the effects austerity arent barbaric at all "xyz or barbarism" is rich coming from an agenda 2010 social democrat like you
the effects of austerity, which are bad in many cases are nothing to the full blown resurgence of nationalism or even golden dawn like fascism. Austerity has in cases like Greece caused considerable decline in living standards and despair, that's true. But it's nothing like a return to pre-democratic illiberal governments that many countries of Europe did experience well into the 70s. If the left wants to play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" go ahead, but it's not going to end well.
|
On December 03 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:"reserved status quo" seems to be the popular mood at the moment, those tribes seem plausible. Hopefully the econ recovery strengthens the will for deeper reform a little. It would also help if we had a government obviously I hope the irony that this again mirrors the sentiment of the right-wing 'eu-rejecters' is at least noticed. It's either socialism* or barbarism, stop strengthening your worst political enemy.
Fixed
I have no idea why you keep doing this:
‘EU Rejecters’ are angry about politics and the EU. They are least likely to feel any benefits of membership, and overwhelmingly view the EU as undemocratic. Most feel negative about immigration and are socially conservative.
‘Austerity Rebels’ want a looser, more democratic EU driven by solidarity, with powers returned to member states. They tend to think that richer states should support poorer ones, and that each state should accept its fair share of refugees.
Mr. Reasonable: wow, all those populists are the same!
So far it's those "extreme-centre" politics which made the far-right rise, you know? Social-democrats blaming the left for fueling the far-right is quite gross... Who was in power those last years? Us or you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://reader.chathamhouse.org/epubs/623/images/Figure-3-EU.png)
