• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 09:44
CEST 15:44
KST 22:44
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles5[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?14FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event22
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event WardiTV Mondays Korean Starcraft League Week 77
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Summer Games Done Quick 2024!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 628 users

European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 84

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 82 83 84 85 86 1413 Next
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.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 12:06:45
March 31 2015 12:05 GMT
#1661
Particular kinds of conservative Americans prize "self-determination" over community, not all Americans. FDR and Kennedy Democrats, for example, don't exactly see things that way, and neither do social conservatives.

There is a sizeable portion of the US progressive electorate that looks at things much like Europe does.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
phil.ipp
Profile Joined May 2010
Austria1067 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 12:24:04
March 31 2015 12:11 GMT
#1662
the problem that now is created through this two colliding philosophys is, that some americans think, these pre existing rights exist not only in america. if the US government is not allowed to interfere with their rights, a foreign government even on their own land should also not allowed to.

and to ensure this becomes reality, excatly for that is this TTIP treaty.

all driven by globalization of course. without globalization i dont think an american would really give a single fuck, if a europe state interferes with rights of their own citizens or not.

for me the conclusion is, globalization brought some great things, but now it starts to hurt.
Copymizer
Profile Joined November 2010
Denmark2084 Posts
March 31 2015 13:11 GMT
#1663
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
~~Yo man ! MBCGame HERO Fighting !! Holy check !
phil.ipp
Profile Joined May 2010
Austria1067 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 13:54:16
March 31 2015 13:45 GMT
#1664
yeah though europe did the same in colonial times.

there should be no need to do this anymore today with all the technological progress, but our economic system is designed so we have to compete against each other. of course the bigger countrys like china, russia and the US will use all means to win that game.

like oneofthem said, the NSA doesnt harm anybody, it just makes sure that the US will always be on top and in a favorable position.

its easy for europeans to get angry at everybody else, though its just now that i see how much the world war set us back.
in the current form europe is really weak.

i think before it gets better it will get a lot worse.
there has to be a change to the economic system, and europeans have to accept that after the change we will not have nearly the luxury we have now.

also the situation with globalization is fucked up, cause through globalization we made ourself totally depended on other countrys - so even if there is a will in one country, there cant be an economic system change without catastrophic consequences. i bet sanctions from the rest of the world would do the rest, no government could pull this off alone.

i really feel we are at a dead end. but the dead end is still for a long time better than any alternative. really fucked up.
GoTuNk!
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
Chile4591 Posts
March 31 2015 14:04 GMT
#1665
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


Most of political and economical problems in latin america over the last 100 years have mostly to do with local government's and people big fuckups and very little with US interference.

The countries were fucked up before the coups, and the coups would have most likely happened without the U.S. support anyway.

Currently, Argentina and Venezuela's problems have pretty much nothing to do with what the US did or does. Big corrupt governments and a non-functioning markets are to blame.
GoTuNk!
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
Chile4591 Posts
March 31 2015 14:23 GMT
#1666
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


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.

Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10686 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 15:01:09
March 31 2015 14:57 GMT
#1667
On March 31 2015 23:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Show nested quote +
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


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.


Yeah, we also got libertarian crazies that „don’t get“ that the state is supposed to be made up by the people for the people.
If it is, is another question but the libertarian ideas are not exactly « helping » to keep the state "bound to the peoples will", at least not if you take into account lobbying and various other forms of private interest groups and how easy it is for them to use their power on the state. But your doing a great job to make it a powerless puppet to the most powerfull (rich) people.


"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.


Uhm… that would make „communist believe the state emerged directly from „air“? Or what are you trying to say here?


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.


This varies widely from country to country. In some states the constitution is basically just another „not detailled“ law book. In others, like the US, its more akin to „holy guidelines“. The same goes for changing it, in Switzerland as an example its very easy while in the US you seem to rather just „redefine“ the meaning oft he stuff that is allready written in it when you feel its necessary (seriously, kinda like the church does with the bible…).


"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)


Whats the diffrence between a Libertarian and an Anarchist? His tie. I'm not even opposed to these views from an ideological standpoint... 15 years ago i was libertarian too, then i realised that powerfull people will fuck over weaker people way too often...


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.


Goverment is made by the people for the people. If you can’t or won’t believe that then you don’t believe in democracy. It is as simple as that. If the democracy is working in country XYZ is another question.
I highly doubt that, aside from the highest ones, politicians have more power than any CEO has, i’m not even taking about giant multinational companies here (these can force their will on entire countries, they don’t allways succeed). If your the CEO of a firm that grants ~X(X)% of jobs and income to a city/commune, chances are that the local politicians are entirely at your mercy, whiteout even beeing directly « bought » by you.

Btw: Politicians pay in general SUCKS, the job isn’t save and your constantly in the spotlight and if you do something weird youre whole career can be over even if you were pretty damn awesome at your „job“ and your „fallout“ had nothing to do with it. How exactly is this for „selfish people“? Ecomoically speaking working in the goverment is a plain worse choice than working in the private economy.
maartendq
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
Belgium3115 Posts
March 31 2015 15:00 GMT
#1668
On March 31 2015 23:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Show nested quote +
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


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.



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.
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
March 31 2015 15:55 GMT
#1669
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 )


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!
Freeeeeeedom
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 16:52:04
March 31 2015 16:51 GMT
#1670
On April 01 2015 00:55 cLutZ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2015 20:10 xM(Z wrote:
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 )


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!

You've been raised well in triumphant individualism. Good job.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
ACrow
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6583 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 17:02:42
March 31 2015 16:57 GMT
#1671
On April 01 2015 00:55 cLutZ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2015 20:10 xM(Z wrote:
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 )


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!

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.
Get off my lawn, young punks
phil.ipp
Profile Joined May 2010
Austria1067 Posts
March 31 2015 16:57 GMT
#1672
the moral justification is that it serves the greater good.

a state is legitimate if a large majority accepts it as legitimate.

i dont think there is a checklist which you could go through to decide if a state is legitimate, if there would be i think every state would fail it. the criteria are changing from culture to culture dramatically.

again many americans wouldnt say the state is legitimate if it doesnt allow guns.
in europe nobody would even look at this criteria to decide the same question.
always_winter
Profile Joined February 2015
United States195 Posts
March 31 2015 18:51 GMT
#1673
It seems globalization has graced you with its awesome capacity, as it has bestowed upon you the omnipotent ability to speak on behalf of "many Americans," and as a non-American, no less.

Indeed, the problem with globalization is the spread of ignorance from one region to another, an unwanted byproduct from its underlying, benevolent intention of mutual understanding. Thoughts, opinions- these have devolved to nothing more than commodities; too easily bought and sold.
puerk
Profile Joined February 2015
Germany855 Posts
March 31 2015 19:29 GMT
#1674
it is not speaking in behalf, it is observation
public opinions about the second amendment have been voiced, and the public support for abolishing it is close to 0
always_winter
Profile Joined February 2015
United States195 Posts
March 31 2015 19:36 GMT
#1675
Absolutely it is. It is the observation of someone else, swallowed, regurgitated and spit back out, posing as something novel.
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
March 31 2015 20:10 GMT
#1676
On April 01 2015 01:57 ACrow wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 01 2015 00:55 cLutZ wrote:
On March 31 2015 20:10 xM(Z wrote:
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 )


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!

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.


I am here because Greece, the Euro, and now the TPP all have US implications. Also, this discussion of the European philosophy of government is very enlightening because I had always thought that the US philosophy is one derived from French/English philosophers (obviously you could trace it back even further) and that Western Europeans were merely slower adopters of their own ideas. Instead, it seems like most of them have a very Bismarkian view of the state, which means you really need to learn a whole new language to discuss politics with them.
Freeeeeeedom
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 20:15:54
March 31 2015 20:11 GMT
#1677
On April 01 2015 05:10 cLutZ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 01 2015 01:57 ACrow wrote:
On April 01 2015 00:55 cLutZ wrote:
On March 31 2015 20:10 xM(Z wrote:
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 )


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!

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.


I am here because Greece, the Euro, and now the TPP all have US implications. Also, this discussion of the European philosophy of government is very enlightening because I had always thought that the US philosophy is one derived from French/English philosophers (obviously you could trace it back even further) and that Western Europeans were merely slower adopters of their own ideas. Instead, it seems like most of them have a very Bismarkian view of the state, which means you really need to learn a whole new language to discuss politics with them.

You're kinda off if you think there's nothing else than bismarck and locke or bentham in european philosophy of the state. Try Rousseau for exemple.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 20:21:01
March 31 2015 20:19 GMT
#1678
Rousseau is one of the ones I was talking about :-/

edit:

That has been more or less explicitly rejected by Europeans from this thread.
Freeeeeeedom
Yurie
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
11807 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-31 20:27:53
March 31 2015 20:27 GMT
#1679
Something to consider when it comes to European states is that the majority of them never had "modern" revolutions against the rulers from the population. It was most often a gradual thing happening over time. Most countries never built a culture against the state or establishment since they know it will change with time.
Yuljan
Profile Blog Joined March 2004
2196 Posts
March 31 2015 20:37 GMT
#1680
On April 01 2015 00:00 maartendq wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2015 23:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
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


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.



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.


People thrive under a strong government and I do not see how a government is like a corporation. Corporations are effectively manifestations of greed and need to be reigned in by freely elected governments and I am saying that as a (european) banker... And do be honest I do not care much about the constitution. For me its a law like any other but you need a higher percentage of votes to overturn it. There are no inherent human rights. It is a construct utopic concept that is nice in theory and should be enforced on a best effort basis by the government but without a state to enforce there would be no fundamental rights. It would be the old tribal societies where might made right.
Prev 1 82 83 84 85 86 1413 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 16m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 481
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 2030
firebathero 1010
EffOrt 1005
Shuttle 963
Hyuk 950
GuemChi 740
Larva 531
PianO 469
Mini 385
Snow 202
[ Show more ]
ToSsGirL 184
Pusan 161
Soulkey 146
Rush 131
Mind 130
Soma 106
Hyun 90
Barracks 69
Sea.KH 59
Sharp 59
Aegong 42
HiyA 40
JYJ39
Movie 34
yabsab 28
Sacsri 22
Free 22
soO 20
JulyZerg 19
GoRush 19
Yoon 15
Terrorterran 13
Bale 13
IntoTheRainbow 12
ivOry 3
Dota 2
Gorgc11675
qojqva2192
XcaliburYe316
syndereN93
League of Legends
singsing2403
Dendi1221
Counter-Strike
byalli335
flusha235
kRYSTAL_21
Other Games
tarik_tv20448
gofns19917
B2W.Neo1636
hiko740
shahzam591
DeMusliM512
crisheroes447
Lowko309
Liquid`RaSZi298
Pyrionflax148
ArmadaUGS101
Mew2King65
QueenE29
Rex7
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick34438
StarCraft 2
angryscii 44
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV359
League of Legends
• Nemesis5074
• TFBlade163
Upcoming Events
WardiTV European League
2h 16m
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
10h 16m
The PondCast
20h 16m
WardiTV European League
22h 16m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 2h
Replay Cast
1d 10h
RSL Revival
1d 20h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
4 days
CSO Cup
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Season 20
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.