European Right Wing

[Montmorency]

Interesting stuff, next time you criticise Corbyn supporters for their ideological purity over realistic chances of winning an election it might be worth keeping in mind you are just as guilty of it as they are.

This comment weakens insofar as a given candidate may be considered more "ideologically flexible" than Jeremy Corbyn.

[Beskar]

This comment weakens insofar as a given candidate may be considered more "ideologically flexible" than Jeremy Corbyn.

The other candidates were generally that terrible that Jeremy Corbyn actually stood out as representing something. I agree that David Miliband was definitely the better choice between him and Ed. Out of current MPs, who actually would be a half decent alternative? Andy Burnham? Would be nice to see a strong female candidate (not Diane Abbot) take the reins, probably one of the younger rising stars.

[Pannonian]

The other candidates were generally that terrible that Jeremy Corbyn actually stood out as representing something. I agree that David Miliband was definitely the better choice between him and Ed. Out of current MPs, who actually would be a half decent alternative? Andy Burnham? Would be nice to see a strong female candidate (not Diane Abbot) take the reins, probably one of the younger rising stars.

Cooper among the 2015 candidates combined centre leftism, competence and principles.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not sure what you mean with that, a shrinking population also lowers the demand for products, which reduces the demand for labor even further and makes the entire economy shrink. How is that ideal to fight the job loss through automation?

No, as the automation trend continues the ability of poor to lower middle groups to maintain standards of living will decline. There are already people taking it at face value that millennials as a generation will not attain the same level of relative wealth of baby boomers.
As automation continues, more will be left out and you are going to see people slip back into sustenance level of existence unless government programs start becoming the handouts Republicans label them as. They will not be contributing to the economy as they currently do.

EDIT: Let me be clear. Trump won the Rust Belt because entire communities are collapsing out there. It has been a slow death, but you are seeing people buy into dangerous ideas because of how bad it is.

[Brenus]

Not completely in the subject but:
The 2 last Presidents of France are now out of the race (1 pushed, the other, err, pushed). Times are changing...
For better?
We shall see...

[Husar]

No, as the automation trend continues the ability of poor to lower middle groups to maintain standards of living will decline. There are already people taking it at face value that millennials as a generation will not attain the same level of relative wealth of baby boomers.
As automation continues, more will be left out and you are going to see people slip back into sustenance level of existence unless government programs start becoming the handouts Republicans label them as. They will not be contributing to the economy as they currently do.

EDIT: Let me be clear. Trump won the Rust Belt because entire communities are collapsing out there. It has been a slow death, but you are seeing people buy into dangerous ideas because of how bad it is.

That's a given, but not relevant to the "ideal solution" you proposed that I was commenting on.
You said it would be ideal to shrink the population to combat job loss through automation and my point was that it would not help, we'd automate fewer people out of work, but we'd still put them out of work.

Your point above is perfectly correct, but is merely the factual basis of our argument. The pay for jobs that require a degree already seems to go down as more people have a degree and jobs that don't require one get automated. It's a typical example of wealth being relative and the mechanics of trickle up. People are successively bled out until they reach the lowest possible level of subsistence by government help or even homelessness. Then the next higher ones get degraded while the billionaire class accumulates all the wealth. Modern turbo capitalism at work.

[Montmorency]

You said it would be ideal to shrink the population to combat job loss through automation and my point was that it would not help, we'd automate fewer people out of work, but we'd still put them out of work.

If elements of society and economy don't scale linearly with population, you might find around a certain threshold absolute minimums required for some services and maintenance, or at least minimal demand attrition. Also, you might see something similar with a population drop and a resistance in production loss. Finding a confluence for these could be a part of a "De-growth" ideology.

The biggest problem is that it requires extensive management and control somewhere along the line, and is an even bigger political challenge than global warming in terms of being constrained by what other countries in the world are doing about it. Even more so, since raw population is a fundamental source of comparative state power unless you take it to a vision like a self-sustaining dystopian arcology surrounded by savages with shotguns.

[Husar]

If elements of society and economy don't scale linearly with population, you might find around a certain threshold absolute minimums required for some services and maintenance, or at least minimal demand attrition. Also, you might see something similar with a population drop and a resistance in production loss. Finding a confluence for these could be a part of a "De-growth" ideology.

But then you're working against all economical principles and will likely spawn a lot of other side effects, such as very high prices that make some businessses not viable anymore at all. You may also limit the amount of specialization that is possible within a group until you end up with 5 people per village trying to grow enough food every year.
If you keep an economy similar to what we have, the problem is not really solved IMO.

The biggest problem is that it requires extensive management and control somewhere along the line, and is an even bigger political challenge than global warming in terms of being constrained by what other countries in the world are doing about it. Even more so, since raw population is a fundamental source of comparative state power unless you take it to a vision like a self-sustaining dystopian arcology surrounded by savages with shotguns.

Yes, it goes against all incentives. I don't even disagree that shrinking the planet's population would be a good thing because it would allow us to live within the means of what the planet provides without destroying it in the process, it just doesn't solve the problem of unemployment through automation by itself, I think there are far better concepts and they could even be combined. The problem with population growth and country competitiveness can obviously be solved by ending competition between countries, i.e. EU integration and finally OWG.
A lot of people hate the idea though because they'd rather continue to advance their own lives at the expense of others, the chance for which is provided by competition. And given that their countries have a headstart in the competition, they obviously think it is great and should stay that way.

[Montmorency]

such as very high prices that make some businessses not viable anymore at all.

If you keep an economy similar to what we have, the problem is not really solved IMO.

Yes, as I said it would be a totally different system with heavy management from the center(s). Business viability for consumers won't be part of the picture.

Yes, it goes against all incentives.

One possible scenario: something like it would emerge by new incentives if the current economies break down and can't sustain their own characteristics any longer. A relatively-small centers of population and administration from which authority and force emanate, then areas around the cores for populations receiving a variety of security accommodations and organized more flexibly than the cores - where much of the production will go on, in some cases toward self-sustainability. Beyond these would be the periphery wherein large-scale organization does not exist, and where the cores perform their resource extraction. The global situation would remain in flux partly due to the fact that these assemblages won't form a OWG and will continue to compete against each other. In fact, it might even make imperialism or neo-feudalism more sustainable.

[Husar]

One possible scenario: something like it would emerge by new incentives if the current economies break down and can't sustain their own characteristics any longer. A relatively-small centers of population and administration from which authority and force emanate, then areas around the cores for populations receiving a variety of security accommodations and organized more flexibly than the cores - where much of the production will go on, in some cases toward self-sustainability. Beyond these would be the periphery wherein large-scale organization does not exist, and where the cores perform their resource extraction. The global situation would remain in flux partly due to the fact that these assemblages won't form a OWG and will continue to compete against each other. In fact, it might even make imperialism or neo-feudalism more sustainable.

And you had to come up with that idea just after I thought we could also privatise personal rights so that everyone can buy the package of personal rights that they can afford from the local private security firm of their choice.

[Montmorency]

privatise personal rights

?

Well, a "right" would be something that is given as a given(!). We have had rights based on cultural values and enforced among family and status-peers. We have had rights based on philosophy and nominally guaranteed or provided for by governments and between their citizens. You can't really privatize rights in those terms, they would just be services. The common thread is still of course that rights are evaluated in some way based on status and therefore on political considerations, so, for example, there isn't an impetus to set up a "freedom of speech" product as how you feel the need to regulate that speech is fluid and relational, and some fixed payments won't cover that, unless you devalue them by stipulating that the terms can be adjusted or voided in many circumstances - so again, why set it up as a product at all if the product doesn't make useful or viable specifications? What would be the difference between subscribing and not subscribing?

[Husar]

?

Well, a "right" would be something that is given as a given(!). We have had rights based on cultural values and enforced among family and status-peers. We have had rights based on philosophy and nominally guaranteed or provided for by governments and between their citizens. You can't really privatize rights in those terms, they would just be services. The common thread is still of course that rights are evaluated in some way based on status and therefore on political considerations, so, for example, there isn't an impetus to set up a "freedom of speech" product as how you feel the need to regulate that speech is fluid and relational, and some fixed payments won't cover that, unless you devalue them by stipulating that the terms can be adjusted or voided in many circumstances - so again, why set it up as a product at all if the product doesn't make useful or viable specifications? What would be the difference between subscribing and not subscribing?

Well, I hope that you would agree that the government protects our rights, for example when our "fellow" citizens try to take them away. If you lock someone up in a cellar, the police come, set them free and punish you for violating their rights. By privatising the rights I essentially mean privatising this function, so if you do not pay the security form for the right to walk free, anyone can lock you up and they won't act on it and so on. That doesn't mean you have to get locked up, it's just no more a punishable violation of your right if you did not pay to have this sort of protection of that right. The idea came to me because people say the private sector is always better than the government at running things and therefore we should privatise our entire infrastructure such as roads, the water system, and so on. The next step would be privatising the police and judiciary and then maybe even politics themselves, but I haven't thought about how the latter could be done exactly.
I guess voting rights could be traded on the stock market for example.

[Montmorency]

so if you do not pay the security form for the right to walk free, anyone can lock you up and they won't act on it and so on.

So the difference from "3rd-world" countries where this is typical (bribery to acquit duties) is that it would be formalized? That would be undesirable, because then those who cant get the services will be certain to mobilize informally on a small-scale - a very dangerous thing for a relatively-small society with still many vulnerable parts and means of coercion available. More likely that there would be strict "citizenship" rights, and penalties based on curtailment of those rights (beyond incarceration). Unsure how or if sippenhaft would apply.

[Husar]

So the difference from "3rd-world" countries where this is typical (bribery to acquit duties) is that it would be formalized? That would be undesirable, because then those who cant get the services will be certain to mobilize informally on a small-scale - a very dangerous thing for a relatively-small society with still many vulnerable parts and means of coercion available. More likely that there would be strict "citizenship" rights, and penalties based on curtailment of those rights (beyond incarceration). Unsure how or if sippenhaft would apply.

And that would be fundamentally different from privatizing the entire infrastructure how exactly? Note that I deliberately left out any comments on how desireable I find this, I merely thought about the option.

[Montmorency]

And that would be fundamentally different from privatizing the entire infrastructure how exactly?

In what sense would it be privatized? The states themselves and their instruments in this world would typically be some sort of evolution of hybrid government, like in Russia and China, state-governed organizations with private administration and buy-in, except rather than being a subset of the economy this would be the form of government itself.

[edyzmedieval]

In Austria, the far right has lost the Presidential bid.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-election-live

[edyzmedieval]

And... Matteo Renzi has lost the constitutional reform attempt. And his post as PM.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38204189