|
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 January 15 2015 07:59 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 07:56 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote: So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right? Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state. But keep stoking that anti-Americanism. 1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed. Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America." I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever). But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency. 'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'... I am not acting like anything, I am just pointing out to you that your attack on America was out of line in the context of your exchange with him. Ron Paul is as viable as the former East German communists inside Linke people are in taking the Chancellorship. But you are right broadly that there is a large minority of Americans, maybe 20%, who believe in libertarian-fantasies. But attacking the US education system because of a Swede libertarian is out of line. But I am attacking the US education system because of the 20% fantasy believers, not because of a Swede...
|
On January 15 2015 07:18 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote: So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right? Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I have got a news flash for you: Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far! Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top! And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy. Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... OK. I get, it, you're a marxist. You believe that in a laissez faire economy, despite the fact that you're personally in control of your own resources, and how you exchange it for other resources, "the man" will still find a way to screw you over. I don't see the value in debating with someone who believes in such crazy conspiracy-theories. Show nested quote + 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
Anyway. I have NEVER EVER said that taxes are undemocratic.The whole statement is a contradition. How could possibly taxes, supported by a majority be undemocratic? I'm pretty sure you were looking for another word there.
Why should an individual pay taxes just because the majority decided that he should?
|
On January 15 2015 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:LinkMake of that article what you will, but I'd encourage you to not build your opinion off of common stereotypes. I am not building any opinion on people as a whole (or at least I try my best). And I am not even saying that the US school system as a whole is bad. But there are issues that are painfully obvious, because a lot of people who came out of this system hold the same strange misconceptions.
See, for example I know nothing about the Iranian education. All I know is that a significant number of Iranians (up to their former president) disbelieve the Holocaust. Which is a fact of history with overwhelming evidence and witnesses. There is no discussion evolving from it. It is a misconception, that they hold, that they need to be educated on!
The same holds true with a certain part of the US population (and in other countries of course as well). The misconception that 'distribution of wealth' is synonymous with 'give-outs to the poor' for example comes up very often.
Or how about the fact, that socialism and capitalism are not polar opposites? A lot of Americans do not know, that of course they live in a society with (huge) socialistic elements and that they would not want it any other way!
And yes, almost all educated people in the world call the development of the 'welfare state' historic progress. Quite an important one actually. To find 20% of the US to actually deny this and aspire to a 'every man for himself'-vision, is personally nearly as shocking as the Iranian holocaust denial statistic.
|
On January 15 2015 09:05 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:LinkMake of that article what you will, but I'd encourage you to not build your opinion off of common stereotypes. I am not building any opinion on people as a whole (or at least I try my best). And I am not even saying that the US school system as a whole is bad. But there are issues that are painfully obvious, because a lot of people who came out of this system hold same strange misconceptions. See, for example I know nothing about the Iranian education. All I know is that a significant number of Iranians (up to their former president) disbelieve the Holocaust. Which is a fact of history with overwhelming evidence and witnesses. There is no discussion evolving from it. It is a misconception, that they hold, that they need to be educated on! The same holds true with a certain part of the US population (and in other countries of course as well). The misconception that 'distribution of wealth' is synonymous with 'give-outs to the poor' for example comes up very often. Or how about the fact, that socialism and capitalism are not polar opposites? A lot of Americans do not know, that of course they live in a society with (huge) socialistic elements and that they would not want it any other way! And yes, almost all educated people in the world call the development of the 'welfare state' historic progress. Quite an important one actually. To find 20% of the US to actually deny this and aspire to a 'every man for himself'-vision, is personally nearly as shocking as the Iranian' holocaust denial statistic. What percent of Germans believe in austerity magic?
Back to your points, the Holocaust is a thing that actually happened. Political opinions are, well, opinions. Treating them as if they were facts is pretty daft. Also, in the US socialism is more of a pejorative because it generally refers to authoritarian communism or South American socialism, rather than popular aspects of the modern welfare state.
|
On January 15 2015 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What percent of Germans believe in austerity magic? That is a statistic I would love to know as well! And I would like to know, how many of my countrymen actually just do not give a shit about anything not directly affecting them, and just taking 'austerity' as a good enough pretext to be done with it. To this day I am not convinced Merkel actually believes in austerity measures herself.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
austerity is german bdsm on southern europe
|
On January 15 2015 08:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 07:18 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote: So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right? Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I have got a news flash for you: Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far! Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top! And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy. Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... OK. I get, it, you're a marxist. You believe that in a laissez faire economy, despite the fact that you're personally in control of your own resources, and how you exchange it for other resources, "the man" will still find a way to screw you over. I don't see the value in debating with someone who believes in such crazy conspiracy-theories. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
Anyway. I have NEVER EVER said that taxes are undemocratic.The whole statement is a contradition. How could possibly taxes, supported by a majority be undemocratic? I'm pretty sure you were looking for another word there. Why should an individual pay taxes just because the majority decided that he should? Don't ask me. I would like to know that, too.
|
On January 15 2015 10:18 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 08:29 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2015 07:18 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote: So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right? Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I have got a news flash for you: Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far! Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top! And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy. Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... OK. I get, it, you're a marxist. You believe that in a laissez faire economy, despite the fact that you're personally in control of your own resources, and how you exchange it for other resources, "the man" will still find a way to screw you over. I don't see the value in debating with someone who believes in such crazy conspiracy-theories. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
Anyway. I have NEVER EVER said that taxes are undemocratic.The whole statement is a contradition. How could possibly taxes, supported by a majority be undemocratic? I'm pretty sure you were looking for another word there. Why should an individual pay taxes just because the majority decided that he should? Don't ask me. I would like to know that, too.
If you were starving would you steal some bread to survive?
|
On January 15 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 10:18 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 08:29 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2015 07:18 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote: So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right? Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I have got a news flash for you: Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far! Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top! And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy. Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... OK. I get, it, you're a marxist. You believe that in a laissez faire economy, despite the fact that you're personally in control of your own resources, and how you exchange it for other resources, "the man" will still find a way to screw you over. I don't see the value in debating with someone who believes in such crazy conspiracy-theories. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
Anyway. I have NEVER EVER said that taxes are undemocratic.The whole statement is a contradition. How could possibly taxes, supported by a majority be undemocratic? I'm pretty sure you were looking for another word there. Why should an individual pay taxes just because the majority decided that he should? Don't ask me. I would like to know that, too. If you were starving would you steal some bread to survive? Why all the riddles?
I would probably think in the lines of "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"
So, no. I would go hunt my own food instead, because it's the moral thing to do, and it's the most productive for me in the long run.
|
You would go hunt your food? Are you serious? Do you have land that you own and can do that on?
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i have this vision of some viking-ish activity going on involving spears and big fish being speared.
|
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote: The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote: I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian. Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty. But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference". So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources? Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I'm sorry but you're spouting nonsense. The only problem with the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was that it was antisemite, specifically targetted at a minority and not manufactured as an efficient way to reduce poverty and improve equality among citizen : it's the opposite of egalitarianism.
The point is : it is not their "own" ressources. Just because our system is based around private property doesn't mean we should accept inequalities, nor that people are the sole producer of their resources and that they can live alone without a care for the surrounding world. Anglo saxon societies are the most inegalitarian, from all possible indicator. I'm thinking you really don't know what egalitarianism is... There is reason why anglo saxon usually insist on equal opportunities and not equal income / ressources / life conditions. Egalitarianism, as the word suggest, advocate total equality, in income and rights, and thus it advocate for the removal of economic inequalities among people.
|
On December 18 2014 17:30 Velr wrote: The Swiss National Bank just lowered its interest rate to -0.25%...
"Interesting" times...
So... It just got real.
The Swiss National Bank stopped purchasing Euros and the CHF roams free again. Interest rates for Banks borrowing from it have been "increased" to (minus) -0.75%. The SMI (swiss index) just lost ~8% in the last ~20 Minutes. The Euro allready went from 1.20 to 1.16 in the same timespan.
Guess i'm gonna use Euros to wipe my ass..
|
(Reuters) - Switzerland's franc soared by almost 30 percent in value against the euro on Thursday after the Swiss National Bank abandoned its three-year old cap at 1.20 francs per euro.
In a chaotic few minutes on markets after the SNB's announcement, the franc broke past parity against the euro to trade at 0.8052 francs per euro before trimming those gains to stand at 1.0350 francs.
It also gained 25 percent against the dollar to trade at 0.8900 francs per dollar.
The SNB has been resisting heavy pressure in recent months on the cap it imposed in September 2011 on the stellar rise seen in the franc's value due to investors seeking a haven from the euro zone's economic and political troubles.
The prospect of outright money-printing by the European Central Bank as early as next week has added to the pressure, with the SNB seen by players in the market as buying euros consistently around 1.2009 francs per euro in recent days.
"It has taken the market by complete surprise," said Jonathan Webb, head of FX strategy at Jefferies in London.
"The SNB probably expects the ECB to launch QE next week and along with the Greek elections coming up, it would make it pretty tough on the Swiss to keep bidding the euro. So they have abandoned the cap and cut rates deeper into negative territory. We expect euro/Swiss to trade around 0.90-1.00 francs after all the stop loss orders have been cleared." source An article on reuters about it
As it comes closer to gaining power in Greece, the anti-establishment Syriza party that once advocated a pullout from NATO and expulsion of the U.S. Navy from a base in Crete is moving toward the foreign-policy mainstream.
Syriza is sacrificing its more revolutionary ambitions to the overriding goal of getting better terms for Greece’s economic aid package. With the party holding a slim lead in the polls for the Jan. 25 election, even Syriza’s commitment to rolling back European sanctions on Russia is in question.
“The flagship of their policy is debt relief, and their main preoccupation will be domestic,” said Eirini Karamouzi, a lecturer in contemporary history at the University of Sheffield. “There’s no bargaining chip for Greece right now to lead on the main foreign-policy fronts.”
A party wishlist from mid-2013 rails at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Israel, promises to yank Greek troops from overseas missions and align more closely with Russia and China -- all to strike a blow at the “neoliberal” European Union and “imperialist” U.S.
Now the insurgent party’s leaders are retreating from the rhetorical barricades. It’s a shift witnessed already in the economic sphere as Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras stresses a commitment to fiscal prudence. Greek government bond yields that soared last year at the prospect of a Syriza government have since declined as the threat of exit from the euro was seen to recede. source
|
On January 15 2015 11:47 IgnE wrote: You would go hunt your food? Are you serious? Do you have land that you own and can do that on? I currently live a walking distance from the baltic sea, which currently is public property. There's noone who can prevent me from fishing there.
Even if someone owned the land, I would ask them for permission to fish in exchange for some of the fish I caught. If I didn't get the permission, I would ask if there was anything else I could help with, for money or food. If not, I would look elsewhere. Not every person is out to get you. There's no reason whatsoever why someone who is willing to work, would not get offered a job somewhere. It may seem like that in your world, but that's probably because you feel like you're too entitled to start at the bottom.
I would rather be at the mercy of a property or business owner, than being at the mercy of the state. I know that I can offer something to a business owner, and if one of them have something against me, I can turn to someone else. The state however, have the monopoly on power, so if a state representative don't like me, I'm screwed. And when you ask the state for help, it's entirely up to them whether they will aid you, because there are no 100% clear cut rules, and unlike when dealing with a business owner, I can't offer my employment as a means to sway them into helping me.
|
Do you pray to Ayn Rand and her holy book?
|
On January 15 2015 19:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:[quote] [quote] Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian. Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty. But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference". So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources? Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I'm sorry but you're spouting nonsense. The only problem with the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was that it was antisemite, specifically targetted at a minority and not manufactured as an efficient way to reduce poverty and improve equality among citizen : it's the opposite of egalitarianism. The point is : it is not their "own" ressources. Just because our system is based around private property doesn't mean we should accept inequalities, nor that people are the sole producer of their resources and that they can live alone without a care for the surrounding world. Anglo saxon societies are the most inegalitarian, from all possible indicator. I'm thinking you really don't know what egalitarianism is... There is reason why anglo saxon usually insist on equal opportunities and not equal income / ressources / life conditions. Egalitarianism, as the word suggest, advocate total equality, in income and rights, and thus it advocate for the removal of economic inequalities among people. The only problem with the confiscation of jewish property was that it targeted jews. What? So confiscating the fruits of someone's labour is fair to you. What a despicable human being you are. Only in the eyes of a person with no morals, would stealing be considered just. On top of that, you're a authoritarian, you want ppl who don't agree with your twisted views, to have to abide to your twisted morals.
If we lived in a free society, noone would stop you from voluntarily sending all your income into a system that would distribute it equally among all participants. The only thing is, you would not be able to force everybody else to participate. That's the difference between you and me. Because I respect that we all think differently, I want us to have as much freedom as possible, freedom to live however we want, as long as that freedom don't interfere with another persons property of self.
This thread makes my skin crawl.
|
On January 15 2015 22:45 Velr wrote: Do you pray to Ayn Rand and her holy book? If you can't think of any counterarguments, don't open your mouth.
I have never read Rand.
|
On January 15 2015 22:09 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 11:47 IgnE wrote: You would go hunt your food? Are you serious? Do you have land that you own and can do that on? I currently live a walking distance from the baltic sea, which currently is public property. There's noone who can prevent me from fishing there. Even if someone owned the land, I would ask them for permission to fish in exchange for some of the fish I caught. If I didn't get the permission, I would ask if there was anything else I could help with, for money or food. If not, I would look elsewhere. Not every person is out to get you. There's no reason whatsoever why someone who is willing to work, would not get offered a job somewhere. It may seem like that in your world, but that's probably because you feel like you're too entitled to start at the bottom. I would rather be at the mercy of a property or business owner, than being at the mercy of the state. I know that I can offer something to a business owner, and if one of them have something against me, I can turn to someone else. The state however, have the monopoly on power, so if a state representative don't like me, I'm screwed. And when you ask the state for help, it's entirely up to them whether they will aid you, because there are no 100% clear cut rules, and unlike when dealing with a business owner, I can't offer my employment as a means to sway them into helping me.
Do you not make use of the infrastructure that the state maintains? What if you get sick or injured and can longer offer employment?
|
|
|
|