|
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 March 31 2015 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
dont you mean monetary union rather than trade. and thats not all eu is. it has substantial border openness and legislative institutions
The EU is a trade union : the money has been create to facilitate export (fix exchange rate, no change risk within the union so free capital flow), the legislative institutions only makes law on things related to trade (competition mostly, in labor market and goods and services), and the border openness is for trade too (and erasmus maybe ? LOL).
It's a trade union. Nothing more.
|
the only road i see to an European identity is through a process of distinguishing europe from the rest of the world.
all military alliances with america would have to be cancelnd, there must be something like a oath from all EU countrys to protect europe over all.
that would be just a beginning.
then europe would have to strengthen europe companys, try to kick out some of the big american ones, cause europe is totally undercut from US companys that dont follow the law (for example: privacy facebook ect.) and are only tools for the US government to influence other countrys and spy on them.
also the intelligence community would have to work to get NSA as good as totally out of europe.
if that all happens, maybe then can come back trust from the people into the government to protect our rights against foreign companys and intelligence agencys.
if that all happens and the trust into the government is back, i think then you could talk the first time about europe as a united country.
so you see thats totally not going to happen haha.
i dont see another way that brings that unity but changes nothing about globalization and trading.
it all boils down to trust into the government - and its not there right now in europe in nearly no country and especially not into the EU institutions - so details of a trade agreement doesnt really matter that much.
you wouldnt let someone sign a treaty for you, if you dont trust him, would you?
|
On March 31 2015 06:13 phil.ipp wrote:
the only road i see to an European identity is through a process of distinguishing europe from the rest of the world.
all military alliances with america would have to be cancelnd, there must be something like a oath from all EU countrys to protect europe over all.
that would be just a beginning.
then europe would have to strengthen europe companys, try to kick out some of the big american ones, cause europe is totally undercut from US companys that dont follow the law (for example: privacy facebook ect.) and are only tools for the US government to influence other countrys and spy on them.
also the intelligence community would have to work to get NSA as good as totally out of europe.
if that all happens, maybe then can come back trust from the people into the government to protect our rights against foreign companys and intelligence agencys.
if that all happens and the trust into the government is back, i think then you could talk the first time about europe as a united country.
so you see thats totally not going to happen haha.
i dont see another way that brings that unity but changes nothing about globalization and trading.
it all boils down to trust into the government - and its not there right now in europe in nearly no country and especially not into the EU institutions - so details of a trade agreement doesnt really matter that much.
you wouldnt let someone sign a treaty for you, if you dont trust him, would you?
How about a good educationnal project with a common core for the entire euro zone ? That is a start for any modern culture in my opinion. And changing that god awful currency for known european faces ? My old francs had faces that were widely known, our euros have buildings and freakings bridges. It's a good indicator of our lack of cultural ties : since we have none, let's bound ourselves with technical wonders !
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 31 2015 06:13 phil.ipp wrote:
the only road i see to an European identity is through a process of distinguishing europe from the rest of the world.
all military alliances with america would have to be cancelnd, there must be something like a oath from all EU countrys to protect europe over all.
that would be just a beginning.
then europe would have to strengthen europe companys, try to kick out some of the big american ones, cause europe is totally undercut from US companys that dont follow the law (for example: privacy facebook ect.) and are only tools for the US government to influence other countrys and spy on them.
also the intelligence community would have to work to get NSA as good as totally out of europe.
if that all happens, maybe then can come back trust from the people into the government to protect our rights against foreign companys and intelligence agencys.
if that all happens and the trust into the government is back, i think then you could talk the first time about europe as a united country.
so you see thats totally not going to happen haha.
i dont see another way that brings that unity but changes nothing about globalization and trading.
it all boils down to trust into the government - and its not there right now in europe in nearly no country and especially not into the EU institutions - so details of a trade agreement doesnt really matter that much.
you wouldnt let someone sign a treaty for you, if you dont trust him, would you?
the nsa is not doing anything to harm you.
|
On March 30 2015 20:37 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 08:37 cLutZ wrote:
I'd disagree with you in a fundamental way. The company has a preexisting right to make its product, and the state through social contract, or other theory has been given permission to regulate within its borders. you disagree? this is not a matter of opinion. if you say a company has a preexisting right to make every product they want, then i guess this has to be written in your constitution or at least in some other law. if that would be the case, every discussion would end here, cause then in fact you would violate that right, every time a government bans a product.
of course i know that this "right" does not exist, i am even feeling really bold and say: it doesnt exist ANYWHERE in the world.
but if you think it does it should be really easy to prove for you, cause this must be a fucking famous law where it says: every company has the right to produce everything they want, and the government can only regulate. its like the human rights, they are also written down, there is no preexisting right for a human to do anything that isn't written down. a "right" is a term we invented with the concept of law. so a right has to be always written down or derived from an other law.what do mean with "pre existing"? pre existing before what? before law? you think there are rights before any law creates them? like who would decide what they are?!? i think you dont mean a "natural right" in the sense of not man-made, cause that would be really funny, cause companys are man-made so obiviously the rights that it has to follow, have to be also man-made. the discussion is at that point a bit tiresome, cause one guy has his own definition of the word property, and the next invents preexisting rights. i mean please what are we talking about, governments ban and regulate products EVERY DAY, so i guess i missed all the companys who get everyday compensated.
See, you are fundamentally misunderstanding rights, and government. In your conception, the government exists and occupy's all possible areas of human existence, and grants carve outs to its people as "rights". How rights actually exist is this: The state is created by the people, without their permission it has no right or ability to do anything. Rights are the areas that the people have stated "any attempts to occupy these areas are illegitimate."
To make it more easy to understand: We do not go to the king and ask him if we may speak, or ask if we may live in the same house as our children. We speak, we arrange our households, and if the king attempts to squelch speech, or take our children, his government is illegitimate.
What does that have to do with cigarettes? Well, little, because the sale of cigarettes is not one of the areas that cannot be occupied by a legitimate state (although, there is an argument that the right to attempt to earn a living is), but the state does not grant the right to sell something, it must exercise its force to ban it. That's a crucial difference, because when you see it as subjecting the exercise of force to an external check, its much easier to see why it might be a good idea.
|
look for me it boils down to the theory of nations.
a state has one function overall for me: it has to guarantee the freedom and the security of the people living in it.
both are pretty non existent anymore. especially for the little EU countrys.
there is infrastructure in place that could take our freedom away in an instant, it just needs one election where someone rises to office who acts on it. everything you say, search, talk can be intercepted, recorded, analyzed at an instant. if you have to worry what consequences it has to say or search or educate yourself about, cause maybe you land on a list - thats not freedom.
technological progress is good an all, but you dont have to use it.
you can invent the atom bomb, you dont have to use it.
you can invent all the equipment that spys on everybody, but you dont have to use it.
im not feeling save, we are now going back to dark times where the right of the mighty rules again.
we made our self slaves to our own economic system, where everybody competes against everybody.
and sadly there are many nations who will use all their force to ensure they dont lose.
this treaty is nothing other than that. america wants to ensure that US influence through us companys is set in stone in europe. if the treaty comes than it will be more US companys in europe, making more profits, and are harder to regulate. thats the gist of it. dont kid yourself with thinking that this goes both ways.
we wake up and are not part of a sovereign country anymore. little storys here and there just show that
for example:
when Morales flew from moscow home, they made a rumor that snowden was on the plane.
instantly half of europe denied a state head landing to make a fuel stop.
one country didnt: austria.
a little country that has no official allies, its a neutral country.
as soon as the plane landed, the military demanded access to the plane and searched it.
a plane of a state head is like an embassy, you cant just go in there and search it. its a pretty serious breach of international law. turns out snowden was not in the plane.
but this little game was a great play from moscow, it showed that you cant trust any european country to act even remotely against US interests.
So how can i believe that EU officals who negotiate a treaty are not nothing more than puppets ..
and moscow sees it as well, it sees how the US forces their influence on european countrys and thinks: ok i do the same.
they dont do it that subtle, they just fucking invade what they want.
the US has no strong trade ties to russland, so europe has to do sanctions - now suddenly its europe vs russia.
and everybody asks itself: what the fuck happend?
it all boils down to: if there is not a miracle happening real soon, europe is pretty much fucked.
|
@cLutZ - there's no way you ca pull off the "people are more legitimate than the state argument" ...
|
On March 31 2015 06:23 oneofthem wrote:
the nsa is not doing anything to harm you.
physically ? of course not, how would i buy american products if im harmed.
it just makes sure i wouldnt do anything thats not in US interest, not really freedom if you ask me.
|
On March 31 2015 07:03 xM(Z wrote:
@cLutZ - there's no way you ca pull off the "people are more legitimate than the state argument" ...
Its not an argument, its fundamental to the modern conception of the state. I know this is not American politics, but what was the Declaration of the Rights of Man? Magna Carta? English Bill of Rights? How is the government legitimate if not for those theories?
|
@cLutZ you try to argue the american idea of small government, but nobody in the rest of the world sees it that way.
the theory here goes like this.
with the creation of the state, people give all their sovereignty to the state, which gives some of it back in the form of rights, but some others he does not cause they would harm the biggest reason why the state was created: to secure freedom and security.
so its easy to understand that a state can and has to ban cigarettes cause it harms people hence harms their security.
if a company could avoid that with a law suit, even only theoretically win one, the state could not fullfill his duty without any consequences anymore. cause maybe he couldnt finance the compensation he would have to pay to protected its own people from harm.
so its evident the minute you make something like that possible, the state is then only a hollow construct anymore.
|
On March 31 2015 07:26 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 07:03 xM(Z wrote:
@cLutZ - there's no way you ca pull off the "people are more legitimate than the state argument" ... Its not an argument, its fundamental to the modern conception of the state. I know this is not American politics, but what was the Declaration of the Rights of Man? Magna Carta? English Bill of Rights? How is the government legitimate if not for those theories?
You're opposing the state and the people, which is the exact opposite of the idea behind the rights of man, the magna carta and the rest. The state is supposed to be the representative of its people, a mean for them to coordinate themselves - which is why the rights of man are above the state and constitute its power, with the constitution and everything else. There is nothing in the rights of man that says that property rights and individuals should be above everything else.
Revolution are not made to fight against the state but to take over the state, which is sufficient in itself to show that the state is a tool, not an entity that desire to control everything. The tool can be corrupted in essence tho but that's another matter.
|
On March 31 2015 07:32 phil.ipp wrote:
@cLutZ you try to argue the american idea of small government, but nobody in the rest of the world sees it that way.
the theory here goes like this.
with the creation of the state, people give all their sovereignty to the state, which gives some of it back in the form of rights, but some others he does not cause they would harm the biggest reason why the state was created: to secure freedom and security.
so its easy to understand that a state can and has to ban cigarettes cause it harms people hence harms their security.
if a company could avoid that with a law suit, even only theoretically win one, the state could not fullfill his duty without any consequences anymore. cause maybe he couldnt finance the compensation he would have to pay to protected its own people from harm.
so its evident the minute you make something like that possible, the state is then only a hollow construct anymore.
"state can and has to ban cigarettes cause it harms people"
People are not children ffs.
Should we ban alcohol and sugar aswell? chocolate?
Mandatory exercise aswell?
Where does it stop
|
Yeah, also it is a known fact that banning stuff tends to not work very well for stuff like alcohol, tobacco, drugs (see prohibition). On the other hand, trying to reduce the amount of people smoking without outright banning it through things like tobacco tax, bans on advertisements, bans on smoking at specific places, disgusting packaging etc are all quite reasonable things for a government to do. The ultimate goal is to make it so nobody wants to smoke, preferably by preventing the addiction from starting in the teenage years.
There are many reasonable and reasonably effective ways of reducing the amount of the population that smokes that do not consist of outright bans.
Of course, this is going to hurt the tobacco companies profit margin.
And a company should not be able to sue a government for protecting its citizens from the poison that company sells.
|
Tobacco is a bad exemple tho. But what about energy production and natural ressources. Those are the two sectors where the state will have to eventually socialize part of the production and renegociate the property rights of specific ressources. The europe already forced the european country to liberalize the energy production (in France, it forced a split of EDF in two parts, those damned retards, to permit competition...), what will happen when firms will be able to sue compagny for banning specific production process that induce a lot of pollution / destruction of natural ressource ?
|
Want a good example?
Car Insurance + Car savety checks + basically everything Car related.
Tons of rules and things you need to buy/have but people are (in general) ok with it.
|
On March 31 2015 10:42 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 07:32 phil.ipp wrote:
@cLutZ you try to argue the american idea of small government, but nobody in the rest of the world sees it that way.
the theory here goes like this.
with the creation of the state, people give all their sovereignty to the state, which gives some of it back in the form of rights, but some others he does not cause they would harm the biggest reason why the state was created: to secure freedom and security.
so its easy to understand that a state can and has to ban cigarettes cause it harms people hence harms their security.
if a company could avoid that with a law suit, even only theoretically win one, the state could not fullfill his duty without any consequences anymore. cause maybe he couldnt finance the compensation he would have to pay to protected its own people from harm.
so its evident the minute you make something like that possible, the state is then only a hollow construct anymore. "state can and has to ban cigarettes cause it harms people" People are not children ffs. Should we ban alcohol and sugar aswell? chocolate? Mandatory exercise aswell? Where does it stop
Banning wouldn't work. Of course, that's not why tobacco business sued countries, but by showing pictures and signs about tobacco effects, in this case it's the state the one that forces tobacco business to be more straight about their product with their clients, which i don't understand how people could see it as something wrong.
|
i didnt want to start a somker/drugs debate nor was my intention to make a statement about what a state should do regarding drug laws.
you can substitute cigarettes with any harmful thing there is.
also it was not my intention to say that a state SHOULD ban EVERYTHING that could be harmful.
what harmful is and what not, and whats maybe harmful but has greater benefits than negative impacts, is a decision that is entirely up to the specific society of the state.
but if this decision is made, a state should be able to act on it. thats the point.
|
On March 31 2015 07:26 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 07:03 xM(Z wrote:
@cLutZ - there's no way you ca pull off the "people are more legitimate than the state argument" ... Its not an argument, its fundamental to the modern conception of the state. I know this is not American politics, but what was the Declaration of the Rights of Man? Magna Carta? English Bill of Rights? How is the government legitimate if not for those theories?
the modern conception of the state could be very easily taken to mean US conception of a state.
like others have stated, the EU conception of a state is:
state = I, me and by extension, us, the people (and i mean that very literally)
but for you is:
state = a third party/a mediator with ... a goal?, an agenda?, its own laws?, rules? needs?, desires?, principles? no one knows.
to put it bluntly, your argument looks like: "ok people, you are stupid, so let a 3rd party take care of you 'cause they know better". that is what you're selling here and people are not buying it.
i'd go even further and say that people would rather die by their own stupidity than be slaves to some obfuscated new age state thinggie.
on one hand, there's no way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your state, your 3rd party, will work for its people and on the other, I am the state, i don't have to prove anything, i know i work for me.
(it sounds pretentious/presumptuous i know but it's what you have to overcome by arguments  )
|
On March 31 2015 20:10 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 07:26 cLutZ wrote:On March 31 2015 07:03 xM(Z wrote:
@cLutZ - there's no way you ca pull off the "people are more legitimate than the state argument" ... Its not an argument, its fundamental to the modern conception of the state. I know this is not American politics, but what was the Declaration of the Rights of Man? Magna Carta? English Bill of Rights? How is the government legitimate if not for those theories? the modern conception of the state could be very easily taken to mean US conception of a state. like others have stated, the EU conception of a state is: state = I, me and by extension, us, the people (and i mean that very literally) but for you is: state = a third party/a mediator with ... a goal?, an agenda?, its own laws?, rules? needs?, desires?, principles? no one knows. to put it bluntly, your argument looks like: "ok people, you are stupid, so let a 3rd party take care of you 'cause they know better". that is what you're selling here and people are not buying it. i'd go even further and say that people would rather die by their own stupidity than be slaves to some obfuscated new age state thinggie. on one hand, there's no way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your state, your 3rd party, will work for its people and on the other, I am the state, i don't have to prove anything, i know i work for me. (it sounds pretentious/presumptuous i know but it's what you have to overcome by arguments )
Well, considering that the US was founded by people who wanted to get away from a continent where the state interefered to much in their money-making, it comes as no surprise that Americans tend to see the state as something that should have as small a part in their lives as possible, regardless of whether that means that their healthcare, education and social services systems are terrible compared to Europe's, and that inequality (both in terms of income as well as opportunities) is rampant. Americans, if I understand this correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), strongly believe in self-determination, i.e. you are in your current situation thanks to your own achievements or due to your own mistakes.
The American system is based on the fact that humans are supposed to be born with a certain set of rights, and that the state has no choice but to respect those. If the state violates those rights, the people have a right to rebel against that (this is what the right to bear arms is for, if I'm correct). This is different from the European view on the state, which views it as an extention of the will of the people: rule by consent of the governed, no taxation without representation and all that. Subsequently, we view rights differently.
As a consequence, our ideas of what an economic system should consist of differ greatly. Certain things that work in the US will not function at all in a European context, and vice versa.
|
xM(Z i think you misunderstood him a bit, but maybe i do also
he doesnt want that this 3rd party takes care of the people, quite the contrary, he puts companys, people over the state.
which is for some of us confusing cause in our conception state = people.
in the american conception of small government, as i understand it, there are rights given to the people but not by the state, they exist in a way before a state is even created. these rights are about certain areas that cant be touched by the state no matter what.
in the europe conception there exists nothing before the state, not even human rights. human rights is an idea that can be adopted by a state. this idea can be made into actual law by a state. but without a state its just an idea.
what he means with "pre-existing", goes much further than the human rights, there are even property rights, as he thinks a company has a pre-exsiting right to produce anything they want.
i think this can be observed in the gun control debate - for the pro gun control faction it doesnt matter if guns have a bad or good influence on society, they just think its their pre existing right to have guns, and the state is not allowed to even touch that area even if he wants to.
i can understand why an american thinks that way, its because the united states where founded after a civil war, and this constitution was like rules the state has to play by, so the player cant change the rules, i think thats the thought behind it.
also the US constitution is like super old.
in europe most of the constitutions are not that old, most of them where made after the second world war. also the whole history of europe, in the last 100 years, there where 2 world wars, countrys got big, than again small, states where founded and destroyed a number of times, everytime there was made another constitution with different things in it.
for europeans a constitution is nothing holy, we can change it if we want.
for americans the constitution is kind of above the state.
please correct me if im interpreting anything wrong, i dont want to judge what is better or not, but to understand where other people are coming from you have to know the history and how they think. we have to accept that there are different approaches to a state and what it can do and should do.
only cause people dont follow your approach its not wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
