|
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 October 24 2018 08:31 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 18:03 Big J wrote:On October 22 2018 17:31 TheDwf wrote:On October 22 2018 06:17 Big J wrote:
700.000 people protesting against Brexit in London. No fucks given.
2000 guys chanting: "Merkel has to go" in Chemnitz, the German government almost collapses under media pressure.
Color me unsurprised. I find Stalinist methods more and more charming with everyday that passes in this fucking farce that is called "free press". You should have seen the last 5 days of "the French press against the main left-wing opponent," I had rarely witnessed such a wide scale propaganda operation By the way, I came across this image and thought it would make you laugh, so I share: + Show Spoiler + I am becoming more and more of the opinion that conservativism is a mental illness that you get from being lazy. At some point when you are lazy you just start accepting surficial thoughts as truths and stop questioning your actions. You start thinking that the conclusions you have already reached in your life are indiscussable and true for everyone else, so they have to get in line and you don't need to change anything, how convenient! That's the point where someone leaves the path of compromising, the ideals of freedom and mutual tolerance as principles of human interaction. Stability, security and power become the only ratio at this point and discussion ends. It is a mainstream old people's disease and it is probably going to get worse given the population development. It is also really common with progressive political movements. Once they had a few political successes they start to put securing the reforms first, for which they need to stay in power, turning them into another conservative faction. The bolshevist intelligentsia turned out to be another conservative party with elite claims to economic and social control in the style of "liberal" 19th century movements that wanted power, but only among themselves (only the rich were allowed to vote and represent). And with the extreme developments in economic distribution it seems like we are heading back exactly where we came from in 1914, when all of this collapsed first under the leadership of conservative kiddies with no other needs left but the demand for European hegemony. Bunch of nonsense. Conservatism often comes with age and experience,it is natural when you think about it. Its young people who are progressive mostly,you wont find many conservatives amongst young people. But trust me,when all those young people are old the majority of them will be conservative. That is how older people mostly are,conservative and objecting to change. Its not even because they believe in that ideal so much,when you get older you become more resistant to change in general. With less time to go there is less room for errors,they are happy keeping their situation stable. Specially older people who are happy with their own situation,why would they risk change anything? When you are young you have all these ideas that you think that can change the world. But after a few years/decades in politics and life you will discover that the world doesn't work that way,it is impossible to change things fast and get a good outcome at the same time,its impossible to change things fast at all. And then you become conservative,to try keep the good things that are there,rather then often fruitlessly trying to change everything with an uncertain outcome possibly leading to even more bad things. Conservatism isn't even a political movement,like you can have conservative communist politicians (like Brezhnev in rusia) and you can have progressive communists like gorbatjov. Conservative and progressive are measured against the system already in place. It is not a policial movement with specific ideas itself. The general idea is to conserve,or to change in the case of progressive. This answer can be found in your own post to some extend already btw, as you realize that it works this way with progressive movements when they come into power. Its human nature.
Excellent point. Most people don't realize that the Conservative values of the Nth generation were actually the Liberal values of the N-2 th generation. And also there's a generational leapfrog. The N+1th generation's Conservative values are the Liberal values of the N-1th generation, and the odd and even generation's emphases are not even connected.
Example: My ancestors left Europe due to religious persecutions before WWI, fought in WWII, and completely missed the Communist wars. My friend's ancestors actually experienced none of that, but managed to fight in WWI, get caught up in the Communist wars. So we literally share nothing in history of consequence, although our ancestors were alive covering similar periods in time.
You see, the young men fight for the old men 2 generations above them, resent it, and then want their values to be promoted in the world. So 2 generations alter they are in power and make the young men of that generation fight their cause. Meanwhile the same is happening for the other generations on a shift of +/- 25 years or so.
You see this today. When I was young it was just as important to know the technology behind these new things called 'Nokia cellphones' as it was to write in cursive. Why? You had to satisfy your grandparents (write in cursive) as well as gather the power to subdue the generation after you (turning Milenials into slaves through Smartphones, it was actually a briliant idea).
|
People who age don't necessarily tend to become more conservative in an intellectual sense but rather just shift their priorities towards issues that are more aligned with their personal issues. Someone who is old is more likely to care about pensions and street safety than a young person who cares about representation and education. This does align with political ideologies to some degree but it's mostly practical.
Intellectually attitudes can actually change quickly between closely aged generations. The generation that was socialized during the 60s and early 70s are usually quite liberal, whereas people who were socialized during the Reagan and Thatcher era tend to be more conservative. That has persisted across time.
|
On October 24 2018 08:31 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 18:03 Big J wrote:On October 22 2018 17:31 TheDwf wrote:On October 22 2018 06:17 Big J wrote:
700.000 people protesting against Brexit in London. No fucks given.
2000 guys chanting: "Merkel has to go" in Chemnitz, the German government almost collapses under media pressure.
Color me unsurprised. I find Stalinist methods more and more charming with everyday that passes in this fucking farce that is called "free press". You should have seen the last 5 days of "the French press against the main left-wing opponent," I had rarely witnessed such a wide scale propaganda operation By the way, I came across this image and thought it would make you laugh, so I share: + Show Spoiler + I am becoming more and more of the opinion that conservativism is a mental illness that you get from being lazy. At some point when you are lazy you just start accepting surficial thoughts as truths and stop questioning your actions. You start thinking that the conclusions you have already reached in your life are indiscussable and true for everyone else, so they have to get in line and you don't need to change anything, how convenient! That's the point where someone leaves the path of compromising, the ideals of freedom and mutual tolerance as principles of human interaction. Stability, security and power become the only ratio at this point and discussion ends. It is a mainstream old people's disease and it is probably going to get worse given the population development. It is also really common with progressive political movements. Once they had a few political successes they start to put securing the reforms first, for which they need to stay in power, turning them into another conservative faction. The bolshevist intelligentsia turned out to be another conservative party with elite claims to economic and social control in the style of "liberal" 19th century movements that wanted power, but only among themselves (only the rich were allowed to vote and represent). And with the extreme developments in economic distribution it seems like we are heading back exactly where we came from in 1914, when all of this collapsed first under the leadership of conservative kiddies with no other needs left but the demand for European hegemony. Bunch of nonsense. Conservatism often comes with age and experience,it is natural when you think about it. Its young people who are progressive mostly,you wont find many conservatives amongst young people. But trust me,when all those young people are old the majority of them will be conservative. That is how older people mostly are,conservative and objecting to change. Its not even because they believe in that ideal so much,when you get older you become more resistant to change in general. With less time to go there is less room for errors,they are happy keeping their situation stable. Specially older people who are happy with their own situation,why would they risk change anything? When you are young you have all these ideas that you think that can change the world. But after a few years/decades in politics and life you will discover that the world doesn't work that way,it is impossible to change things fast and get a good outcome at the same time,its impossible to change things fast at all. And then you become conservative,to try keep the good things that are there,rather then often fruitlessly trying to change everything with an uncertain outcome possibly leading to even more bad things. Conservatism isn't even a political movement,like you can have conservative communist politicians (like Brezhnev in rusia) and you can have progressive communists like gorbatjov. Conservative and progressive are measured against the system already in place. It is not a policial movement with specific ideas itself. The general idea is to conserve,or to change in the case of progressive. This answer can be found in your own post to some extend already btw, as you realize that it works this way with progressive movements when they come into power. Its human nature.
As you say, I cover basically all of that, so i am not sure why you call it nonesense when really the only difference is, that you glorify this ideology while I don't.
Just a few points:
Specially older people who are happy with their own situation,why would they risk change anything?
Because preventing change costs something. Stability comes with a price that cumulates the longer you keep things the same against the natural progression of changing interests in an ever changing society. Aggressive change is the result of society catching up to what has been blocked by conservativism. If you don't want it to happen violentely or even deforming into some general expression of anger like Brexit, you have to cater to the needs of people.
Society is never riskless. Trying not to risk something just shifts the risk on someone else. That is the consequence of conservativism.
Conservative and progressive are measured against the system already in place. It is not a policial movement with specific ideas itself. The general idea is to conserve,or to change in the case of progressive.
Splitting the spectrum like that is conservative at its heart. Conservativism as you describe it here is a concept. Progressivism is not and only a conservative would throw everyone else under that tag, while those people would not argue in the categories of change and no change, but with other concepts like freedom, fairness, equality or justice.
While conservatives conserve for the sake of conserving, progressives don't want change for the sake of changing.
Conservatives throughout history have supported whatever was happening. Absolutist mass murderers, Hitler, liberals, socialists etc. It is regression theory with a random set of explanatory variables - and that is simply a self-fullfilling prophecy until it is not and collapses and the game restarts. There is nothing rational about it, nothing to learn and nothing to scientifically discuss. It is intellectually worthless and a disgrace to enlightenment and everything Europe stands for.
Conserving only for the sake of conserving/stability etc. is an expression of mental incapability to discuss based on scientific facts. This might be necessary in fields in which there is hardly any evidence, but when there is and you still deny it then you are mentally sick and need treatment, not political power.
|
On October 24 2018 07:33 Xamo wrote:
Italy receives 5 billion euros every year from EU cohesion funds. The EU can freeze them if Italy does not cooperate. That is a pretty big punishment...
In which case Italy would simply suspend its contribution to the EU budget...
I find it absolutely insane that you're talking about unelected bureaucrats freezing billions of euros simply because Italy's deficit—after a democratic vote—will be 2.4% instead of 1.6%, all while a fascist is gaining momentum and polling near 30%. Do you have any idea how dangerous this is?
|
On October 24 2018 19:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 07:33 Xamo wrote:
Italy receives 5 billion euros every year from EU cohesion funds. The EU can freeze them if Italy does not cooperate. That is a pretty big punishment... In which case Italy would simply suspend its contribution to the EU budget... I find it absolutely insane that you're talking about unelected bureaucrats freezing billions of euros simply because Italy's deficit—after a democratic vote—will be 2.4% instead of 1.6%, all while a fascist is gaining momentum and polling near 30%. Do you have any idea how dangerous this is? Agreements were made about the deficit, this budget breaks those agreements. I fail to see the problem.
As a new government you inherit commits made by your predecessor and you break those commitments at your own risk.
That is how the world works.
|
On October 24 2018 19:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 19:01 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 07:33 Xamo wrote:
Italy receives 5 billion euros every year from EU cohesion funds. The EU can freeze them if Italy does not cooperate. That is a pretty big punishment... In which case Italy would simply suspend its contribution to the EU budget... I find it absolutely insane that you're talking about unelected bureaucrats freezing billions of euros simply because Italy's deficit—after a democratic vote—will be 2.4% instead of 1.6%, all while a fascist is gaining momentum and polling near 30%. Do you have any idea how dangerous this is? Agreements were made about the deficit, this budget breaks those agreements. I fail to see the problem. As a new government you inherit commits made by your predecessor and you break those commitments at your own risk. That is how the world works.
The agreements were made by the previous government, which heavily lost elections. They're worthless. Democracy is the possibility to undo through votes what others previously did, and partisans of neoliberal theocracies would be well advised to remember that before bigger and bigger political disasters happen
|
On October 24 2018 19:44 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 19:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 19:01 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 07:33 Xamo wrote:
Italy receives 5 billion euros every year from EU cohesion funds. The EU can freeze them if Italy does not cooperate. That is a pretty big punishment... In which case Italy would simply suspend its contribution to the EU budget... I find it absolutely insane that you're talking about unelected bureaucrats freezing billions of euros simply because Italy's deficit—after a democratic vote—will be 2.4% instead of 1.6%, all while a fascist is gaining momentum and polling near 30%. Do you have any idea how dangerous this is? Agreements were made about the deficit, this budget breaks those agreements. I fail to see the problem. As a new government you inherit commits made by your predecessor and you break those commitments at your own risk. That is how the world works. The agreements were made by the previous government, which heavily lost elections. They're worthless. Democracy is the possibility to undo through votes what others previously did, and partisans of neoliberal theocracies would be well advised to remember that before bigger and bigger political disasters happen
To quote Varoufakis: Neoliberalism is neither new nor liberal.
|
On October 24 2018 19:44 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 19:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 19:01 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 07:33 Xamo wrote:
Italy receives 5 billion euros every year from EU cohesion funds. The EU can freeze them if Italy does not cooperate. That is a pretty big punishment... In which case Italy would simply suspend its contribution to the EU budget... I find it absolutely insane that you're talking about unelected bureaucrats freezing billions of euros simply because Italy's deficit—after a democratic vote—will be 2.4% instead of 1.6%, all while a fascist is gaining momentum and polling near 30%. Do you have any idea how dangerous this is? Agreements were made about the deficit, this budget breaks those agreements. I fail to see the problem. As a new government you inherit commits made by your predecessor and you break those commitments at your own risk. That is how the world works. The agreements were made by the previous government, which heavily lost elections. They're worthless. Democracy is the possibility to undo through votes what others previously did, and partisans of neoliberal theocracies would be well advised to remember that before bigger and bigger political disasters happen Ofcourse you can undo what others did previously.
But agreements between nations rests on the fact that you are expected to uphold your predecessors agreements, break that and you will pay the price.
|
Those agreements might be worthless for the current Italian government, but that doesn't stop the EU or other countries from considering that opinion of the Italian government worthless as well. I'm not denying their right to not fulfil the obligations made by the previous, democratically elected governement, just saying that Italians have to accept that their actions will have consequences, like other member states refusing to help them pay their debts in case their plan fails.
|
The funny thing is, You guys just have liberal argument on the country level. Its like that: Parents (or government) say: wear seatbelts, dont smoke, dont eat so much sugar, exercise and the kid(or citizen) says: its my own body, i can do whatever i want with it.
Just in this case Parents are EU and Kid is Italy. And EU says "that level of debt will be bad for You in the long run" and Italy says "no it wont or if it will be its still my choice". And EU says "but if it will be i will need to pay for hospital (help)"...and so on.
Who is right? Depends on perspective and Your own values as always. There is no perfect answer to this conundrum.
|
On October 24 2018 20:25 Silvanel wrote:
The funny thing is, You guys just have liberal argument on the country level. Its like that: Parents (or government) say: wear seatbelts, dont smoke, dont eat so much sugar, exercise and the kid(or citizen) says: its my own body, i can do whatever i want with it.
Just in this case Parents are EU and Kid is Italy. And EU says "that level of debt will be bad for You in the long run" and Italy says "no it wont or if it will be its still my choice". And EU says "but if it will be i will need to pay for hospital (help)"...and so on.
Who is right? Depends on perspective and Your own values as always. There is no perfect answer to this conundrum.
The EU is not a democratic state, it is an institution made up from the states. The EU is the kid in this example.
Democratice the EU and you may have a point.
|
On October 24 2018 20:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 20:25 Silvanel wrote:
The funny thing is, You guys just have liberal argument on the country level. Its like that: Parents (or government) say: wear seatbelts, dont smoke, dont eat so much sugar, exercise and the kid(or citizen) says: its my own body, i can do whatever i want with it.
Just in this case Parents are EU and Kid is Italy. And EU says "that level of debt will be bad for You in the long run" and Italy says "no it wont or if it will be its still my choice". And EU says "but if it will be i will need to pay for hospital (help)"...and so on.
Who is right? Depends on perspective and Your own values as always. There is no perfect answer to this conundrum. The EU is not a democratic state, it is an institution made up from the states. The EU is the kid in this example. Democratice the EU and you may have a point. The level of Democracy in the EU is irrelevant to the point being made.
Italy is breaking a promise it made. Therefor it cannot be trusted to keep promises and will suffer as a result.
|
International agreements are made between states, not governments. If Italy made an agreement they can't just throw it out of the window because there was a change of governance. Also, Italy is a willing member of the EU, it's not like they are being threatened by some hostile power. EU is not a perfect system and far from infallible, but once agreements stop being honoured by one EU country without any consequences what's there to stop others from doing the same? And the whole thing kinda rests on those agreements to function and exist.
|
On October 24 2018 20:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 20:25 Silvanel wrote:
The funny thing is, You guys just have liberal argument on the country level. Its like that: Parents (or government) say: wear seatbelts, dont smoke, dont eat so much sugar, exercise and the kid(or citizen) says: its my own body, i can do whatever i want with it.
Just in this case Parents are EU and Kid is Italy. And EU says "that level of debt will be bad for You in the long run" and Italy says "no it wont or if it will be its still my choice". And EU says "but if it will be i will need to pay for hospital (help)"...and so on.
Who is right? Depends on perspective and Your own values as always. There is no perfect answer to this conundrum. The EU is not a democratic state, it is an institution made up from the states. The EU is the kid in this example. Democratice the EU and you may have a point.
Right...so its Italy that is making rules for EU and not the other ways around? Not to mention Democracy doesnt have anything to do with my analogy, government making rules for citizens or parents for children do not require democracy in any way.
In any case its just boil down to wheter You think Italy will be better off with budget big on spending or with limited spending. Dont get me wrong, big spending might be just what Italy needs, but in case they are wrong dont be surprised when rest of EU will go "I TOLD YOU SO".
Or perhaps You just think Italy is "Too big to fall" (it very well might be) and we will have to bail them anyway. But in that case i need to point out that unless You are Russian troll You will be the one paying for them in the end (Austria, Germany etc...)
|
On October 24 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 19:44 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 19:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 19:01 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 07:33 Xamo wrote:
Italy receives 5 billion euros every year from EU cohesion funds. The EU can freeze them if Italy does not cooperate. That is a pretty big punishment... In which case Italy would simply suspend its contribution to the EU budget... I find it absolutely insane that you're talking about unelected bureaucrats freezing billions of euros simply because Italy's deficit—after a democratic vote—will be 2.4% instead of 1.6%, all while a fascist is gaining momentum and polling near 30%. Do you have any idea how dangerous this is? Agreements were made about the deficit, this budget breaks those agreements. I fail to see the problem. As a new government you inherit commits made by your predecessor and you break those commitments at your own risk. That is how the world works. The agreements were made by the previous government, which heavily lost elections. They're worthless. Democracy is the possibility to undo through votes what others previously did, and partisans of neoliberal theocracies would be well advised to remember that before bigger and bigger political disasters happen Ofcourse you can undo what others did previously. But agreements between nations rests on the fact that you are expected to uphold your predecessors agreements, break that and you will pay the price.
We are talking about a national budget, not even treaties which might threaten peace or whatever (which can still be changed if the winner of the elections campaigned on that theme, for good or ill...). The very fact that, in the EU, you theoretically have to pursue the same budget policy regardless of who won and regardless of their program is an antidemocratic monstruosity. If you apply this religiously this is effectively the end of sovereignty and democracy.
On top of that, the Italian budget is not even groundbreaking, so behind the so-called "agreements" and technicalities those terrible bureaucrats are actually making a political judgement—except they have zero legitimacy for that (further proof = the double standards throughout the EU history when it came to "enforcing rules").
|
On October 24 2018 20:50 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 20:32 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 20:25 Silvanel wrote:
The funny thing is, You guys just have liberal argument on the country level. Its like that: Parents (or government) say: wear seatbelts, dont smoke, dont eat so much sugar, exercise and the kid(or citizen) says: its my own body, i can do whatever i want with it.
Just in this case Parents are EU and Kid is Italy. And EU says "that level of debt will be bad for You in the long run" and Italy says "no it wont or if it will be its still my choice". And EU says "but if it will be i will need to pay for hospital (help)"...and so on.
Who is right? Depends on perspective and Your own values as always. There is no perfect answer to this conundrum. The EU is not a democratic state, it is an institution made up from the states. The EU is the kid in this example. Democratice the EU and you may have a point. Right...so its Italy that is making rules for EU and not the other ways around? Not to mention Democracy doesnt have anything to do with my analogy, government making rules for citizens or parents for children do not require democracy in any way. In any case its just boil down to wheter You think Italy will be better off with budget big on spending or with limited spending. Dont get me wrong, big spending might be just what Italy needs, but in case they are wrong dont be surprised when rest of EU will go "I TOLD YOU SO". Or perhaps You just think Italy is "Too big to fall" (it very well might be) and we will have to bail them anyway. But in that case i need to point out that unless You are Russian troll You will be the one paying for them in the end (Austria, Germany etc...)
Of course it matters. Anyone can make a rule for anyone, that doesn't legitimize it.
Nationalists are beating up the EU so easily these days because they have a point: EU right is inferior to national right from a democratic perspective.
The EU can't be the parent when it doesn't exist independently from the national governments. But the council and the commission ARE the governments.
What do you think will happen when the EU goes into open conflict with Italy? Where will the people rally behind? Of course behind those institutions, in which they have a say. To which they pledged allegiance through votes and passports, not some international bureaucracy.
For Salvini and his kind the EU, as it is structured, is a catalyst to get into power.
|
On October 24 2018 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 20:32 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 20:25 Silvanel wrote:
The funny thing is, You guys just have liberal argument on the country level. Its like that: Parents (or government) say: wear seatbelts, dont smoke, dont eat so much sugar, exercise and the kid(or citizen) says: its my own body, i can do whatever i want with it.
Just in this case Parents are EU and Kid is Italy. And EU says "that level of debt will be bad for You in the long run" and Italy says "no it wont or if it will be its still my choice". And EU says "but if it will be i will need to pay for hospital (help)"...and so on.
Who is right? Depends on perspective and Your own values as always. There is no perfect answer to this conundrum. The EU is not a democratic state, it is an institution made up from the states. The EU is the kid in this example. Democratice the EU and you may have a point. The level of Democracy in the EU is irrelevant to the point being made. Italy is breaking a promise it made. Therefor it cannot be trusted to keep promises and will suffer as a result.
Yeah, they should suffer what they must.
You would sacrifice long-term growth in economically depressed states and their social care systems just to feel vindicated over an offense that the Italian people never had a choice.
|
Just wondering, do you not as a voter elect the members of EU parliament? How is it then not a democratic institution?
|
EU Commision is not directly elected, they are selected by European Council and only approved by European Parliment. In eyes of some that makes them pawns of Illumanti. In reality its just a result of dirty compromise between goverments of EU countries.
|
On October 24 2018 21:24 Neneu wrote:
Just wondering, do you not as a voter elect the members of EU parliament? How is it then not a democratic institution?
The EU Parliament has little to no power, the real power lies in the executive
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqA_PhYWoAAqJnd.jpg)
