|
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. |
opisska I think your argument that strong regulatory requirements make quality products cheaper is relatively flimsy. You do end up with fewer producers, so in theory each producer makes a higher quantity of the same goods, but you have fewer competition forces to drive down prices. Which effect is strongest? I'm not sure.
Also, I'd point out that the free market argument would be: people are rational, therefore they value security in products that could potentially endanger their lives. As they don't have enough information to individually assess the security of each product, a 'seal of security' is valued, so companies would independently seek to acquire independent quality/security certificates. If a product ends up killing someone it'd be either due to a limitation on those standards or an infringement of those standards in which case the 'dead consumer' would have a right to sue - this would be the same outcome as state-mandate safety/quality standards, therefore state mandated safety/quality standards are either redundant or they are unnecessary as they are responding to a need that consumers do not seem to value.
One valid point against that is that people aren't rational - they'd actually start visiting quack doctors and endangering themselves. The libertarians would argue that the government bureaucrats are hardly optimal either and are prone to corruption by large corporations who favor strict regulation to increase barriers to entry. With recent developments in behavioral economics/science and the election of absolute retards in major countries, I tend to agree with the 'people are idiots' argument more and more.
Might I add that in the EU, safety regulations aren't all that strict - most products can actually be self-certified and/or do not require huge testing costs. The philosophy on EU regulations does take into account potentially destructive effects of strict regulation and tries to not be very intrusive in industries where they could limit competition and innovation.
|
On February 27 2017 20:23 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 20:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 27 2017 19:27 Big J wrote:On February 27 2017 19:15 RvB wrote:
Have you read Hayek or Friedman Big J? No, I've heard a bunch of them in courses, watched some videos. They sounded like mostly ideological fundamentals. "If you die in a car crash because the car was badly built it was your own fault. You just shouldn't have bought it." But nobody should take away the freedom of the car company to make deffective cars and your freedom to burn and die in the flames of a horredous crash, especially not the state!!! (you filthy marxist!) This is actually a pretty complex issue. I think we can all agree that car safety is important, if nothing that because by driving a car, you are endangering other people, so everyone should be forced to have their car in good conditions, because I don't want to die because some idiot doesn't change his break pads when they are worn and hits me. But what about products where the defect threatens only the consumer? Why should we be obliged to hold ourselves to such high safety standards if we don't want to? The classic counterpoint to today's strong regulatory frameworks that are found across EU countries is "why don't you just make it mandatory to label the products so that everyone knows whether they comply with the standards or not, instead of forbidding sub-standard products?" I must admit that this line of thought is tempting and that I consider it a good approach, until I learned how it doesn't really work well when people aren't infinitely rich. Because, ironically, what the strict quality requirements on products do is that they make quality products cheaper, because those are the ones that now get made in bulk and sold in bulk and where the price competition is. If there was the option to sell sub-standard products cheaper, the price competition would be only there and many people won't be able to afford such quality of cars, food etc... as they do now. This is a great example how we should view the state as our tool. The regulations - when constructed well - shoudln't be "the state imposes nonsensical requirements that limit our freedom" but "we come together and using the state as our representation, we leverage our position with respect to the vendors for profit, in the end getting more choices than before". We can always question the details of implementation, but this is the general spirit. Laissez-faire (pardon my French if the spelling's wrong) free market sounds appealing, but it is really short-sighted in many aspects and this is one of them.
Car safety and regulations made the death toll on the roads in France go from 18000 in 1974 to 3000 today.
That's six times less.
So we have a choice:
1. You live in a country where you have the right to sell unsafe junk and as a consumer know that maybe that cheap car will explode after 100 km.
2. You live in a country where the state puts standards that decrease the number of death by a gigantic amount meaning the chances of you, your wife, your children and your friends is six times smaller.
Sorry I am ready to sacrify the freedom of selling dangerous junk for the life of my loved ones.
Another example.
People smoke a fraction less than what they used to. That's due to prohibitive taxation and all kind of extremely strong regulations. Do I want to live in a country where everybody can buy cheap cigarettes legally aggressively advertised and smoke them in offices and restaurants, or in a country where people die luch less of tobacco, where my kids are much less likely to start and die from it at age 45 and where I don't have to smell that crap all day long?
Well second one. Not even close.
Third example. In Ayn Rand land, a chemical company can probably dump their toxic stuff in the river, cuz ya know, freedom. I'd rather the state tell them not too. And if a river is polluted, I'd rather the state make it forbidden to swim in it so that people don't catch horrible lllnesses.
Etc etc.
There is no case for libertarianism. It's a flawed, morally bankrupt ideology built on some dogmas that make 0 sense in the real world unless you are both very rich and afflicted with a higher degree of psychoathy.
|
On February 27 2017 19:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:One doesn't need to have read Hayek to have good notions about what he was about and have an opinion about his work. Just like you can be perfectly legitimately opposing marxism without having read The Capital. Whether you know an author by a quality secundary sources or by having read him directly matters little unless you are a specialist and that's valid in all sciences.
To an extent this is true of course but you're missing a lot in the nuance of their opinions. To name some examples: Hayek is for environmental / safety regulations and Friedman is for a carbon tax and a minumum income (negative income tax). They're not simply far right liberals, they also see scope for government where necessary.
There's also plenty of disagreement of what a quality secundary source is on Hayek, Friedman or Marx. I'm pretty sure that in a lot of cases we would not agree on that at all.
On February 27 2017 19:27 Big J wrote:No, I've heard a bunch of them in courses, watched some videos. They sounded like mostly ideological fundamentals. "If you die in a car crash because the car was badly built it was your own fault. You just shouldn't have bought it."
THey're pretty radical liberals yes. I don't think watching some videos does them justice though. Especially Hayek has written a great amount of books. Do you have a source for that quote btw?
On February 27 2017 19:30 Kong95 wrote:I read it, good stuff.
yeh I love em as well although I'm not as radical.
On February 27 2017 20:10 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 18:56 Big J wrote:On February 27 2017 18:41 warding wrote:On February 27 2017 17:19 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2017 08:35 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking?
Who will profit from a failing EU? What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done.
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening. The picture he wants is a divided US, a fractured EU and glorious mother Russia walking across all of them. You are a wee bit more of a non-contributing troll than usual. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking? It's the reality of what is actually happening. The nation-state continues to be the highest level at which policies can be conducted effectively. Yes, it does kind of suck for nations as small as those of Europe. But nationalism is arguably the strongest force tearing it apart right now; and we won't be rid of it any time soon. Besides that it's just the regular arguments of pro- vs anti- free trade, as the EU is in large part a glorified free trade agreement. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Who will profit from a failing EU? Not many, in the short term. Not a reason to keep it alive on life support though. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done. The end result may either be a looser community of nations with something less than a free trade agreement, or worse, a group of splinter-EUs with smaller, but more dominant in their smaller union, countries. While the EU styles itself as an ideological project, it's little more than an alliance of convenience that will tear itself apart as soon as the convenience evaporates. What should be done is not an easy question to answer. I think the "loose alliance" would be more effective, akin to what predated the EU. Splinter groups would look a lot like the precursor to WWI. But what will happen is that the EU will not be able to survive in its current form and it's remarkably resilient to acknowledging the need for change, so perhaps it needs to be broken. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening. No illusion that we're in for a pleasant period. Trump and Brexit are just the beginning - I foresee another decade of this shit before we actually find a new stable period. Do we really have to go over this again? What you designate a "nation state" is entirely arbitrary. And you positing that it is the "highest level at which policies can be conducted effectively" means nothing. Some policies are far more effective if conducted at neighborhood or city level. Others regional and others at a national level. This doesn't there aren't policies that can be more effectively implemented at a supra-national level. Especially given that we already established that nation-states are largely arbitrary structure formed part due to culture, part historical coincidence, and part because bigger nation-states decided to draw lines on a map. As for examples of policies best implemented at a supra-national level (in Europe)? Trade policy for starters. Foreign policy to a certain extent. Monetary and fiscal policy, since we have the Euro. Basically, anything you can get Wegandi to agree on that should be done at a federal level in the USA is DEFINITELY more effective in a larger block than individual European nation-states can do. And I'd actually argue that there's a lot more too, but that is already plenty to start with. You got it right in trade policy, monetary and fiscal policy, then there's the massive issue of business regulations. Drug evaluation and approval, environmental regulations, fishing regulations, anti-trust issues, not to mention the checks-and-balances system on national government when it comes to protecting competition, the European Court of Justice. This is obviously a "What have the Romans ever done for us" situation, without the actual downside shit that the Romans did like crucifixions. Well, if you are stuck in the economic beliefs of the cold-war kids praying day and night to the invisible hand of the free market, like most of the right-wingers are, destroying the regulating EU, keeping the common market and locking your country in meaningless nationalism is the easiest way to get to the ideological utopia. So yeah, if you don't find it in Hayek's or Friedman's works, it is probably not meant to be part of the "reformed EU" that those right-wingers are preaching. Ironic that you're from Austria :D. I've actually read Hayek and Friedman (and Mises and others) and don't really see why that would make me anti or pro-EU. I consider myself a mix of libertarian with utilitarian and I think the EU is a great liberal force in the EU. Of course I view things mostly from the Portuguese perspective, joining the EU meant adopting free trade and market economy principles that were vastly more economically liberal than the Portugal of 1985 was. Of course you have a fringe community of 'austrian economics' fans around the internet that favor things like the return to the gold standard and a sort of zerohedge.com, nihilistic perspective on the world. That might be what you're referring to, but it'd be a mistake to consider them as representative of the 'right-wing' or of economically liberal minded people.
The case for Hayek being for or against the EU could be made both ways. Hayek was an advocate for a federal state and this quote is in the road to serfdom for example:
It is worth recalling that the idea of the world at last finding peace through the absorption of the the separate states in large federated groups and ultimately perhaps in one single federation, far from being new, was indeed the ideal of almost all the liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century
In his ideal society we'd have free trade and free movement of people for everyone as well. He'd most likely have disliked the nationalist bend of the current anti EU forces.
On February 27 2017 20:37 warding wrote:
opisska I think your argument that strong regulatory requirements make quality products cheaper is relatively flimsy. You do end up with fewer producers, so in theory each producer makes a higher quantity of the same goods, but you have fewer competition forces to drive down prices. Which effect is strongest? I'm not sure.
Also, I'd point out that the free market argument would be: people are rational, therefore they value security in products that could potentially endanger their lives. As they don't have enough information to individually assess the security of each product, a 'seal of security' is valued, so companies would independently seek to acquire independent quality/security certificates. If a product ends up killing someone it'd be either due to a limitation on those standards or an infringement of those standards in which case the 'dead consumer' would have a right to sue - this would be the same outcome as state-mandate safety/quality standards, therefore state mandated safety/quality standards are either redundant or they are unnecessary as they are responding to a need that consumers do not seem to value.
One valid point against that is that people aren't rational - they'd actually start visiting quack doctors and endangering themselves. The libertarians would argue that the government bureaucrats are hardly optimal either and are prone to corruption by large corporations who favor strict regulation to increase barriers to entry. With recent developments in behavioral economics/science and the election of absolute retards in major countries, I tend to agree with the 'people are idiots' argument more and more.
Might I add that in the EU, safety regulations aren't all that strict - most products can actually be self-certified and/or do not require huge testing costs. The philosophy on EU regulations does take into account potentially destructive effects of strict regulation and tries to not be very intrusive in industries where they could limit competition and innovation.
Friedmans argument against safety regulation was a lot simpler. Newer cars are safer than older cars. Regulation increases costs for cars. Due to the increased costs consumers will keep their current cars for longer which will ultimately result in more deaths. This was a long time ago tho so his opinion might've changed in the meantime.
Biff, the fact that you're equating Ayn Rand with someone like Hayek means you're clueless about them. Ayn Rands school of liberalism isn't the only or even the most dominant school. Hayek was in favour of environmental regulation so a factory dumping toxic waste would be prohibited.
You display a complete lack of understanding of liberalism so maybe you should start actually reading some liberals or some good secondary sources instead of the shit you're consuming now.
|
Biff, we are in the same camp (mainly), trust me. It's just that you have exhibited in your reply the same level of taking things to the extreme that we so often criticize in people on the other side of the spectrum. Fundamentalism is never good, from any side and the discussion of "regulations" (whatever we lump under this broad label) is a great example.
I have strong concerns about environmental protection, I am a big fan of nature and I mildly contribute some work to some conservation programs regarding birds. Yet I think many of the "enviromental" regulations that we have put forward in Europe are totally idiotic, such as the absurd fight against CO2 production in cars (which has no real impact on anything), which has lead to the proliferation of small turbocharged engines and diesels, which are actually pretty terrible for the environment locally. It has furthermore discredited the whole environmental movement in the eyes of many people.
As usual, one has to consider that we do not live in an enlightened dictatorship, but under a complicated democratic system. Thus with all policies, you must consider not only what would you like the most, but what is realistic to implement and what are the steps to get there. This is where I think libertanianism is useful and needed in the current Europe - as a counterbalance to "regulate everything" tendencies of bureaucratic institutions. My ideal outcome is to have strict regulations where they are beneficial (road safety, impactful environmental measures, food quality and many other things) and to systematically cull them where the benefit is not sufficient (such is the case pseudo-enviromental things like biofuel, CO2 from cars, lightbulbs ..) and hardcore libertatians are actually good in stirring up these discussions.
|
Great post RvB and opisska. I'd point out that we're actually all in agreement about the key issues, the only disagreement is on the impact of Friedman and Hayek in political economic thought and what classical liberals/libertarians actually defend. I agree with RvB that Biff pretty much just painted a straw man and argued against it.
EDIT: And on point with the general topic - I think we're all in agreement with EU's regulatory system. I've fallen to the "EU regulating banana sizes" before, but I've had to engage with EU regulations recently at my company and find that the way the system is designed and the philosophy behind it to be quite decent. It's definitely not optimal but I grant that that is always going to be nearly impossible.
|
I'm not sure RvB is appropriately representing Hayek's thought; that quote on the ideology of the federal state, for example, is a part of the book aimed at explaining the foreground to Hayek's economics, not describing Hayek's ideal system. Like, the next line implicitly shit-talks Lord Alfred Tennyson for some reason lol. Here's the whole line:
It is worth recalling that the idea of the world at last finding peace through the absorption of the the separate states in large federated groups and ultimately perhaps in one single federation, far from being new, was indeed the ideal of almost all the liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century. From Tennyson, whose much-quoted vision of the "battle of the air" is followed by a vision of the federation of the people which follow their last great fight, right down to the end of the century the final achievement of a federal organization remained the ever recurring hope of a next great step in the advance of the civilization.
Laboriously long clauses aside, that quote is very clearly not a normative description of Hayek's attitude towards a federal system (if anything, it indicates skepticism). So, why did you cherry pick that quote, RvB, when your entire point seems to be that people who haven't read Hayek don't accurately represent his ideas? Your thesis seems untenable in light of the fact that you, a self-proclaimed fan and reader of Hayek, misrepresented Hayek in pursuit of making a point. And yes, I've read nearly all of the work of the Austrians, so if you'd like to find another specious quote in support of the rather controversial notion that Hayek would actually support the EU, I'm all ears, because I'm not finding it. While Hayek most definitely carved out a number of functions not viably left to the free market, environment and safety net included, his attitude towards basic pricing and entrance into markets would almost certainly render him unable to support anything remotely as expansive as the EU.
As an aside, this is one of the the most intelligent and thorough takedowns of Austrian economics at large I've ever found. Professor Caplan's thesis is as follows:
I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that:
(a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.
(b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.
(c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.
(d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.
Given this, I conclude that while self-labeled Austrian economists have some valid contributions to make to economics, these are simply not distinctive enough to sustain a school of thought. The task of developing an alternate Austrian paradigm has largely failed, producing an abundance of meta-economics (philosophy, methodology, and history of thought), but few substantive results. Whatever Austrian economists have that is worth saying should be simply be addressed to the broader economics profession, which (in spite of itself) remains eager for original, true, and substantive ideas.
It's quite good 
|
On February 27 2017 20:10 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 18:56 Big J wrote:On February 27 2017 18:41 warding wrote:On February 27 2017 17:19 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2017 08:35 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking?
Who will profit from a failing EU? What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done.
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening. The picture he wants is a divided US, a fractured EU and glorious mother Russia walking across all of them. You are a wee bit more of a non-contributing troll than usual. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking? It's the reality of what is actually happening. The nation-state continues to be the highest level at which policies can be conducted effectively. Yes, it does kind of suck for nations as small as those of Europe. But nationalism is arguably the strongest force tearing it apart right now; and we won't be rid of it any time soon. Besides that it's just the regular arguments of pro- vs anti- free trade, as the EU is in large part a glorified free trade agreement. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Who will profit from a failing EU? Not many, in the short term. Not a reason to keep it alive on life support though. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done. The end result may either be a looser community of nations with something less than a free trade agreement, or worse, a group of splinter-EUs with smaller, but more dominant in their smaller union, countries. While the EU styles itself as an ideological project, it's little more than an alliance of convenience that will tear itself apart as soon as the convenience evaporates. What should be done is not an easy question to answer. I think the "loose alliance" would be more effective, akin to what predated the EU. Splinter groups would look a lot like the precursor to WWI. But what will happen is that the EU will not be able to survive in its current form and it's remarkably resilient to acknowledging the need for change, so perhaps it needs to be broken. On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening. No illusion that we're in for a pleasant period. Trump and Brexit are just the beginning - I foresee another decade of this shit before we actually find a new stable period. Do we really have to go over this again? What you designate a "nation state" is entirely arbitrary. And you positing that it is the "highest level at which policies can be conducted effectively" means nothing. Some policies are far more effective if conducted at neighborhood or city level. Others regional and others at a national level. This doesn't there aren't policies that can be more effectively implemented at a supra-national level. Especially given that we already established that nation-states are largely arbitrary structure formed part due to culture, part historical coincidence, and part because bigger nation-states decided to draw lines on a map. As for examples of policies best implemented at a supra-national level (in Europe)? Trade policy for starters. Foreign policy to a certain extent. Monetary and fiscal policy, since we have the Euro. Basically, anything you can get Wegandi to agree on that should be done at a federal level in the USA is DEFINITELY more effective in a larger block than individual European nation-states can do. And I'd actually argue that there's a lot more too, but that is already plenty to start with. You got it right in trade policy, monetary and fiscal policy, then there's the massive issue of business regulations. Drug evaluation and approval, environmental regulations, fishing regulations, anti-trust issues, not to mention the checks-and-balances system on national government when it comes to protecting competition, the European Court of Justice. This is obviously a "What have the Romans ever done for us" situation, without the actual downside shit that the Romans did like crucifixions. Well, if you are stuck in the economic beliefs of the cold-war kids praying day and night to the invisible hand of the free market, like most of the right-wingers are, destroying the regulating EU, keeping the common market and locking your country in meaningless nationalism is the easiest way to get to the ideological utopia. So yeah, if you don't find it in Hayek's or Friedman's works, it is probably not meant to be part of the "reformed EU" that those right-wingers are preaching. Ironic that you're from Austria :D. I've actually read Hayek and Friedman (and Mises and others) and don't really see why that would make me anti or pro-EU. I consider myself a mix of libertarian with utilitarian and I think the EU is a great liberal force in the EU. Of course I view things mostly from the Portuguese perspective, joining the EU meant adopting free trade and market economy principles that were vastly more economically liberal than the Portugal of 1985 was. Of course you have a fringe community of 'austrian economics' fans around the internet that favor things like the return to the gold standard and a sort of zerohedge.com, nihilistic perspective on the world. That might be what you're referring to, but it'd be a mistake to consider them as representative of the 'right-wing' or of economically liberal minded people.
The politicians which believe in the works of Hayek or moreso Friedman have always been very opposed to a regulating European power. Most parties from the right seem to be very pro-European Market. What they do not want is a European political power. The EU should be a common market with tax competition between the states and possibly some defensive and security tools. Those who do not want such politics, like the mediterreanian states, should leave. There shouldn't be a common ground, a democratization of the EU. It should be boxing ring for economical competition.
Attacking the EU and their representatives is a very clever scheme. It's not about Juncker, Schulz, Tajani or Tusk. It's about killing the idea that there should be acting political figures in the EU.
On February 27 2017 20:09 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 19:27 Big J wrote:On February 27 2017 19:15 RvB wrote:
Have you read Hayek or Friedman Big J? No, I've heard a bunch of them in courses, watched some videos. They sounded like mostly ideological fundamentals. "If you die in a car crash because the car was badly built it was your own fault. You just shouldn't have bought it." If I died in a car crash because the car was badly built, it was indeed my own fault. For not voting on parties that would regulate the car industry to build cars according to a decently safe standard. As the world grows more complex, it becomes increasingly difficult for consumers - who often have to specialize in a particular subject in order to find work so that they can keep consuming - to keep tabs on everything under the sun. There need to be some standards so you don't have to learn check everything down to the minutest details yourself.
And what if I voted on those parties, but the majority did not and I died? I understand the complex argument behind it, that things, including life, are a matter of cost. If the regulation is costly, it may not be overly clever to implement it just to probably save one life. It's a matter of where you draw the line. The question then becomes: where do you draw the lines and what lines should be drawn? Leaving most things to the invisible hand of the market is a shallow theory to begin with, but even if we assume it works somewhat well: You should not create a market economy in which those who are qualified, capitalized and have the will to "play the game" will massively outwin everyone else, but the rest is also forced to play the game in the type of division-of-labor state society we have.
An actual liberal society is one, that does not leave people who are not interested in the economy or the politics to waste away, but that garantuees that they can be left to focus in dignity on those things that they like, like their family or their gaming hobbies.
THey're pretty radical liberals yes. I don't think watching some videos does them justice though. Especially Hayek has written a great amount of books. Do you have a source for that quote btw?
I paraphrased it, as I didn't remember better. The quote goes: "People individually should be free to decide how much they're willing to pay for reducing the chances of their death." Somewhere towards the end of this video:
+ Show Spoiler +
You know, I agree with Friedman here on almost everything in the video. It is a cost-benefit question as everything in life is. But the fundamental principle, that a society should not interfere with an individuals judgement on his own risk and his own benefit is just that, a fundamentalist idea. If you want that, you shouldn't create a division-of-labor society, or any state/society at all. Being free to decide and being capable to decide are two fundamental differences. Many, many people do know that they are not capable at deciding what's best for them. They expect others, their friends, their families, business partners or the state and the society as a whole to help them in many circumstances. Leaving out such fundamental human behavior in favor of ideological principles is not different from what communists did with their fundamental socialist principles. Individual liberty and a social society are, just like the question how much cheaper a car that lacks a certain safety measure should be, a question of cost and benefit. Putting liberty above everything is neither efficient, nor will it actually provide the most opportunities for the individual in life.
What people like Hayek and Friedman did was giving cold-war liberterian fundamentalists an economic theory to claim superiority of individualism. This superiority has never been proven, in fact, I'd consider that even if nothing else disproves it (a strong case can be made for the European more regulated market economy in comparison to the UK or the US; similarily China's growth in recent years in their model of a socialist market economy), then the fact how much the same parties that used to proclaim unrestricted liberalism are slowly turning authoritarian and protectionist, as in their fundamentalist state vision they lack any tools besides law-and-order powers to actually reach prosperty goals, is a strong case of something fundamentally not working out with leaving the state, the society and the people out of the economical decision process.
|
Big J's last two paragraphs are a nice nutshell criticism of individualistic ideology in economics. There may be elegance and truth with respect to many of the ways Austrians criticize neoclassical modes of thinking, but their emphasis on the individual leaves the door open for a whole host of co-opting philosophies that do their best to superimpose the individual overtop many other, far less satisfactory perspectives.
The US, for example, is full to the brim with free market sycophants who understand .01 percent of the ideas underpinning liberal thought a la Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, and Mises; this ignorance allows ruling elites, particularly those of the conservative bent, the freedom to shoehorn imperialistic, war-mongering ideologies into the political zeitgeist, all in the name of individualism.
|
To be clear I am not claiming that Hayek would support the EU as it is. I'm saying that it can be argued both ways. You're right that Hayek would not support how expansive the EU is. On the other hand the EU also brought some things which he would support like the (imperfect) single market and the free movement of people. For me the latter outweighs the former, whether it does for Hayek as well I can't say of course.
About his views on federalism
First of he does not shit talk him at all. Hayek continues after that
Nineteenth-century liberals may not have been fully aware how essential a complement of their principles a federal organisation of the different states formed; but there were few among them who did not expres their belief in it as an ultimate goal. It was only with the approach of our twentieth century that before the triumphant rise of Realpolitik these hopes came to be regarded as unpracticable and utopian
Hayek starts out chapter 15 (the prospects of internaional order) of the road to serfdom with a quote from lord acton:
Of all checks on democracy , federation has been the most efficacious and the most congenial.... The federal system limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it and by assigning to government only certainly defined rights. It is the only methord of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole people
the form of international government under which certain strictly defined powers are transferred to an international authority, while in all other respects the individual countries remain responsible for their internal affairs, is, of course, that of federation. We must not allow the numerous ill-considered and often extremely silly claims made on behalf of the height of federal propaganda for "Federal Union" to obscure the fact that the principle of federation is the only form of association of different peoples which will create an international order without putting an undue strain on their legitimate desire for independence. Federalism is, of course, nothing but the application to international affairs of democracy, the only method of peaceful change man has yet invented. But it is a democracy with definitely limited powers. Apart from the impractical ideal of fusing different countries into a single centralised state (the desirability which is far from obvious) it is the only way in which the ideal of international law can be made reality
So yes he's certainly for a federation. The quote above also shows at least one problem he'll already have with the current EU, which is the fact that for some it's about fusing the federation into a centralised state.
|
Fair enough. Your willingness to mediate and clarify your prior positions is a nice change of pace compared to the Americans I've talked with on the topic of Austrian economics, so cheers.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 27 2017 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 05:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 24 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully Le Pen can pull it off in the end. Lol. I don't even know if you are trolling, completely ignorant or, more worryingly, if you are actually sincere. The FN is a party of absolute scumbags. The only thing that unite their leaders and militants is that they are all horrible people. Ultra catholics, skinheads, nostalgic of the colonial Algeria, neo nazis, countryside racists, you tell me. On the local politics level, the FN is doing enormous damage, because they don't have an infrastructure and we end up with people sitting in cantons that are simply morons, to a point it's tragic. I work with local politicians in France, and one wouldn't beloeve the people that are being put in responsibility by the FN. They are super angry, completely dumb, very mean, and can't write a sentence in French without making ten mistakes. The FN was fonded by former pro-french algeria veterans (the sinister OAS), by nostalgic of Petain and the collaboration, and by members of groups such as Action Francaise and Occident. Those were hardcore fascists. Not like the alt right, real, authentic fascists. Le Pen was the kind of guy who was editing and selling SS songs recordings. What do you want LL? The end of civilization? A world war? A genocide? A dictatorship? I ask genuinely. You parrot badly digested uber populistic far right ideology all day long, but what do you stand for at the end? I know who the FN is. I remember them from the history cubes on French African imperialism, and I know what the party represented then. I know exactly why it is that they are so scary to you, and it was amazing to me how far they managed to come over the years. I don't know to what extent I buy the Marine transformation of the party, but I know that keeping the name of the FN isn't really a great sign. What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart. I don't evaluate Le Pen from a domestic perspective, the same way you don't really give a fuck what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be like domestically. I don't live in France, so I don't have to deal with the consequences directly. I understand perfectly why it should be troubling; if I were a Frenchman I would probably vote Fillon who is more ideologically along the lines of what I would like without being fascist-spawn (to say nothing of what Marine represents herself, because that's quite a bit harder to gauge). I think your other exasperated remarks - end of civilization, world war, dictatorship, genocide - are far overblown. But she would probably be a president for the dredges of society and that would not make me happy if I had to live with it. I will mention it once more that I tire of your exaggerated exasperation. Yes, I am perfectly aware of why Le Pen is terrible for you, same with Trump. But you sort of undermine your position by going too far. And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one. No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing. What are you talking about? I was against Trump first and foremost because of what he is doing and will do in America, and my first concern is for american people and immigrants living in America. I won't wish for a horrendous leader in a major country because that would match some badly digested geopolitical consideration of mine. You clearly know nothing about the EU, except if I understand, that you didn't like the way it handled the refugee crisis. Mate it didn't. It should have, but countries did, independantly. I know, you think arabs are "scary" as you said earlier and don't like when they come to the West (that's called xenophobia, but nvm). But meanwhile Europe actually functions very well despite urgent needs to change its institutions. It's the strongest alliance in the world, and transforms a patchwork of countries into a unified union that can resist great powers, starting with Russia, but also the US. It provides its citizens peace, in the previously conflict ridden place in the world. Tell me, how do you think the baltic states and Finland would feel without the EU? I have lived and worked in 6 different countries in 10 years without ever asking permission or going through democracy. That's Europe. Now, ask yourself, why the only french party that support a "frexit" happens to be a bunch of nazi assholes? Would it be that people who, contrarily to you, know what's at stake, would never want to exit? But that's not even the point. You wish my country a fascist government, because you don't give a shit what will happen to us and to France. What matters is the end of an institution you don't understand so vive the nazis. Many people have expressed being tired with your shit. You clearly don't give a fuck about people and countries future, you just want to make points and express i don't know what, and you are lowering the overall quality of both thread. And if you don't see why "I know they are fascists and I know they will hugely damage France but i support them nonetheless because ..." is unacceptable, you should find other interests and post elsewhere.
Your exasperated, hyperbolic bullshit is the reason why I tend not to bother with this discussion with you. Same with your baseless post on Putin in the other thread for that matter.
The people who like to work in 6 different countries in 10 years are going to be overjoyed at the existence of the EU and pretend that there's no reason anyone would want to leave it. Evidently people have other concerns as well given that anti-EU sentiment is perpetually growing.
I suppose the best simple way to describe the EU is, "in calm waters, every ship has a good captain." Its ability to deal with crises has proven to be inadequate and it simply spreads the effect of local disruptions far and wide.
|
On February 28 2017 00:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 05:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 24 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully Le Pen can pull it off in the end. Lol. I don't even know if you are trolling, completely ignorant or, more worryingly, if you are actually sincere. The FN is a party of absolute scumbags. The only thing that unite their leaders and militants is that they are all horrible people. Ultra catholics, skinheads, nostalgic of the colonial Algeria, neo nazis, countryside racists, you tell me. On the local politics level, the FN is doing enormous damage, because they don't have an infrastructure and we end up with people sitting in cantons that are simply morons, to a point it's tragic. I work with local politicians in France, and one wouldn't beloeve the people that are being put in responsibility by the FN. They are super angry, completely dumb, very mean, and can't write a sentence in French without making ten mistakes. The FN was fonded by former pro-french algeria veterans (the sinister OAS), by nostalgic of Petain and the collaboration, and by members of groups such as Action Francaise and Occident. Those were hardcore fascists. Not like the alt right, real, authentic fascists. Le Pen was the kind of guy who was editing and selling SS songs recordings. What do you want LL? The end of civilization? A world war? A genocide? A dictatorship? I ask genuinely. You parrot badly digested uber populistic far right ideology all day long, but what do you stand for at the end? I know who the FN is. I remember them from the history cubes on French African imperialism, and I know what the party represented then. I know exactly why it is that they are so scary to you, and it was amazing to me how far they managed to come over the years. I don't know to what extent I buy the Marine transformation of the party, but I know that keeping the name of the FN isn't really a great sign. What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart. I don't evaluate Le Pen from a domestic perspective, the same way you don't really give a fuck what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be like domestically. I don't live in France, so I don't have to deal with the consequences directly. I understand perfectly why it should be troubling; if I were a Frenchman I would probably vote Fillon who is more ideologically along the lines of what I would like without being fascist-spawn (to say nothing of what Marine represents herself, because that's quite a bit harder to gauge). I think your other exasperated remarks - end of civilization, world war, dictatorship, genocide - are far overblown. But she would probably be a president for the dredges of society and that would not make me happy if I had to live with it. I will mention it once more that I tire of your exaggerated exasperation. Yes, I am perfectly aware of why Le Pen is terrible for you, same with Trump. But you sort of undermine your position by going too far. And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one. No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing. What are you talking about? I was against Trump first and foremost because of what he is doing and will do in America, and my first concern is for american people and immigrants living in America. I won't wish for a horrendous leader in a major country because that would match some badly digested geopolitical consideration of mine. You clearly know nothing about the EU, except if I understand, that you didn't like the way it handled the refugee crisis. Mate it didn't. It should have, but countries did, independantly. I know, you think arabs are "scary" as you said earlier and don't like when they come to the West (that's called xenophobia, but nvm). But meanwhile Europe actually functions very well despite urgent needs to change its institutions. It's the strongest alliance in the world, and transforms a patchwork of countries into a unified union that can resist great powers, starting with Russia, but also the US. It provides its citizens peace, in the previously conflict ridden place in the world. Tell me, how do you think the baltic states and Finland would feel without the EU? I have lived and worked in 6 different countries in 10 years without ever asking permission or going through democracy. That's Europe. Now, ask yourself, why the only french party that support a "frexit" happens to be a bunch of nazi assholes? Would it be that people who, contrarily to you, know what's at stake, would never want to exit? But that's not even the point. You wish my country a fascist government, because you don't give a shit what will happen to us and to France. What matters is the end of an institution you don't understand so vive the nazis. Many people have expressed being tired with your shit. You clearly don't give a fuck about people and countries future, you just want to make points and express i don't know what, and you are lowering the overall quality of both thread. And if you don't see why "I know they are fascists and I know they will hugely damage France but i support them nonetheless because ..." is unacceptable, you should find other interests and post elsewhere. Your exasperated, hyperbolic bullshit is the reason why I tend not to bother with this discussion with you. Same with your baseless post on Putin in the other thread for that matter. The people who like to work in 6 different countries in 10 years are going to be overjoyed at the existence of the EU and pretend that there's no reason anyone would want to leave it. Evidently people have other concerns as well given that anti-EU sentiment is perpetually growing. I suppose the best simple way to describe the EU is, "in calm waters, every ship has a good captain."
Good, so now you can finally tell us what are the reasons someone would want to leave EU, besides general discomfort with big projects, pointless nationalism, misattributions of problems actually caused by local governments and other kinds of misinformation in general. You know, those actual, existing and founded reasons you are implying that do actually exist but have not so far really mentioned any one of them.
If you refuse to do so, I'd suggest that you refrain from commenting on this matter in the future.
|
Dissatisfaction with the EU =/= wanting to leave the EU. Apart from the extreme rights and lefts in Europe, the more mainstream voices dissatisfied with the EU are pushing back against more political integration, not against the project as a whole. They seem to want to go back to the EU pre-Treaty of Lisbon and there's a sea of difference between that wish and a wish to leave the EU.
|
I can't speak for LL of course, but going by these paragraphs:
On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:
What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart.
...
No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing.
Sounds like his main problem with the EU is the supranational decision-making on divisive, controversial issues. Sounds like he's some kind of fanatical subsidiarist.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 28 2017 00:21 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 05:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 24 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully Le Pen can pull it off in the end. Lol. I don't even know if you are trolling, completely ignorant or, more worryingly, if you are actually sincere. The FN is a party of absolute scumbags. The only thing that unite their leaders and militants is that they are all horrible people. Ultra catholics, skinheads, nostalgic of the colonial Algeria, neo nazis, countryside racists, you tell me. On the local politics level, the FN is doing enormous damage, because they don't have an infrastructure and we end up with people sitting in cantons that are simply morons, to a point it's tragic. I work with local politicians in France, and one wouldn't beloeve the people that are being put in responsibility by the FN. They are super angry, completely dumb, very mean, and can't write a sentence in French without making ten mistakes. The FN was fonded by former pro-french algeria veterans (the sinister OAS), by nostalgic of Petain and the collaboration, and by members of groups such as Action Francaise and Occident. Those were hardcore fascists. Not like the alt right, real, authentic fascists. Le Pen was the kind of guy who was editing and selling SS songs recordings. What do you want LL? The end of civilization? A world war? A genocide? A dictatorship? I ask genuinely. You parrot badly digested uber populistic far right ideology all day long, but what do you stand for at the end? I know who the FN is. I remember them from the history cubes on French African imperialism, and I know what the party represented then. I know exactly why it is that they are so scary to you, and it was amazing to me how far they managed to come over the years. I don't know to what extent I buy the Marine transformation of the party, but I know that keeping the name of the FN isn't really a great sign. What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart. I don't evaluate Le Pen from a domestic perspective, the same way you don't really give a fuck what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be like domestically. I don't live in France, so I don't have to deal with the consequences directly. I understand perfectly why it should be troubling; if I were a Frenchman I would probably vote Fillon who is more ideologically along the lines of what I would like without being fascist-spawn (to say nothing of what Marine represents herself, because that's quite a bit harder to gauge). I think your other exasperated remarks - end of civilization, world war, dictatorship, genocide - are far overblown. But she would probably be a president for the dredges of society and that would not make me happy if I had to live with it. I will mention it once more that I tire of your exaggerated exasperation. Yes, I am perfectly aware of why Le Pen is terrible for you, same with Trump. But you sort of undermine your position by going too far. And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one. No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing. What are you talking about? I was against Trump first and foremost because of what he is doing and will do in America, and my first concern is for american people and immigrants living in America. I won't wish for a horrendous leader in a major country because that would match some badly digested geopolitical consideration of mine. You clearly know nothing about the EU, except if I understand, that you didn't like the way it handled the refugee crisis. Mate it didn't. It should have, but countries did, independantly. I know, you think arabs are "scary" as you said earlier and don't like when they come to the West (that's called xenophobia, but nvm). But meanwhile Europe actually functions very well despite urgent needs to change its institutions. It's the strongest alliance in the world, and transforms a patchwork of countries into a unified union that can resist great powers, starting with Russia, but also the US. It provides its citizens peace, in the previously conflict ridden place in the world. Tell me, how do you think the baltic states and Finland would feel without the EU? I have lived and worked in 6 different countries in 10 years without ever asking permission or going through democracy. That's Europe. Now, ask yourself, why the only french party that support a "frexit" happens to be a bunch of nazi assholes? Would it be that people who, contrarily to you, know what's at stake, would never want to exit? But that's not even the point. You wish my country a fascist government, because you don't give a shit what will happen to us and to France. What matters is the end of an institution you don't understand so vive the nazis. Many people have expressed being tired with your shit. You clearly don't give a fuck about people and countries future, you just want to make points and express i don't know what, and you are lowering the overall quality of both thread. And if you don't see why "I know they are fascists and I know they will hugely damage France but i support them nonetheless because ..." is unacceptable, you should find other interests and post elsewhere. Your exasperated, hyperbolic bullshit is the reason why I tend not to bother with this discussion with you. Same with your baseless post on Putin in the other thread for that matter. The people who like to work in 6 different countries in 10 years are going to be overjoyed at the existence of the EU and pretend that there's no reason anyone would want to leave it. Evidently people have other concerns as well given that anti-EU sentiment is perpetually growing. I suppose the best simple way to describe the EU is, "in calm waters, every ship has a good captain." Good, so now you can finally tell us what are the reasons someone would want to leave EU, besides general discomfort with big projects, pointless nationalism, misattributions of problems actually caused by local governments and other kinds of misinformation in general. You know, those actual, existing and founded reasons you are implying that do actually exist but have not so far really mentioned any one of them. If you refuse to do so, I'd suggest that you refrain from commenting on this matter in the future.
I already gave you the reasons. That you seem to have a strong and blinding personal bias against Russia is apparent, and that you disagree with my reasons is clear too. Good discussions aren't made of 1-2 people debating seriously and 4-5 side-trolls just sitting around and complaining about how they don't like the person making an argument. I don't expect most people who benefit strongly from its existence to see why others might be dissatisfied, but perhaps reality will catch up to it eventually. No one can predict if the EU will survive or not but be ready for some more troubled times.
A few years ago I would have taken the same perspective you bunch do on the EU, for what it's worth. Sounds like a great idea and has some genuine benefits. But perhaps it's not meant to survive. And if it's not, let's see it end sooner rather than later because the later it goes down, the worse it will be.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 28 2017 00:22 warding wrote:
Dissatisfaction with the EU =/= wanting to leave the EU. Apart from the extreme rights and lefts in Europe, the more mainstream voices dissatisfied with the EU are pushing back against more political integration, not against the project as a whole. They seem to want to go back to the EU pre-Treaty of Lisbon and there's a sea of difference between that wish and a wish to leave the EU.
One of my problems is that people conflate "the EU" with any form of European integration. No; it's just one iteration in the long-running set of European communities. The EU itself has only been around since 1993.
European integration in some form or other is good and necessary. The European Union as the institution that it is in its current form, not necessarily so.
|
On February 28 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 00:21 opisska wrote:On February 28 2017 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 05:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 24 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully Le Pen can pull it off in the end. Lol. I don't even know if you are trolling, completely ignorant or, more worryingly, if you are actually sincere. The FN is a party of absolute scumbags. The only thing that unite their leaders and militants is that they are all horrible people. Ultra catholics, skinheads, nostalgic of the colonial Algeria, neo nazis, countryside racists, you tell me. On the local politics level, the FN is doing enormous damage, because they don't have an infrastructure and we end up with people sitting in cantons that are simply morons, to a point it's tragic. I work with local politicians in France, and one wouldn't beloeve the people that are being put in responsibility by the FN. They are super angry, completely dumb, very mean, and can't write a sentence in French without making ten mistakes. The FN was fonded by former pro-french algeria veterans (the sinister OAS), by nostalgic of Petain and the collaboration, and by members of groups such as Action Francaise and Occident. Those were hardcore fascists. Not like the alt right, real, authentic fascists. Le Pen was the kind of guy who was editing and selling SS songs recordings. What do you want LL? The end of civilization? A world war? A genocide? A dictatorship? I ask genuinely. You parrot badly digested uber populistic far right ideology all day long, but what do you stand for at the end? I know who the FN is. I remember them from the history cubes on French African imperialism, and I know what the party represented then. I know exactly why it is that they are so scary to you, and it was amazing to me how far they managed to come over the years. I don't know to what extent I buy the Marine transformation of the party, but I know that keeping the name of the FN isn't really a great sign. What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart. I don't evaluate Le Pen from a domestic perspective, the same way you don't really give a fuck what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be like domestically. I don't live in France, so I don't have to deal with the consequences directly. I understand perfectly why it should be troubling; if I were a Frenchman I would probably vote Fillon who is more ideologically along the lines of what I would like without being fascist-spawn (to say nothing of what Marine represents herself, because that's quite a bit harder to gauge). I think your other exasperated remarks - end of civilization, world war, dictatorship, genocide - are far overblown. But she would probably be a president for the dredges of society and that would not make me happy if I had to live with it. I will mention it once more that I tire of your exaggerated exasperation. Yes, I am perfectly aware of why Le Pen is terrible for you, same with Trump. But you sort of undermine your position by going too far. And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one. No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing. What are you talking about? I was against Trump first and foremost because of what he is doing and will do in America, and my first concern is for american people and immigrants living in America. I won't wish for a horrendous leader in a major country because that would match some badly digested geopolitical consideration of mine. You clearly know nothing about the EU, except if I understand, that you didn't like the way it handled the refugee crisis. Mate it didn't. It should have, but countries did, independantly. I know, you think arabs are "scary" as you said earlier and don't like when they come to the West (that's called xenophobia, but nvm). But meanwhile Europe actually functions very well despite urgent needs to change its institutions. It's the strongest alliance in the world, and transforms a patchwork of countries into a unified union that can resist great powers, starting with Russia, but also the US. It provides its citizens peace, in the previously conflict ridden place in the world. Tell me, how do you think the baltic states and Finland would feel without the EU? I have lived and worked in 6 different countries in 10 years without ever asking permission or going through democracy. That's Europe. Now, ask yourself, why the only french party that support a "frexit" happens to be a bunch of nazi assholes? Would it be that people who, contrarily to you, know what's at stake, would never want to exit? But that's not even the point. You wish my country a fascist government, because you don't give a shit what will happen to us and to France. What matters is the end of an institution you don't understand so vive the nazis. Many people have expressed being tired with your shit. You clearly don't give a fuck about people and countries future, you just want to make points and express i don't know what, and you are lowering the overall quality of both thread. And if you don't see why "I know they are fascists and I know they will hugely damage France but i support them nonetheless because ..." is unacceptable, you should find other interests and post elsewhere. Your exasperated, hyperbolic bullshit is the reason why I tend not to bother with this discussion with you. Same with your baseless post on Putin in the other thread for that matter. The people who like to work in 6 different countries in 10 years are going to be overjoyed at the existence of the EU and pretend that there's no reason anyone would want to leave it. Evidently people have other concerns as well given that anti-EU sentiment is perpetually growing. I suppose the best simple way to describe the EU is, "in calm waters, every ship has a good captain." Good, so now you can finally tell us what are the reasons someone would want to leave EU, besides general discomfort with big projects, pointless nationalism, misattributions of problems actually caused by local governments and other kinds of misinformation in general. You know, those actual, existing and founded reasons you are implying that do actually exist but have not so far really mentioned any one of them. If you refuse to do so, I'd suggest that you refrain from commenting on this matter in the future. I already gave you the reasons. That you seem to have a strong and blinding personal bias against Russia is apparent, and that you disagree with my reasons is clear too. Good discussions aren't made of 1-2 people debating seriously and 4-5 side-trolls just sitting around and complaining about how they don't like the person making an argument. I don't expect most people who benefit strongly from its existence to see why others might be dissatisfied, but perhaps reality will catch up to it eventually. No one can predict if the EU will survive or not but be ready for some more troubled times. A few years ago I would have taken the same perspective you bunch do on the EU, for what it's worth. Sounds like a great idea and has some genuine benefits. But perhaps it's not meant to survive. And if it's not, let's see it end sooner rather than later because the later it goes down, the worse it will be.
The EU is doomed and therefore we should work towards its doom.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I heard one. You're not mentioning specific things about the EU that you feel are fundamentally flawed (and haven't ever). You have a mantra that you keep repeating (nation-state is the largest entity at which decision-making can be done), as if hoping that through repetition it becomes true. Well, we're not buying it.
Are there things wrong with the EU? Absolutely. I just don't see any reason to abandon the whole project just because there's things wrong with it. Just continue fixing those things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And what if it stubbornly refuses to change, revealing that the issue is even deeper than it seemed?
|
|
|
On February 28 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 00:21 opisska wrote:On February 28 2017 00:04 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 05:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 24 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully Le Pen can pull it off in the end. Lol. I don't even know if you are trolling, completely ignorant or, more worryingly, if you are actually sincere. The FN is a party of absolute scumbags. The only thing that unite their leaders and militants is that they are all horrible people. Ultra catholics, skinheads, nostalgic of the colonial Algeria, neo nazis, countryside racists, you tell me. On the local politics level, the FN is doing enormous damage, because they don't have an infrastructure and we end up with people sitting in cantons that are simply morons, to a point it's tragic. I work with local politicians in France, and one wouldn't beloeve the people that are being put in responsibility by the FN. They are super angry, completely dumb, very mean, and can't write a sentence in French without making ten mistakes. The FN was fonded by former pro-french algeria veterans (the sinister OAS), by nostalgic of Petain and the collaboration, and by members of groups such as Action Francaise and Occident. Those were hardcore fascists. Not like the alt right, real, authentic fascists. Le Pen was the kind of guy who was editing and selling SS songs recordings. What do you want LL? The end of civilization? A world war? A genocide? A dictatorship? I ask genuinely. You parrot badly digested uber populistic far right ideology all day long, but what do you stand for at the end? I know who the FN is. I remember them from the history cubes on French African imperialism, and I know what the party represented then. I know exactly why it is that they are so scary to you, and it was amazing to me how far they managed to come over the years. I don't know to what extent I buy the Marine transformation of the party, but I know that keeping the name of the FN isn't really a great sign. What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart. I don't evaluate Le Pen from a domestic perspective, the same way you don't really give a fuck what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be like domestically. I don't live in France, so I don't have to deal with the consequences directly. I understand perfectly why it should be troubling; if I were a Frenchman I would probably vote Fillon who is more ideologically along the lines of what I would like without being fascist-spawn (to say nothing of what Marine represents herself, because that's quite a bit harder to gauge). I think your other exasperated remarks - end of civilization, world war, dictatorship, genocide - are far overblown. But she would probably be a president for the dredges of society and that would not make me happy if I had to live with it. I will mention it once more that I tire of your exaggerated exasperation. Yes, I am perfectly aware of why Le Pen is terrible for you, same with Trump. But you sort of undermine your position by going too far. And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one. No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing. What are you talking about? I was against Trump first and foremost because of what he is doing and will do in America, and my first concern is for american people and immigrants living in America. I won't wish for a horrendous leader in a major country because that would match some badly digested geopolitical consideration of mine. You clearly know nothing about the EU, except if I understand, that you didn't like the way it handled the refugee crisis. Mate it didn't. It should have, but countries did, independantly. I know, you think arabs are "scary" as you said earlier and don't like when they come to the West (that's called xenophobia, but nvm). But meanwhile Europe actually functions very well despite urgent needs to change its institutions. It's the strongest alliance in the world, and transforms a patchwork of countries into a unified union that can resist great powers, starting with Russia, but also the US. It provides its citizens peace, in the previously conflict ridden place in the world. Tell me, how do you think the baltic states and Finland would feel without the EU? I have lived and worked in 6 different countries in 10 years without ever asking permission or going through democracy. That's Europe. Now, ask yourself, why the only french party that support a "frexit" happens to be a bunch of nazi assholes? Would it be that people who, contrarily to you, know what's at stake, would never want to exit? But that's not even the point. You wish my country a fascist government, because you don't give a shit what will happen to us and to France. What matters is the end of an institution you don't understand so vive the nazis. Many people have expressed being tired with your shit. You clearly don't give a fuck about people and countries future, you just want to make points and express i don't know what, and you are lowering the overall quality of both thread. And if you don't see why "I know they are fascists and I know they will hugely damage France but i support them nonetheless because ..." is unacceptable, you should find other interests and post elsewhere. Your exasperated, hyperbolic bullshit is the reason why I tend not to bother with this discussion with you. Same with your baseless post on Putin in the other thread for that matter. The people who like to work in 6 different countries in 10 years are going to be overjoyed at the existence of the EU and pretend that there's no reason anyone would want to leave it. Evidently people have other concerns as well given that anti-EU sentiment is perpetually growing. I suppose the best simple way to describe the EU is, "in calm waters, every ship has a good captain." Good, so now you can finally tell us what are the reasons someone would want to leave EU, besides general discomfort with big projects, pointless nationalism, misattributions of problems actually caused by local governments and other kinds of misinformation in general. You know, those actual, existing and founded reasons you are implying that do actually exist but have not so far really mentioned any one of them. If you refuse to do so, I'd suggest that you refrain from commenting on this matter in the future. I already gave you the reasons. That you seem to have a strong and blinding personal bias against Russia is apparent, and that you disagree with my reasons is clear too. Good discussions aren't made of 1-2 people debating seriously and 4-5 side-trolls just sitting around and complaining about how they don't like the person making an argument. I don't expect most people who benefit strongly from its existence to see why others might be dissatisfied, but perhaps reality will catch up to it eventually. No one can predict if the EU will survive or not but be ready for some more troubled times. A few years ago I would have taken the same perspective you bunch do on the EU, for what it's worth. Sounds like a great idea and has some genuine benefits. But perhaps it's not meant to survive. And if it's not, let's see it end sooner rather than later because the later it goes down, the worse it will be.
Maybe I have genuinely overlooked it and if that's the case, I am sorry, but I haven't found any actual arguments from you, besides vague ideology (that very few people care about) and your constant repetition of "better now than later", which requires a very specific set of assumptions to be considered an argument. I also do not think that most Europeans do think about Russia that often (in particular those from the countries that are further away from it), so I don't think my disdain for their ongoing politics is anything but an excuse for you to not put any effort into defending your vague stances.
I am not buying your "I don't like talking to you" cop out. You do that all the time and it's pretty cheap. I can't force you to talk to me, but if you continue to just vaguely state that some "others" may have some "reasons" to leave the EU, I am going to continue calling out your bullshit until you provide any specifics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
