European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 84

On March 31 2015 22:11 Copymizer wrote:
i agree, especially when you see how America has treated the south american countries with their imperialism over the last 100 years, calling it their "back yard" and the all coup attempts. americas foreign policy is dirty

On March 31 2015 21:03 phil.ipp wrote:
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

On March 31 2015 23:23 GoTuNk! wrote:


For starters you should stop saying "your view = the view of Europe" and "others view=the view of the US"
Your view is a statist/lefist view and the other view is the liberal (traditional sense) or conservative view, depending on what terminology you prefer. I'm sure you can find people from both sides on both continents.

"State" definition is a somewhat blurry concept, but almost all the academically accepted traditions agree that it's a fictional creation whose authority emerges from the people.

Monarchist believed the state (whose head was the monarch´s) authority emegerged directly from god, and was above people. Communist seem to believe the same thing, except they take god out of the ecuation.

The general purpose of the constitution is to define government boundaries and provide a supreme guideline for all laws (so limit the state basically). It can be modified, but it requires big quorums (more than simple majority) to protect individuals from the majorities tiranny.

"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."

You are right here: Life, liberty and property are the fundamental rights. People's right to bear arms is essential to defend their fundamental rights from others and the state itself.

Since I believe in those fundamental right, I also support less taxes, gay marriage, home schooling, the right to do drugs, euthanasia, etc. This is my particular point of view (libertarian)

My biggest quarrel with left wing argument is that they are very fast to condemn private businesses on wathever they do but seem to somehow think the government is always a good entity. Government is an institution made up by selfish people (economically speaking) just like business and should be held accountable with even higher standards since they have so much power.

In the same way private companies should not dictate peoples lives, the biggest institution of them all (the government) should be heavily limited so people can thrive.

On March 31 2015 23:23 GoTuNk! wrote:


For starters you should stop saying "your view = the view of Europe" and "others view=the view of the US"
Your view is a statist/lefist view and the other view is the liberal (traditional sense) or conservative view, depending on what terminology you prefer. I'm sure you can find people from both sides on both continents.

"State" definition is a somewhat blurry concept, but almost all the academically accepted traditions agree that it's a fictional creation whose authority emerges from the people.

Monarchist believed the state (whose head was the monarch´s) authority emegerged directly from god, and was above people. Communist seem to believe the same thing, except they take god out of the ecuation.

The general purpose of the constitution is to define government boundaries and provide a supreme guideline for all laws (so limit the state basically). It can be modified, but it requires big quorums (more than simple majority) to protect individuals from the majorities tiranny.

"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."

You are right here: Life, liberty and property are the fundamental rights. People's right to bear arms is essential to defend their fundamental rights from others and the state itself.

Since I believe in those fundamental right, I also support less taxes, gay marriage, home schooling, the right to do drugs, euthanasia, etc. This is my particular point of view (libertarian)

My biggest quarrel with left wing argument is that they are very fast to condemn private businesses on wathever they do but seem to somehow think the government is always a good entity. Government is an institution made up by selfish people (economically speaking) just like business and should be held accountable with even higher standards since they have so much power.

In the same way private companies should not dictate peoples lives, the biggest institution of them all (the government) should be heavily limited so people can thrive.

On March 31 2015 20:10 xM(Z wrote:

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 April 01 2015 00:55 cLutZ wrote:


There are, I assume, people within European states that do no agree with 100% of policies of the state. Correct? What I mean by the "modern conception" is that there is some moral justification for compelling those people (that disagree) to comply with the orders of the state. Do they still claim a divine right to rule somehow derived from the kings of old?

That is what I mean. Why are these governments legitimate aside from the fact that they control the military/police? If that is the conception, then there really is no reason to care if Russia annexes Poland, I mean they have even more power, and are an even better government!

On April 01 2015 01:57 ACrow wrote:

I can see why you would think that way coming from the country that blessed the world with the likes of the NSA.
Here:
Democracy is further defined as (a) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

A democratic government is legitimated by the people in majority principle. Yes, that means that people who have a minority standpoint may have to yield to the will of the majority from time to time, as long as certain basic rights are preserved, as granted by the state's constitution.
To be honest, it feels a bit silly to have this discussion, especially since this thread has been two Americans telling a bunch of European posters (simplifying, there may be outliers here, haven't read all of the last pages) how they should view the state for the last few pages, in a thread called "European politico-economics QA mega thread", but there you go.

On April 01 2015 00:00 maartendq wrote:


His view is not leftist or statist, but is the common European view on what a nation state should be like. If that hadn't been the case, Europe would not consist of a collection of welfare states but would look much more like the US.

Something can only be a right if it is protected by law. People are given the rights to do things by the state, which is in itself an extention of the will of the people (in theory at least). The rule of law is absolute, and every single person or entity must respect it. The people who govern only do so by the consent of the governed, and are held accountable through free elections.