Is Political Arrogance dragging Europe to the Right?

[Husar]

The principle is the same.

I don't need a principle when I already know that it isn't applicable in this particular case.
A principle is more interesting when I initially investigate a case.
If people take to the streets and complain about islamization of the occident or talk about the dangers of more immigrants in private, it's not the same as prefering pizza over hamburgers. You could even take a look from the other side to see what the AfD proposes and then figure out that only people with relatively strong opinions would vote for that. Or people who didn't even read the party program and went with it just for the anti-immigration policy...
If you want an example, the AfD defines homosexuality as a mental illness. Are you saying that someone would accept that a party bans all dairy products just because that party also prefers pizza over hamburgers?

People having much experience but little (correct) insight into their experience is really the norm. Do you e.g. expect that most people with a certain disease understand their disease? Its biochemistry and pathology?

Depending on the disease, after a while, some understand it almost better than some of their doctors.
There are diseases where the patients have to do a lot of the research and try which remedy works best because the doctors aren't sure and can't know which remedy works best on the patient. Or are you going to argue that a doctor will always know better which of a number of differently mixed medications for the disease is going to work best for the patient?
That does not mean one should discard a doctor's device, but in quite a few cases the relationship is somewhat cooperative.
When I hear someone say doctors are all part of a pharma-industry conspiracy I take it about as seriously as when I hear someone say all the immigrants are either criminals or just here for the money.

[Viking]

If people take to the streets and complain about islamization of the occident [...]

How many of those who vote AfD are actually out on the streets? If AfD gains 5% more support, does the number of people taking to the streets also increase with 5%?

[...] only people with relatively strong opinions would vote for that. Or people who didn't even read the party program and went with it just for the anti-immigration policy...

Which should not contradict anything of what I've written.

If you want an example, the AfD defines homosexuality as a mental illness.

Is this claim even correct?

Depending on the disease, after a while, some understand it almost better than some of their doctors.
There are diseases where the patients have to do a lot of the research and try which remedy works best because the doctors aren't sure and can't know which remedy works best on the patient. Or are you going to argue that a doctor will always know better which of a number of differently mixed medications for the disease is going to work best for the patient?
That does not mean one should discard a doctor's device, but in quite a few cases the relationship is somewhat cooperative.
When I hear someone say doctors are all part of a pharma-industry conspiracy I take it about as seriously as when I hear someone say all the immigrants are either criminals or just here for the money.

Surpassing the knowledge of a doctor about a specific condition is not that hard because doctors are generalists. If they identify certain symptoms, they may refer the patient to a specialist. Even specialists may be relatively generalistic, such that their knowledge (or parts of it), too, might be possible to surpass with some effort for a specific condition. Not to mention that medical personnel may not be required to understand a condition as much as they are required to be able to recognise it and prescribe a treatment considered correct or appropriate.

Furthermore, most people don't really understand their biology and biochemistry anyway, regardless of whether or not they have chronic disease that has prompted them to do research. Then there's the biology in their environment, the meteorology of the weather they experience, the physics and so on.

[Husar]

How many of those who vote AfD are actually out on the streets? If AfD gains 5% more support, does the number of people taking to the streets also increase with 5%?

Yes, of course.

Which should not contradict anything of what I've written.

So we agree after all, didn't I say that before?

Is this claim even correct?

I think it was in the preliminary party program but it doesn't seem to be in the final one.
Might have something to do with the criticism they received.
May even depend on who you ask:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/s...cken-1.3019169
Apparently one of their members of parliament wants to see homosexuals jailed like in the Maghreb countries.

https://www.democraticpost.de/4464/
All school books that make family a relative thing should be banned, only the family founded by a man and a woman shall be promoted by the government. The faction of Thuringia demanded that all homosexuals should be counted (registered?)

But we can also take other stances, like that the "unlucky years" of WW2 should be reduced in historical teaching and children should learn more about all the other glorious years of rich culture etc. I can relate to some extent, but the way it is formulated is what makes it worrying and seem more like they want us to ignore the nazi crimes.
They also demand more discipline and Prussian virtues in schools, basically the things we had from 1871 to 1945 when we started two World Wars.
They also want a flat tax of 25% for everyone, whether rich or poor. Basically screwing over the poor people.
It really is a strange program. You also have to consider that parties like the NPD have relatively tame party programs because if they wrote what they really want, they'd get banned right away for endangering the democracy. I won't claim the AfD wants that, I'm just saying there is sometimes more to a party than what the official program says. The NSDAP also didn't run with the promise of exterminating all the jews.

Surpassing the knowledge of a doctor about a specific condition is not that hard because doctors are generalists. If they identify certain symptoms, they may refer the patient to a specialist. Even specialists may be relatively generalistic, such that their knowledge (or parts of it), too, might be possible to surpass with some effort for a specific condition. Not to mention that medical personnel may not be required to understand a condition as much as they are required to be able to recognise it and prescribe a treatment considered correct or appropriate.

Furthermore, most people don't really understand their biology and biochemistry anyway, regardless of whether or not they have chronic disease that has prompted them to do research. Then there's the biology in their environment, the meteorology of the weather they experience, the physics and so on.

That's nice and nothing new, are you asking me if you can tell your grandchildren that?

[Gilrandir]

Just when I begin to think there's hope for you... Oh, well...

You never did.

[rory_20_uk]

Why is being Xenophobic / Nationalist being "right wing"? The USSR and China are extremely xenophobic / nationalist and are / were left wing.

All countries have a narrative about their past - since most of it is no more than what people choose to remember.

One of the causes of WW2 is the way the Allies punished Germany after WW1 but we prefer to gloss over that.
Britain along with the other Allies sold out Czechoslovakia to Germany since giving away parts of others countries is fine, but we gloss over that.
Britain joined WW2 seemingly to defend Poland which was subsumed into the USSR which was probably as bad as Nazi Germany, but we prefer to gloss over that, and rebrand the implosion of Empire as our "Finest Hour"
Jewish terrorists becoming the IDF? Korean "comfort women"? The bombing of Dresden? The "Highlands Clearance" which is so much nicer a term than the slaughter it entailed. In Russia, there are some who view Stalin with a sense of nostalgia.

But getting back to the subject, almost all countries and their societies change slowly over time. Often, the ideas, words and customs that are brought quickly become viewed as "normal" for the country. When change happens at a rate that is in excess of what the existing people can accept, problems occur. And this probably covers many different variables but generally we all accommodate similar people who are slightly different and who want to fit in than those who are extremely different and do not want to fit in.

With a ring of dictators around Europe for some time we had the luxury of an "open door policy" knowing full well that getting through Libya / Syria / Egypt was nigh on impossible and so we could feel all warm and fuzzy about how welcoming we were when there were few to welcome. The numbers have now massively increased and it is much more difficult and many people turn to those parties that state that they prevent this from happening.

[Viking]

Yes, of course.

Little obvious about that.

The most important part I would say, though, was how many of the AfD voters actually take to the streets. If it's just a small fraction of them, then judging the opinion of the average AfD voter by the protest signs carried in demonstrations might not be that accurate (of course, it might not be that accurate, regardless). As a party gets more mainstream, so may its voters.

[Fragony]

Little obvious about that.

The most important part I would say, though, was how many of the AfD voters actually take to the streets. If it's just a small fraction of them, then judging the opinion of the average AfD voter by the protest signs carried in demonstrations might not be that accurate (of course, it might not be that accurate, regardless). As a party gets more mainstream, so may its voters.

I wouldn't worry about them they are harmless. They are a bit like Wilder's party here, populists. One should wonder why populism is such a nasty word for some some. For who is it a nasty word? Gaius Grachus was called a populist by hissing senators when he questioned the landgrabs at the time. Populists are people who aren't good old boys

@Rory, what's in a word, a phobia is an irrational fear, not a pervectly valid concern, case dismissed. I wish I had a way to put on my wizard-hat, take out my wand, and just cast rediculous

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...They also want a flat tax of 25% for everyone, whether rich or poor. Basically screwing over the poor people....

I am assuming you mean an income tax. That said, if the floor (Deduct X from your gross income total to determine taxable income) for taxation is set at a reasonable level, you would probably generate more revenue without the tax the poor effect.

[Husar]

Little obvious about that.

The most important part I would say, though, was how many of the AfD voters actually take to the streets. If it's just a small fraction of them, then judging the opinion of the average AfD voter by the protest signs carried in demonstrations might not be that accurate (of course, it might not be that accurate, regardless). As a party gets more mainstream, so may its voters.

I'm not trying to prove that every last AfD voter does this or that, think about it as a trend. A trend can be accurate even though there are several data points that don't fit.

http://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/politi...dimap-100.html

Und hier gibt es eine übergreifende Gemeinsamkeit: "Der AfD-Wähler ist ein Zukunftsskeptiker, also sehr beunruhigt über die Verhältnisse im Land. Wir sehen eine ausgeprägte Ausländerangst bis Ausländerfeindlichkeit, eine ausgeprägte Islamangst beziehungsweise Islamfeindlichkeit."

Translation: And here there is an overarching similarity: "The AfD-voter is a sceptic of the future, that is, very worried about the state of the country. We see a pronounced fear of foreigners up to hostility towards foreigners, a pronounced fear of islam and accordingly hostility towards islam."

Coming from the guy who conducted some polls on a voting day in Saxony-Anhalt. I'm sure you could come up with some "mights" on why the poll "might" not be representative, but you could also see a trend over all my links that leads to the conclusion that a lot of people vote for the AfD because they simply fear foreigners more than you fear hamburgers.

[Pannonian]

I am assuming you mean an income tax. That said, if the floor (Deduct X from your gross income total to determine taxable income) for taxation is set at a reasonable level, you would probably generate more revenue without the tax the poor effect.

Progressive taxation is the best of both worlds. The first £n is taxed at bottom rate (probably zero). The next £n is taxed at the next rate. The next £n is taxed at the next rate. Etc. Flat tax raises the bottom level and eliminates the upper levels.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Progressive taxation is the best of both worlds. The first £n is taxed at bottom rate (probably zero). The next £n is taxed at the next rate. The next £n is taxed at the next rate. Etc. Flat tax raises the bottom level and eliminates the upper levels.

No, the progressive income tax is vile and contemptible. It punishes and thereby discourages achievement by taxing people more as they better their lot in life. It also fails to accomplish that other "great goal" of taxation, the redistribution of wealth because it is seldom if ever connected to "wealth" but only to income. Old money doesn't do anything so banal as "work" and so much of that extant wealth is never taxed while the lass who sweated through law school and the building of her law practice gets taxed harder and harder for any success in expanding her income.

A flat tax incentivizes bettering one's self and is no more or less effective at reducing the wealth of the old money.

I actually prefer a sales tax on all transactions and liquidifications. Couple this with a payment to everyone, monthly, that offsets the cost of the tax for basic necessities (food/fuel/simple lodging) and limits the impact on the poorer among us and you have a tax which extracts more heavily from those who consume the most, especially the wealthy.

Short of forcing everyone to declare all assets (probably without an offset for unpaid liabilities) and confiscating a percentage beyond a certain total, you are not going to access wealth with an income tax.

[Pannonian]

No, the progressive income tax is vile and contemptible. It punishes and thereby discourages achievement by taxing people more as they better their lot in life. It also fails to accomplish that other "great goal" of taxation, the redistribution of wealth because it is seldom if ever connected to "wealth" but only to income. Old money doesn't do anything so banal as "work" and so much of that extant wealth is never taxed while the lass who sweated through law school and the building of her law practice gets taxed harder and harder for any success in expanding her income.

A flat tax incentivizes bettering one's self and is no more or less effective at reducing the wealth of the old money.

I actually prefer a sales tax on all transactions and liquidifications. Couple this with a payment to everyone, monthly, that offsets the cost of the tax for basic necessities (food/fuel/simple lodging) and limits the impact on the poorer among us and you have a tax which extracts more heavily from those who consume the most, especially the wealthy.

Short of forcing everyone to declare all assets (probably without an offset for unpaid liabilities) and confiscating a percentage beyond a certain total, you are not going to access wealth with an income tax.

The wealthy are going to get better deals on essential goods as they can buy more in one go which sellers like, as it means they can get more up front and can plan accordingly. As Pratchett noted in his boots theory of economics, poor people have to make do with what they can afford as they can afford it, which costs more in the long run than getting something better and more hard wearing at the start. In the UK, this is seen most concretely in housing. If you're rich, you can buy and sell houses based on the market situation. If you're poor, you don't even get a start on the housing ladder, but will have to pay ongoing rent. For many people, rent will be the biggest single expenditure they have, consuming a quarter or more of their income. When you have to deal with that, is it really reasonable to have to pay flat tax on top of that?

[Montmorency]

No, the progressive income tax is vile and contemptible. It punishes and thereby discourages achievement by taxing people more as they better their lot in life. It also fails to accomplish that other "great goal" of taxation, the redistribution of wealth because it is seldom if ever connected to "wealth" but only to income. Old money doesn't do anything so banal as "work" and so much of that extant wealth is never taxed while the lass who sweated through law school and the building of her law practice gets taxed harder and harder for any success in expanding her income.

A flat tax incentivizes bettering one's self and is no more or less effective at reducing the wealth of the old money.

I actually prefer a sales tax on all transactions and liquidifications. Couple this with a payment to everyone, monthly, that offsets the cost of the tax for basic necessities (food/fuel/simple lodging) and limits the impact on the poorer among us and you have a tax which extracts more heavily from those who consume the most, especially the wealthy.

Short of forcing everyone to declare all assets (probably without an offset for unpaid liabilities) and confiscating a percentage beyond a certain total, you are not going to access wealth with an income tax.

The second point has a lot to it, but the first is one of the more rubbish things you've posted in my viewing.

If you make more money (in whatever terms of taxable income), then you make more money. There is no tax bracket short of 100+% that can change that. It does not discourage anything short of that motivated reasoning that conservatives are so quick to decry in principle, namely 'The system is not set up just as I would like it, to benefit me more, so I will petulantly proclaim a choice between apathy and militance'.

[Furunculus]

we spend too much time worrying about income tax, when it represents only a proportion of the tax we pay.

i'm fine with a flatter income tax, but what i really want is the following:
1. no personal tax operates at a marginal level greater than 50% (because I don't believe in punitive taxation - on success, or anything else)
2. all deciles on the income scale pay roughly the same in total taxation (~30% - which is what happens in Britain currently)
3. as a general principle, achieve this by taking low-income people out of taxation rather than redistributing back (moving away from Brown's tax-credit rats-nest)
4. be willing to accept that simplicity will result in some 'lumpiness' in the various deciles of income/status, and not try and finesse the result with more complexity

[Viking]

I'm not trying to prove that every last AfD voter does this or that, think about it as a trend. A trend can be accurate even though there are several data points that don't fit.

http://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/politi...dimap-100.html



Translation: And here there is an overarching similarity: "The AfD-voter is a sceptic of the future, that is, very worried about the state of the country. We see a pronounced fear of foreigners up to hostility towards foreigners, a pronounced fear of islam and accordingly hostility towards islam."

Coming from the guy who conducted some polls on a voting day in Saxony-Anhalt. I'm sure you could come up with some "mights" on why the poll "might" not be representative, but you could also see a trend over all my links that leads to the conclusion that a lot of people vote for the AfD because they simply fear foreigners more than you fear hamburgers.

So we have their conclusions, though it would be more interesting to see their raw data; to get a sense of how and why they've classified people.

[Montmorency]

2. all deciles on the income scale pay roughly the same in total taxation (~30% - which is what happens in Britain currently)

Are you referring to income tax here, or all tax together? If income tax, then that would be the single issue bracketed taxation hopes to avert (most). Are there references for this in Britain?

4. be willing to accept that simplicity will result in some 'lumpiness' in the various deciles of income/status, and not try and finesse the result with more complexity

No. It's not an alternative, which is exactly why we have a complex tax system today. What will really work towards "our goals" () is something more radical: tax beyond currency.

As far as I know modern governments officially only accept contributions in their specified currency. To achieve flexibility, we need a return to complementary taxation in kind, and not in the sense of translatable valuation, which would trivialize the whole endeavor. What most will protest at is the one power needed for states to make this feasible, namely individualized tax prescription and binding assignment of tasks as well as traditional money transfers.

One protocol may be to do away with single common deadlines in place of continual 'collection' and assessment activities (perhaps sometimes on unscheduled basis) dependent on the prior individual records.

At first it would be enormously difficult and complicated, because the first task would be for governments to throw out their old codes and reorganize themselves around the new forms of contribution. An interesting side effect would be to destroy the platforms of whoever it is that calls for a return to the "gold standard".

[Pannonian]

Are you referring to income tax here, or all tax together? If income tax, then that would be the single issue bracketed taxation hopes to avert (most). Are there references for this in Britain?



No. It's not an alternative, which is exactly why we have a complex tax system today. What will really work towards "our goals" () is something more radical: tax beyond currency.

As far as I know modern governments officially only accept contributions in their specified currency. To achieve flexibility, we need a return to complementary taxation in kind, and not in the sense of translatable valuation, which would trivialize the whole endeavor. What most will protest at is the one power needed for states to make this feasible, namely individualized tax prescription and binding assignment of tasks as well as traditional money transfers.

One protocol may be to do away with single common deadlines in place of continual 'collection' and assessment activities (perhaps sometimes on unscheduled basis) dependent on the prior individual records.

At first it would be enormously difficult and complicated, because the first task would be for governments to throw out their old codes and reorganize themselves around the new forms of contribution. An interesting side effect would be to destroy the platforms of whoever it is that calls for a return to the "gold standard".

Britain gave up on taxation in kind decades ago (1960), with the exception of jury service.

[Montmorency]

Britain gave up on taxation in kind decades ago (1960), with the exception of jury service.

Elaborate. Given your mention of jury duty*, I suspect you're referring to some kind of mandated community service.

I'm not willing to include that under the umbrella of "taxation" - an automatic obligation barring specific exclusion is not what I am considering here, nor something like military conscription.

For example, in the Soviet Union students (all levels) were regularly rotated through "voluntary" agricultural service in which they would supplement kolkhoz labor by picking fruits and such. This is indeed a "task", but simple substitution of time or performance of menial activities is of little use to modern governments and is categorically not my proposal. If that needs systematic facilitation at all, then at best keep it an unrelated sort of duty at the municipal or even public-school level (as is common now). Importantly, involvement in such things is typically an expense and effort for governments, as it was for the Soviets and their agri labor. These activities weren't designed as a way (loosely speaking) to extract value for the state as tax does, but to specifically regiment the lives of citizens as a matter of social policy (in ideological terms, to expose urban youth to rural conditions). Now, most countries have mandatory attendance in education for legal minors. That should not be considered a tax either. I hope I'm being clear.

[Gilrandir]

In Russia, there are some who view Stalin with a sense of nostalgia.

A little but important correction:

In Russia, there are an ever growing number of people who view Stalin with a sense of nostalgia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ru...9240O120130305

For example, in the Soviet Union students (all levels) were regularly rotated through "voluntary" agricultural service in which they would supplement kolkhoz labor by picking fruits and such.

These activities weren't designed as a way (loosely speaking) to extract value for the state as tax does, but to specifically regiment the lives of citizens as a matter of social policy (in ideological terms, to expose urban youth to rural conditions).

A little but important addition:

Into such activities not only students were involved, but also employees engaged in "mental labor" - engineers, office workers, librarians, journalists and even law enforcement bodies.

[Furunculus]

Are you referring to income tax here, or all tax together? If income tax, then that would be the single issue bracketed taxation hopes to avert (most). Are there references for this in Britain?

we measure it by net household income after the effects of all tax and benefit in kind:

https://fullfact.org/economy/taxing-...hat-are-facts/

[Fragony]

Can someone define what 'the right' is supposed to be for me please. Seems to be everyone who thinks the EU never was such a good idea and speaks out against the circle-reasoning of hurricane that all we need is more EU to solve what the EU screwed up. Nobody can say why but we need more EU. They can't even remember that Europe is a continent. More Europe wut? Can't have more continent only more EU, so stop saying Europe.

[Husar]

Can someone define what 'the right' is supposed to be for me please. Seems to be everyone who thinks the EU never was such a good idea and speaks out against the circle-reasoning of hurricane that all we need is more EU to solve what the EU screwed up. Nobody can say why but we need more EU. They can't even remember that Europe is a continent. More Europe wut? Can't have more continent only more EU, so stop saying Europe.

I'd say it is a mix of social conservatism, financial laissez-faire, xenophobia or racist hatred and a few other things such as being very religious.
Or maybe it's just all the people who do not understand what you call "leftist logic". It's funny that you keep ranting about leftists and then ask what the right is, does that mean you don't even know what the leftists are whom you're ranting about?
Can you clearly define what the left is?
Seems to be everyone who is mean to black people, then complains that they're angry and then goes on blaming all his self-created circle-reasoning problems on the EU or the immigrants or whatever. And then supports a pathological liar like Trump or a crazy ferret like Farage (who supported Trump...) while claiming that other politicians can't be trusted.

Meanwhile, the planet is going to the gutter because of rightist policies and rightist religionists believe in eradicating all their enemies.

Rightists also think that this is okay because the invisible hand of the market caused it but have very strict lawnmowing policies in their neighborhood associations.





In conclusion, rightists are the ones most likely to destroy humanity, be it through nuclear war due to rightist nationalism and greed for glory or through rightist industrialism that releases thousands of tons of poison into an environemnt that we depend on or outright destroys it every day like the rainforests.

Meanwhile the rightists discuss whether the industrialists who do that deserve more tax cuts...

[Fragony]

I see it as diffrence berween freethinkers and conservatists really.

[Husar]

I see it as diffrence berween freethinkers and conservatists really.

IMO, quite a lot of "freethinkers", both on the left and the right, are just conspiracy theorists or parroting someone who tells them they're freethinkers if they believe everything he says. Being a freethinker does not mean you have to discard all consensus. The need to think that "the establishment" or "the mainstream" is almost always wrong already makes your mind unfree again, does it not?

[Fragony]

IMO, quite a lot of "freethinkers", both on the left and the right, are just conspiracy theorists or parroting someone who tells them they're freethinkers if they believe everything he says. Being a freethinker does not mean you have to discard all consensus. The need to think that "the establishment" or "the mainstream" is almost always wrong already makes your mind unfree again, does it not?

You could put it that way I guess. But what you call censensus doesn't take no for an answer, But it's not really consensus to begin with. The EU does as it pleases

The EU is a very expensive incredibly intrusive burden ruled by politicians who failed at home. The EU pays very very well, every opportunist can' wait to go there. It will end badly.