|
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. |
I'd also like to mention that the word "liberal" does not have the same meaning in the EU that it does in the US, and possibly canada? The same is true for "conservative". Neither is "liberal" the same as "left-wing", nor is "conservative" the same as "right-wing" here, so the latter is a least slightly close.
For example, let us take a look at the german party landscape.
FDP: Those are our "liberals". They are not left-wing, but all about being business friendly and rich-people friendly. They are basically US republicans, if you take away the religious crazy.
CDU/CSU: Conservatives. Slightly pro business, but not to the level of the FDP. Definitively based on christian ideology, but once again, not to the crazy level of US republicans. They want stuff to not change too much. (This is a bit superficial of an analysis)
Greens: It's in the name: Ecology, and social equality. Basically a more affluent persons left choice.
The Left: Once again, it's in the name. Our left-most party, splintered of the SPD when those moved further to the middle. Mostly a mix of socialist and social democratic ideas.
SPD: Social democrats, but have been in a coalition with the CDU for such a long time that they are actually kind of close to them. Used to be a Left-wing workers party, but is now definitively a center party.
AfD: This is our right-wing. Completely new party. They are NOT conservative. They are nationalist. Beyond that, they don't seem to have any clearly defined policies, and different people within that party seem to be more socialist or more anarchocapitalist.
It is important to note that this does not map neatly onto the US party spectrum, and the same words there do not mean the same here. While in the US, a "liberal" would be a democrat party member, and usually one of the more leftist ones, that would map best to either SPD or the Left here. But when people say "liberal" in Germany, that means FDP. Which is basically a republican without the religious crazy. Similarly, "conservative" means "Hardcore rightwing" in the US. It does not mean that here.
|
Given the explanation of Simberto, my response is probably not correct in the sense that it did not respond to what nitram meant. I was obviously unaware of that! 
This shows clearly why cultural integration doesn't work. People from savage nations like Canada come into this thread and have no clue about our political culture and its terminology. Tell me, who has invited them?
They want to change our discussion and infiltrate our thread and they will eventually outnumber us! I say we can't go on like this, we need to be able to decide for ourselves who can freely discuss here and who can't and at the moment there are just too many of them here!
(I have to stop now before my sarcasmmeter explodes. Anyways, I think my point is clear: Guys that do not want to be mixed with far-right ideologies shouldn't do the same with "liberals" or whatever and, when nicely asked to clarify their views should respond to that, if they want to be taken seriously. See the comments of Artisreal and Acrofales).
|
I wanted to write similiar post to Simberto. The Liberal/Conservative distinction isnt really that helpful in describing European political landscape. If anything it clouds the view and creates confusion/misunderstandings.
|
On September 03 2018 14:26 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 05:53 zlefin wrote:On September 03 2018 05:27 nitram wrote:On September 02 2018 04:35 Nyxisto wrote:
No, it will not drastically change Europe's labour force or population. Europe has 500 million people, demographically Europe is going to shrink somewhat, but stay largely the way it does now, that's not actually in question. Also, European natives are by and large not uniting under any banner, and definitely not under any racist one. That's a shrill minority, and I obviously expect Europeans to react to all of these changes in a civilised manner as we're not a continent solely consisting of idiots and racists.
I also don't even understand what the last sentence is supposed to mean, change is almost ever instantiated by some force beyond individual choice. Europe does have 500 million people but not all of them are accepting hoards of doctors, lawyers, and scientists from the 3rd world. Now how about western European countries? Is France seeing a drastic change? How about Belgium? Sweden? Germany? England? The Netherlands? Austria? Norway? Europe is swinging right and pretty quickly too. Just like in the US, its a growing quiet minority that have had enough of the crime and leftist lunacy. responding to leftist lunacy with rightist lunacy doesn't seem like an improvement. it's just replacing one lunacy with another. also, I doubt it's just like in the US; since in the US immigrants commit less crime than the native population, so complaining about crime from immigrants wouldn't make sense. whereas in Europe, due to europe's very low crime rates, the rates for immigrants are probably higher (just a guess though, anybody have good data on that?) Do you want data on immigrants or refugees? You are entirely lacking the precision in wording needed to properly discuss the issues Europe is facing. Regardless, look up the report by Statistics Denmark - they have all the data you are looking for.
both. I'm not lacking in precision, I wanted data for each and all of them. and I'm doing the amount of precision required for the context of the discussion I am in. sometimes ultra-high precision is not required for the validity of the point.
I'll look up their report.
looked it up; couldn't find refugees specifically; but plenty of good data on immigrants in general compared to native population, and it's about what I'd expected it to be. so thanks.
|
If you insist on having expressed yourself precisely your statement about immigrants committing less crime is then entirely irrelevant as it too simplistic a statement to contain be of any real relevance to the issues facing EU (or the US for that matter). Any discussion of the impact of immigrants and refugees should include a very clear definition of exactly which group - and from which country of origin - one is talking about.
Oh Zlefin you cutiepie:
Original Message From zlefin:
and disregarded sa the foolish idiocy it is. my comments on immigrants were fine, and precise enough for the purpose for which they were intended. please don' respond to me in thread since you're clearly not going to do so intelligently or in a way which enhances the thread at all.
|
My personal opinion is that talking demographics, regions and similar is kind of pointless. They are people and are unique in their own ways. Of course they share some things but many more are different. For day to day living the stereotypes and expectations just gets in the way of the person in front of you. I expect good things from the people I meet and thus far that has held true far more than the opposite.
I keep that view for immigrants and refugees as well. So the far right parties have 0 traction on me with their message (as far as I can tell).
A lot of the discussion about which refugees are nice and well adjusted often boils down to wanting a reason for preconceived opinions regarding any other group. Hopefully I find the nice things in the people I meet and don't fall into the trap of thinking them worth less.
Which means I am sad that the far right SD is looking to gain votes yet again in Sweden's Sunday election.
|
On September 04 2018 00:37 Yurie wrote:
My personal opinion is that talking demographics, regions and similar is kind of pointless. They are people and are unique in their own ways. Of course they share some things but many more are different. For day to day living the stereotypes and expectations just gets in the way of the person in front of you. I expect good things from the people I meet and thus far that has held true far more than the opposite.
I keep that view for immigrants and refugees as well. So the far right parties have 0 traction on me with their message (as far as I can tell).
A lot of the discussion about which refugees are nice and well adjusted often boils down to wanting a reason for preconceived opinions regarding any other group. Hopefully I find the nice things in the people I meet and don't fall into the trap of thinking them worth less.
Which means I am sad that the far right SD is looking to gain votes yet again in Sweden's Sunday election.
Yes. Grouping people without asking them whether they want to be grouped like that, or somehow implicitely knowing that they want to be grouped like that, can justify everything. If you group people and call them "real Swedes" that doesn't give that group the legitimation to
a) be accept as a representative of whoever considers themselves Swedish
b) be a representative of everyone in the group that you chose, if they didn't give their consent.
An example from the Viennese crime statistics:
"Foreigners" are commiting 2.6 times the amount of crimes of Austrians in Vienna. If you limit to "Foreign inhabitants of Vienna", you drop down to 1.5 times the amount of crimes of inhabitants of Austrian nationality, due to criminals that mostly operate from Hungary or Slovakia not being part of that group.
And I believe that hardly any foreigner living in Vienna would consider it fair to group them with people that come to Vienna for the sole purpose of breaking into houses or stealing cars, regardless of whether they share the statistical "foreigner trait" or not.
|
On September 04 2018 00:37 Yurie wrote:
My personal opinion is that talking demographics, regions and similar is kind of pointless. They are people and are unique in their own ways. Of course they share some things but many more are different. For day to day living the stereotypes and expectations just gets in the way of the person in front of you. I expect good things from the people I meet and thus far that has held true far more than the opposite.
I keep that view for immigrants and refugees as well. So the far right parties have 0 traction on me with their message (as far as I can tell).
A lot of the discussion about which refugees are nice and well adjusted often boils down to wanting a reason for preconceived opinions regarding any other group. Hopefully I find the nice things in the people I meet and don't fall into the trap of thinking them worth less.
Which means I am sad that the far right SD is looking to gain votes yet again in Sweden's Sunday election.
I agree entirely that in your daily life you should treat individuals as individuals. However, policy is not (or at least shouldn't) made on an individual level - it is only reasonable that refugees are treated differently than immigrants (i.e. if all conventions were upheld asylum-seekers "can't" be turned away while immigrants can).
|
On September 03 2018 16:50 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2018 06:01 Nyxisto wrote:On September 03 2018 05:27 nitram wrote:On September 02 2018 04:35 Nyxisto wrote:
No, it will not drastically change Europe's labour force or population. Europe has 500 million people, demographically Europe is going to shrink somewhat, but stay largely the way it does now, that's not actually in question. Also, European natives are by and large not uniting under any banner, and definitely not under any racist one. That's a shrill minority, and I obviously expect Europeans to react to all of these changes in a civilised manner as we're not a continent solely consisting of idiots and racists.
I also don't even understand what the last sentence is supposed to mean, change is almost ever instantiated by some force beyond individual choice. Europe does have 500 million people but not all of them are accepting hoards of doctors, lawyers, and scientists from the 3rd world. Now how about western European countries? Is France seeing a drastic change? How about Belgium? Sweden? Germany? England? The Netherlands? Austria? Norway? Europe is swinging right and pretty quickly too. Just like in the US, its a growing quiet minority that have had enough of the crime and leftist lunacy. Referring to immigrants has hordes, vague ramblings about leftist lunacy, yes we've got a North American user in the thread again. Europe isn't going anywhere. The continent might be more polarised and there is an angry political minority, but they have no answers and are the political equivalent of an appendix. Europe is more liberal than it was 30 years ago, and it will be open and liberal in generations to come. One only needs to look at Europe's young population to see that right-wing extremism has no future. It's a cry on the deathbed. Yeah, Europe will be more liberal... is that why eastern Europe looks at the self destructive nature of western European liberal policies and wants no part of it? Is that why conservative parties are growing all through out Europe? Is that why Italy has swung to the right? Look at this thread, every time someone mentions something conservative, it gets responded and reworded as something far right which has nasty undertones. There are far more people that are conservative then you would like to think. Just wait till election time when ones vote is anonymous.
Don't confuse anger-driven politics with social progress in countries. I was in Warsaw only half a year or so ago. It doesn't feel any more Conservative than it did ten years ago. People in Italy and Poland might be upset and vote for negative, right-wing parties, but when it comes to values and how people live their lives, Poland and Italy too are still more liberal than they were in the past. Look at the influence of the church among young citizens, the tolerance of homosexuals and even the scary right-wing Polish government is starting to court foreign workers, simply out of sheer demand in the face of ageing population and constant emigration.
Sure, they'll beat the drum and say that they don't want Muslim immigrants and welcome devout Phillipino Catholics and whatnot, but slowly Poland too is changing. Thinking that a few populists are going to end globalisation is like fighting a hurriance with a hairdryer.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oN2i2cr.png)
On the topic of individualist approaches vs group approaches, I just thought I would share this.
Just another two-axis political diagram that isn't using traditional "left-right" distinctions that noone actually knows how to define, but rather whether the parties are arguing based on individualist freedom or catering towards social groups that have been formed within the state on the one axis.
And on the other axis whether they believe that there need to be more or less rules.
(don't take the exact position in the diagram too seriously, "the middle of all possible opinions" might be somewhere completely different)
|
I think it would be beneficial if you linked to the source of that figure, because as it stand some information is lacking
|
On September 04 2018 03:29 Ghostcom wrote:
I think it would be beneficial if you linked to the source of that figure, because as it stand some information is lacking
Sorry, I only made this up. What information do you want?
The philosphical background is pretty simple:
Everyone is generally free to do whatever they want (and which is physically possible). The only thing that can hinder them is the freedom of other individuals to prevent them from doing what they can. Forming social groups where you share goals makes it easier to fullfil your personal goals.
Philosohpically speaking, a rulemaker can therefore either try to cater to everyone individually, or try to cater to those social groups that people believe exist or actually exist. (E.g.: The workers, the entrepreneurs, the Americans, the Pensioneers, the Young, the Christians etc.)
And technically speaking they can therefore try to limit the actions of individuals or groups, that can hurt the interest of other individuals or groups (=more rules), or they can try to reduce the complexity of rulesystems and therefore allow for individuals or groups to take greater influence on social interactions, even if it goes against the interest of others.
|
Thanks Big J. I may disagree with just about every tenant and label of the graph but it is great to see people putting out their worldview and their political framework rather than just bland angry sweeping statements or copy pasting from somewhere else and posting it as truth. Though your diagram may be for political groups, and so may not be applicable to the individual, where do you place yourself in your own mental framework?
|
On September 04 2018 05:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks Big J. I may disagree with just about every tenant and label of the graph but it is great to see people putting out their worldview and their political framework rather than just bland angry sweeping statements. Though your diagram may be for poltical groups, and so may not be applicable to the individual, where do you place yourself in your own mental framework?
For reference, the purple labels are not party/ideology self-descriptions, because I believe every party would describe itself as more or less the "middle way" and "the others are too far left/right".
The purple labels are rather how political opponents describe the extremes of the quadrants.
Personally I'd place myself in the top-left quadrant of the diagram.
People who advocate heavily against individualist capitalism tend to forget the extreme, inherent information value of capitalism. The same is true for those people who pretend, that capital is neutral.
Capital is information and information is power. More overall information is great for optimization, but I don't give a fuck about information that I don't have and can't acquire, because I lack the starting capital to join the game.
But also rules and regulations have that inherent information value. Example: Vienna just introduced a law that you must not eat in the underground + Show Spoiler +which I am not a huge fan of, but that is besides the point
Laws, rules, mutual social insurances and regulations are tools to increase the knowledge about the needs of others and to conserve/spread information acquired by other people. Of course, one can take the all-out liberterian approach and only make a basic law of the kind "you must not do harm" and then discuss the question whether there may actually be people that want to have cat poop in their cereals and the hardest regulation should be to inform about that. I personally believe that preventing cat poop in your cereals all together is quite a reasonable approach towards individual liberties of everyone. But the argumentative base for all these rules, taxes and regulations should remain individual freedom.
In a way you could say that I agree with social-democrats or Green parties more on the base of technical measures they want to implement on key issues, than on the base of their argumentation, which is more often than not rather populist.
|
On September 04 2018 07:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2018 05:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks Big J. I may disagree with just about every tenant and label of the graph but it is great to see people putting out their worldview and their political framework rather than just bland angry sweeping statements. Though your diagram may be for poltical groups, and so may not be applicable to the individual, where do you place yourself in your own mental framework? For reference, the purple labels are not party/ideology self-descriptions, because I believe every party would describe itself as more or less the "middle way" and "the others are too far left/right". The purple labels are rather how political opponents describe the extremes of the quadrants. Personally I'd place myself in the top-left quadrant of the diagram. People who advocate heavily against individualist capitalism tend to forget the extreme, inherent information value of capitalism. The same is true for those people who pretend, that capital is neutral. Capital is information and information is power. More overall information is great for optimization, but I don't give a fuck about information that I don't have and can't acquire, because I lack the starting capital to join the game. But also rules and regulations have that inherent information value. Example: Vienna just introduced a law that you must not eat in the underground + Show Spoiler +which I am not a huge fan of, but that is besides the point . They do not punish you for eating. I believe most people will still follow the law. It is a very cheap and efficient way to tell people that there are many others that don't want to smell your kebap for 20 mins and that cleaning trains costs the city money. Laws, rules, mutual social insurances and regulations are tools to increase the knowledge about the needs of others and to conserve/spread information acquired by other people. Of course, one can take the all-out liberterian approach and only make a basic law of the kind "you must not do harm" and then discuss the question whether there may actually be people that want to have cat poop in their cereals and the hardest regulation should be to inform about that. I personally believe that preventing cat poop in your cereals all together is quite a reasonable approach towards individual liberties of everyone. But the argumentative base for all these rules, taxes and regulations should remain individual freedom. In a way you could say that I agree with social-democrats or Green parties more on the base of technical measures they want to implement on key issues, than on the base of their argumentation, which is more often than not rather populist.
I found your diagram and explanation of your personal perspective interesting. Some questions come to mind (particularly about terms) though. Do you make a distinction between Democratic Socialism and Scientific Socialism? Connected to that, doesn't it seem that the populist angle of reasoning/rhetoric is closely connected to what has been demonstrated to motivate people to change opinions as opposed to presenting them with logically sound arguments that upset their worldview?
I'm no expert on this stuff, but I think there's a distinction between capital and capitalism that's a bit blurred in your description as well, I may be misunderstanding what you mean a bit though?
|
On September 04 2018 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2018 07:04 Big J wrote:On September 04 2018 05:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks Big J. I may disagree with just about every tenant and label of the graph but it is great to see people putting out their worldview and their political framework rather than just bland angry sweeping statements. Though your diagram may be for poltical groups, and so may not be applicable to the individual, where do you place yourself in your own mental framework? For reference, the purple labels are not party/ideology self-descriptions, because I believe every party would describe itself as more or less the "middle way" and "the others are too far left/right". The purple labels are rather how political opponents describe the extremes of the quadrants. Personally I'd place myself in the top-left quadrant of the diagram. People who advocate heavily against individualist capitalism tend to forget the extreme, inherent information value of capitalism. The same is true for those people who pretend, that capital is neutral. Capital is information and information is power. More overall information is great for optimization, but I don't give a fuck about information that I don't have and can't acquire, because I lack the starting capital to join the game. But also rules and regulations have that inherent information value. Example: Vienna just introduced a law that you must not eat in the underground + Show Spoiler +which I am not a huge fan of, but that is besides the point . They do not punish you for eating. I believe most people will still follow the law. It is a very cheap and efficient way to tell people that there are many others that don't want to smell your kebap for 20 mins and that cleaning trains costs the city money. Laws, rules, mutual social insurances and regulations are tools to increase the knowledge about the needs of others and to conserve/spread information acquired by other people. Of course, one can take the all-out liberterian approach and only make a basic law of the kind "you must not do harm" and then discuss the question whether there may actually be people that want to have cat poop in their cereals and the hardest regulation should be to inform about that. I personally believe that preventing cat poop in your cereals all together is quite a reasonable approach towards individual liberties of everyone. But the argumentative base for all these rules, taxes and regulations should remain individual freedom. In a way you could say that I agree with social-democrats or Green parties more on the base of technical measures they want to implement on key issues, than on the base of their argumentation, which is more often than not rather populist. I found your diagram and explanation of your personal perspective interesting. Some questions come to mind (particularly about terms) though. Do you make a distinction between Democratic Socialism and Scientific Socialism? Connected to that, doesn't it seem that the populist angle of reasoning/rhetoric is closely connected to what has been demonstrated to motivate people to change opinions as opposed to presenting them with logically sound arguments that upset their worldview? I'm no expert on this stuff, but I think there's a distinction between capital and capitalism that's a bit blurred in your description as well, I may be misunderstanding what you mean a bit though?
Again, don't take the labels too seriously. The top right is labeled democratic socialism because liberal opponents would say that it is very populist (telling "the poor" or "the workers" stories of riches that cannot be fulfilled) and they would say that it relies on big governments, lots of interventions and detailed rules and regulations.
I'd personally place scientific socialism much more to the left of that diagram. Scientific socialism, like right-wing liberterianism, is anti-moralist and individualist freedom focused. I think the difference is how you interprete Kant's categorical imperative. Whether you believe that it means, that noone has the right to tell the other what they must do (liberterianism) or whether it means that there are many general rules that apply to everybody (scientific socialism).
They both believe they have historically proven their cause (historicism) and they both therefore tend towards dictatorship (bolshevism, Hayek's anti-democratic ideals, the "enlightened" liberal kings of Voltaire), if for no other reason, because they are not populist and can't win an election.
Without private property and currency, the basic traits of capitalism, there are only means of production left, but no individually tradeable capital.
|
FPÖ (far-right and government party) military speaker Reinhard Bösch has adivced for a European attack war in Northern Africa to take land where refugees can be concentrated and then sent to where they came from.
Is it that time of the century again? 
|
No offense but I think we should give the Austrian far-right its wish and take you guys back into the fold. What you've going on over there isn't healthy
|
On September 06 2018 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:
No offense but I think we should give the Austrian far-right its wish and take you guys back into the fold. What you've going on over there isn't healthy
But do we want their electorate?
|
We can just make a giant Bavaria that is self governed and had to pay all the other states for not accepting any foreigners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
