Is Political Arrogance dragging Europe to the Right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There have been some disturbing political developments across Europe in the last six months, the far right is gaining traction, I would not say it is "on the march" but the political balance of the last few decades seems to be on the slide. Brexit can't be blamed for this, the fact a British Prime Minister has backed into holding a vote on leaving the EU is a symptom of what is happening, not a cause.

Then I read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37210138

"Brexit is bad but it won't hurt us as much economically as some fear - it's more of a psychological problem and it's a huge problem politically," he said.
"If we organise Brexit in the wrong way, then we'll be in deep trouble, so now we need to make sure that we don't allow Britain to keep the nice things, so to speak, related to Europe while taking no responsibility."

Yes - the Brits need to be punished for daring to endanger the EU.

This is not a healthy attitude and it's likely to drive new wedges between EU members as they argue about just how awkward they want to be in negotiations. It's also going to sour Europe's population (even further) on the EU if said EU is seen as "nasty".

Then we have the EU dictating tax arrangements to Ireland: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37251084

Then there's Merkel's stance on immgration which seems to be stoking Xenophobia in Germany: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37269330

Merkel, by the way, has been in power for over a decade and as it looks like she's going to run again she's starting to look increasingly like a German Margaret Thatcher. By this point Thatcher had arguably lost the plot too.

[Fragony]

Are you surprised, of course it is. It's a good thing really imho, having to actually defend yourself while living the dream ohnoes, any place left in a private school?

[Husar]

I thought this was an interesting thread, but now I'm just gonna say that if we had always gone with the wisdom of the plebs, we'd still be living in caves waiting for "the powerfuls" to bring us new fire.

The EU is not responsible for xenophobia and greed, those existed long before there was an EU.
I'd think the internet has more to do with it because information is no longer filtered as much, or not in the same way as it used to be, which has both "good" and "bad" consequences.
Everyone can create his or her echo chamber while modern algorithms support that. The more these technologies permeate society, the more people find more and more others who share their views, they become less ashamed to voice them and so on.

The world is simply a terrible place and we learn more and more about how terrible it really is, the cleansing nuclear fires of WW3 can't be far away. :welcomeback::drama2:

[Greyblades]

The EU, dominated by an elitist political class disconnected from the concerns of they profess to protect, disdainful of any who complain, prone to vindictiveness against those who rebel and less competent than they claim to be.

It's pre revolutionary france's nobility all over again, but a nobility defined not by blood but ideology.

[Sarmatian]

The EU, dominated by an elitist political class disconnected from the concerns of they profess to protect, disdainful of any who complain, prone to vindictiveness against those who rebel and less competent than they claim to be.

It's pre revolutionary france's nobility all over again, but a nobility defined not by blood but ideology.

I've decide to thank every one of your posts in which you're not completely wrong.



Yes - the Brits need to be punished for daring to endanger the EU.


Where in the article did you find that?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Genuine question: Is the political class today any more (or less) elitist than they used to be?

The answer to that must be pretty central to the PVC's (I will still call him that) question.

[Papewaio]

I thought stagnating economies with high youth unemployment might be more closely linked with a lurch to the right.

[Montmorency]

No to the topic question, but the EU leadership definitely shows poor understanding of how to respond to populist sentiment - look at what people were saying even when it was 'just' a financial crisis. The larger problem is that left-wing and internationalist (not the same thing, despite the overlap) elites have overestimated their political capital and spread themselves too thin with too many commitments. For all the complaints against them (the EU here) of overreach, they have consistently limited their policy commitments to the corporate level, seemingly assuming the backing of some underlying populist element to build its influence. Unfortunately, this does not exist as such. Imagine Pythonian peasants in the position of King Arthur - not enough action to back up the words.

Anyway, the topic question is misguided. Political arrogance doesn't understand how to pre-empt the drag to the right. The craftier rightists are very happy to sail in this blind spot until it doesn't matter any longer.


Yes - the Brits need to be punished for daring to endanger the EU.

The EU attempting to obtain favorable outcomes for itself is only punishing Britain in the sense that any exchange or negotiation must punish one party or other. Depends on your economic philosophy, I suppose. Of course they may indeed want and try to punish Britain by using leverage where they have it, but I don't think you should see that as an inherent component of a negotiation.

Interestingly, Merkel looks younger in photos these days than at any time since before the crisis (though I haven't exhaustively compared thousands of photos).

[Husar]

The EU, dominated by an elitist political class disconnected from the concerns of they profess to protect, disdainful of any who complain, prone to vindictiveness against those who rebel and less competent than they claim to be.

That's class-warfare and too simplistic.
A lot of what you say seems to depend on a few popular quotes and some "feelings" while it ignores legislation that helps us all even if not all of it is popular.


I've decide to thank every one of your posts in which you're not completely wrong.

Careful, your elitism might push him to the right and it will be entirely your fault.


Genuine question: Is the political class today any more (or less) elitist than they used to be?

The answer to that must be pretty central to the PVC's (I will still call him that) question.

I don't think so, there is just more media exaggeration, more echo chambers and the likes that blow up the feelings because someone can profit from that. As I said above, the idea that all EU politicians despise the people seems to be based mostly on relatively superficial observations and perhaps a few token laws and regulations.


I thought stagnating economies with high youth unemployment might be more closely linked with a lurch to the right.

Didn't Spain and Greece have a lurch to the left whereas the countries which do not have these problems had the lurch to the right?
At least the lurch to the right seems to be smaller in the troubled countries, my impression is the northerners move more to the right because xenophobia has become more acceptable again or just become more public again. The USA with Trump seem to have a similar movement though and they're not in the EU IIRC. I'm pretty sure Trump has a higher share of the votes than the AfD even.

[Montmorency]

Didn't Spain and Greece have a lurch to the left whereas the countries which do not have these problems had the lurch to the right?
At least the lurch to the right seems to be smaller in the troubled countries, my impression is the northerners move more to the right because xenophobia has become more acceptable again or just become more public again. The USA with Trump seem to have a similar movement though and they're not in the EU IIRC. I'm pretty sure Trump has a higher share of the votes than the AfD even.

Both the left and the right.

Don't think xenophobia has not exploded in Southern Europe. In fact, I would suggest it was higher latently than in the north.

[Husar]

Don't think xenophobia has not exploded in Southern Europe. In fact, I would suggest it was higher latently than in the north.

Quite possible, but then it would just surface instead of anyone making people "go there" i.e. change their views, no?

[Brenus]

"I thought stagnating economies with high youth unemployment might be more closely linked with a lurch to the right." Yes, that too.
I am not sure that Europe is going to the Right. In France, voters are going to abstention, which favours the Right, itself merging with extreme-right.
But, you still have no taste for extreme-right demonstrations or actions...
Which is strange, somehow, due to the last killings...

[spmetla]

I think it's more just naivete and disillusion than arrogance.

The EU as we know it know was really a product of the 90s: the economy was good, the cold war over and Russia was cooed, lots of new member States joined or started to join, the Euro was hammered out and agreed to be implemented in the bright new millennium. The only European war was in the baltic fringe and didn't require any major ground involvement by NATO. Everything was nice, the future looked great and the success of Europe was ready to lead the world into a peaceful new era of cultural refinement.

All the high hopes and dreams didn't prepare people for the economic downturn and austerity, the return of a Russia not happy with NATO and the EU on its border, the post 9/11 reality that Islamic terrorism wasn't just something that happened in the middle east or resulted in hostages being ransomed for prisoners. The 'hordes' of Asia and Africa flooding in and politicians and bureaucrats outside of ones own nation and electoral process deciding policy.

All the while people can now insulate themselves from outside opinion by picking and choosing whatever facts they find on the internet that feel good to them be it that the Europeans are systemically been bred out, that aliens are among us, that vaccines cause autism, that the OTHER end of the political spectrum are ignorant fools and are ruining their respective countries.

In short I think the rose tinted glasses have been removed and people no longer trust the politics that led them when all was well, so now the turn to extremes of left and right to try and go back to when things made sense to them.

[Pannonian]

Didn't Spain and Greece have a lurch to the left whereas the countries which do not have these problems had the lurch to the right?
At least the lurch to the right seems to be smaller in the troubled countries, my impression is the northerners move more to the right because xenophobia has become more acceptable again or just become more public again. The USA with Trump seem to have a similar movement though and they're not in the EU IIRC. I'm pretty sure Trump has a higher share of the votes than the AfD even.

There's also been a lurch to the far left on the other side. Corbyn epitomises the far left as described by Orwell back in the late 1940s, and the moderate left, at least within the Labour party, have been displaced by his followers. See the explicit arguments from Idaho and Brenus in this forum that amount to anyone who disagrees is by definition to be dismissed, and it's emblematic of his support, and the antithesis of reasoning moderation. Call it identity crisis or whatever, but it all leads to post-truth politics, where evidence based arguments are ignored in favour of self-reinforcement.

[Greyblades]

I thought this was an interesting thread, but now I'm just gonna say that if we had always gone with the wisdom of the plebs, we'd still be living in caves waiting for "the powerfuls" to bring us new fire.



That's class-warfare and too simplistic.
A lot of what you say seems to depend on a few popular quotes and some "feelings" while it ignores legislation that helps us all even if not all of it is popular.

Is this another husarism or are you reall that hypocritical?

[Husar]

Is this another husarism or are you reall that hypocritical?

Can you explain what is hypocritical about those two statements in your wrong view? They fit perfectly well together.

[Greyblades]

Criticizing for class warfare while disparaging the "plebs" is hypocritical in the extreme.

[Husar]

Criticizing for class warfare while disparaging the "plebs" is hypocritical in the extreme.

It's only class warfare when the lower classes complain, didn't you know? Maybe you need to update your capitalist rhetoric.

I think spmetla provided an interesting analysis. Basically the world often changes faster than the plebs can adapt and then it is up to the elites to save the day. That's why people in representative democracies are represented by their elite representatives whom they can expect to make a better decision than the plebs would themselves. Because those elites have the time and intelligence to analyse the topics in ways the plebs can't be bothered because they're too busy standing next to conveyor belts doing the same things over and over day in, day out to keep the economy growing.
If the plebs then begin to question this god-given order of the democratically capitalist world, that is what we call class warfare.

Even the founding fathers of the US agree with my assessment that letting the plebs decide everything is a bad idea:
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/why-constitution-s-framers-didn-t-want-us-directly-elect-president


On the convention’s first day, delegate Edmund Randolph of Virginia warned that “none of the [state] constitutions have provided sufficient checks against democracy.” A week later, Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry said “the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” Father of the Constitution James Madison referred to “the inconvenience of democracy,” and Alexander Hamilton to the “imprudence” of it.

And there is more:


Because the potential electorate was so much more state-oriented in political thinking, if everyone could just vote for a person whom they thought would make a good president, they would mostly vote for a favorite son of their own state. The favorite sons of the most populous states – Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania -- would tend to get the most votes, which made small-state delegates nervous. (There’s an irony here: Despite the Framers efforts to work around this problem, the first 10 presidential elections were all won by candidates from Virginia or Massachusetts.)

So we can clearly see that the average pleb does not have a wide enough horizon to comprehend the problems we face in a world where the plebs let the other elites build global corporations on a scale the plebs can't really understand. The political class are supposed to be the elites who keep that in check and provide a better life for all the plebs. Now if the plebs can't even comprehend the problems, how can you expect them to be able to comprehend the solutions?
(By the way, I'm not sure if the article's entire analysis is something I agree with, but I think the two quotes work on their own, too)

This, by the way, is also the failure of communism, the idea that the plebs would want to participate in the great whole, that they would care about the big picture. Because they don't, they want their own bubble and they want it to be nice for them. The AfD gets most votes in the German states with the least immigrants so far... Clearly showing that the people don't even really know why they vote for something, they just vote based on knee-jerk reactions to arbitrary fears. The people who actually live among these immigrants largely don't seem to agree with those who hardly ever met an immigrant... And you expect me to hold these people up as examples of sensible policymaking?

The point remains, class warfare is a bottom-up idea, the elites have no class because they can't afford it.

[Pannonian]

It's only class warfare when the lower classes complain, didn't you know? Maybe you need to update your capitalist rhetoric.

I think spmetla provided an interesting analysis. Basically the world often changes faster than the plebs can adapt and then it is up to the elites to save the day. That's why people in representative democracies are represented by their elite representatives whom they can expect to make a better decision than the plebs would themselves. Because those elites have the time and intelligence to analyse the topics in ways the plebs can't be bothered because they're too busy standing next to conveyor belts doing the same things over and over day in, day out to keep the economy growing.
If the plebs then begin to question this god-given order of the democratically capitalist world, that is what we call class warfare.

Even the founding fathers of the US agree with my assessment that letting the plebs decide everything is a bad idea:
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/why-constitution-s-framers-didn-t-want-us-directly-elect-president



And there is more:



So we can clearly see that the average pleb does not have a wide enough horizon to comprehend the problems we face in a world where the plebs let the other elites build global corporations on a scale the plebs can't really understand. The political class are supposed to be the elites who keep that in check and provide a better life for all the plebs. Now if the plebs can't even comprehend the problems, how can you expect them to be able to comprehend the solutions?
(By the way, I'm not sure if the article's entire analysis is something I agree with, but I think the two quotes work on their own, too)

This, by the way, is also the failure of communism, the idea that the plebs would want to participate in the great whole, that they would care about the big picture. Because they don't, they want their own bubble and they want it to be nice for them. The AfD gets most votes in the German states with the least immigrants so far... Clearly showing that the people don't even really know why they vote for something, they just vote based on knee-jerk reactions to arbitrary fears. The people who actually live among these immigrants largely don't seem to agree with those who hardly ever met an immigrant... And you expect me to hold these people up as examples of sensible policymaking?

The point remains, class warfare is a bottom-up idea, the elites have no class because they can't afford it.

See also the referendum vote. Famously cosmopolitan London had the highest remain vote in England, and only marginally lower than Scotland. Areas with the lowest immigration returned the highest leave votes. And immigration was cited by leavers as the number one reason why they voted that way.

This is, to a large degree, liberal democracy at its extreme, with emphasis on some aspects of liberalism, and emphasis on some aspects of democracy. There is a belief in the power of the individual, which is quintessential liberalism, and on their right to do and think anything. And there is a belief in the principle of one person one vote, which is quintessential democracy. However, there is a corresponding decline in belief in the responsibilities that come with these principles. In democracy, an uneducated vote is worth as much as an educated one, but there is a resentment against those who educate themselves, and a desire to be part of a movement of the uneducated. Detailed arguments supported by masses of evidence only produces a backlash. Showing the logic of an argument, particularly if the logic is fuzzy, only produces a backlash. Because they know, come the date of the vote, their uneducated movement will outnumber those who carefully weigh evidence.

[Gilrandir]

I wonder what group the participants of the discussion place themselves in - the plebs or the elite?

[Husar]

I wonder what group the participants of the discussion place themselves in - the plebs or the elite?

It's good that you ask, because I asked myself while I was writing about it.
I consider myself part of the plebite.

[Pannonian]

I wonder what group the participants of the discussion place themselves in - the plebs or the elite?

I wouldn't call myself social elite by any means. However, when I was taught history at GCSE (not even at a high level), I was taught how to evaluate evidence. That bare minimum of historiographical education is enough, it appears, to make me shake my head at some of the arguments that prevail. See my points in the Corbyn thread about the merits of primary evidence, especially from sources close to the subject.

[Gilrandir]

It's good that you ask, because I asked myself while I was writing about it.
I consider myself part of the plebite.

With all the disparaging descriptions appended?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Genuine question: Is the political class today any more (or less) elitist than they used to be?

The answer to that must be pretty central to the PVC's (I will still call him that) question.

Not much different I would think, in terms of the elitism attitude itself.

However, as the basis for this elitism is ideology rather than the "accident" of birth, it may be even more pernicious.

"L'ancienne regime," sort of always knew they had just lucked out and been expelled from a fortunately "blue-blooded" vaginal opening. They may have dressed it up and claimed divine right and what not, but too many of history's great captains had conquered their way into power -- to become the new blue bloods -- for them not to be aware (in their well-hidden reflective moments) that it was all just a question of holding power (feudalism's number one goal is to keep the peasants in the fields while the lords maintain the power to "protect" them, carefully siphoning off any of the 'wolves' into their men-at-arms to keep the people quiescent).

By contrast, "Le Postmoderne Regime" is based upon having the right 'outlook' on life. In it's way, it can be almost religiously intolerant of unorthodox responses and attitudes to that ideology. I think this quality may make it even more pernicious than many of the other bases for elitism that have sprung up.

Of course, I am something of an apologist for the USA, so perhaps my opinion in this is inherently suspect.

[Husar]

With all the disparaging descriptions appended?

Plebite = pleb-elite ~;)

Here is a somewhat related short interview in German: http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/demokratie-ltwmv-nolte-101.html

Basically this guy says the problem is not the democracy itself but how people perceive it. Relates to Germany and not the EU, but the issues are intertwined. He says there is a soothing knowledge about what is close and people suspect everything that is far away because they don't know it well. He says that is why people look at Berlin with worse feelings than they have for their local government and with even worse ones at Brussels.

So basically what I said from the start, you can thank me later or read up on the monkeysphere.

[Kralizec]

Then I read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37210138

"Brexit is bad but it won't hurt us as much economically as some fear - it's more of a psychological problem and it's a huge problem politically," he said.
"If we organise Brexit in the wrong way, then we'll be in deep trouble, so now we need to make sure that we don't allow Britain to keep the nice things, so to speak, related to Europe while taking no responsibility."

Yes - the Brits need to be punished for daring to endanger the EU.

What he proposes is not a punishment. You should know better.

There are aspects of the EU which are less than popular, obviously. If the EU would allow a non-member most of the privileges but few of the burdens of membership, then it would encourage others to follow suit. I know Johnson and Gove promised you guys all sorts of awesome stuff, free of charge, if you voted for Brexit but it's not the EU's fault if they're not willing to give it to you.

[Brenus]

"See the explicit arguments from Idaho and Brenus in this forum that amount to anyone who disagrees is by definition to be dismissed, and it's emblematic of his support":laugh4: I like your faith in defectors. Remind me all the Soviets defectors coming with stories about Soviet Union ready to invade Europe, and the formidable new tanks, planes, just what Western Countries were so keen to hear.
But you support is a very well balance one, I suppose.:laugh4:

"Yes - the Brits need to be punished for daring to endanger the EU." But, but, it doesn't matter what EU will do... EU is just a nuisance, a machine to produce unemployment and red tape, an extension of Nazi War machine, taking 250 millions pounds a WEEK... Surely, EU can't damage UK, as EU NEEDS UK to survive. UK has just to tell EU and job done. No?
Australia, and others still to show-up will just queue to make deals with the country... Err, later, sure... And looks, the fall of the currency made our factories better at export... Bit of trouble for import, but hey, INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!! Better starving than slaves said the ones who don't know what hunger is.

[Fragony]

The UK has allready recovered from the initial blows. It's the funniest thing ever all these doom-scenarios, it's not the UK that has a problem but the eurocrats, they look even more useless than they already did. Juncker who is never not completily drunk as the ultimate embaressment, who does he likes wetkissing people so much really it's disgusting he basicly licks them, vulgair vulgair guy

[Pannonian]

The UK has allready recovered from the initial blows. It's the funniest thing ever all these doom-scenarios, it's not the UK that has a problem but the eurocrats, they look even more useless than they already did. Juncker who is never not completily drunk as the ultimate embaressment, who does he likes wetkissing people so much really it's disgusting he basicly licks them, vulgair vulgair guy

It's funny how people in Dutchland are so familiar with what's going on over here, moreso than people who actually live over here. Which country has the 6th biggest economy in the world?

[Fragony]

It's funny how people in Dutchland are so familiar with what's going on over here, moreso than people who actually live over here. Which country has the 6th biggest economy in the world?

Can't answer that and I won't cheat with googling

gonna do it now

edit latest I could is France on 6 and the UK on five, but it's based on GDP, ead somewhere else that it switched. Hardly the 28 days later thing

[Husar]

The UK has allready recovered from the initial blows. It's the funniest thing ever all these doom-scenarios, it's not the UK that has a problem but the eurocrats, they look even more useless than they already did. Juncker who is never not completily drunk as the ultimate embaressment, who does he likes wetkissing people so much really it's disgusting he basicly licks them, vulgair vulgair guy

There hasn't actually been a Brexit and a lot depends on how brexity it will actually be.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37270372


Japan's government has warned that Brexit could result in the country's firms moving their European head offices out of Britain.

Looks lime the immigrants are willing to leave after all. :rolleyes:

[Fragony]

Sure there are consequences, but let's compare them to the consequences that the EU-scaremongers furiously screamed. The pound made a hugh drop. For a while. Now it's doing fine again. It's business as usual. And I know there hasn't actually been a Brexit yet.

[Pannonian]

Can't answer that and I won't cheat with googling

gonna do it now

edit latest I could is France on 6 and the UK on five, but it's based on GDP, ead somewhere else that it switched. Hardly the 28 days later thing

It switched on the day of the referendum result.

[Fragony]

It switched on the day of the referendum result.

That was to be expected no? Even the biggest optimists did

[Gilrandir]

Sure there are consequences, but let's compare them to the consequences that the EU-scaremongers furiously screamed. The pound made a hugh drop. For a while. Now it's doing fine again. It's business as usual. And I know there hasn't actually been a Brexit yet.

So let's wait until the advent of real Brexit and see what will happen to the pound and other things.

[Husar]

Sure there are consequences, but let's compare them to the consequences that the EU-scaremongers furiously screamed. The pound made a hugh drop. For a while. Now it's doing fine again. It's business as usual. And I know there hasn't actually been a Brexit yet.

A company wants to make business in the EU, they put their EU HQ in the UK.
Now the UK leaves the EU and that HQ can't do business in the EU anymore because it is not in the EU anymore.
What could they possibly do? The question isn't just valid for Japanese companies though.

And it is relatively pointless to say not much has happened yet because not much has happened yet. It doesn't make any more sense if you repeat it either.

[Pannonian]

A company wants to make business in the EU, they put their EU HQ in the UK.
Now the UK leaves the EU and that HQ can't do business in the EU anymore because it is not in the EU anymore.
What could they possibly do? The question isn't just valid for Japanese companies though.

And it is relatively pointless to say not much has happened yet because not much has happened yet. It doesn't make any more sense if you repeat it either.

Frag's fond of talking about consequences and how it's all for the greater good. Because he's in Holland and doesn't have to face those actual consequences. A bit like those hardcore neoliberals who prescribed no pain no gain solutions for Yeltsin's Russia, while they're safely in New York and elsewhere.

[Viking]

That's why people in representative democracies are represented by their elite representatives whom they can expect to make a better decision than the plebs would themselves. Because those elites have the time and intelligence to analyse the topics in ways the plebs can't be bothered because they're too busy standing next to conveyor belts doing the same things over and over day in, day out to keep the economy growing.

It seems to me that what the elected 'elites', on average, are first and foremost elites in, is the understanding of their party's platform and ideology, not how to run the country the best - neither in the short nor long term.

I don't see much of a reason to assume a priori that the average citizen's gut feeling about the right course of action is less wise than the ideologically correct and much more elaborate course of action proposed by the average elected representative, though the latter may of course be much easier to translate into action given the political system in place.


The AfD gets most votes in the German states with the least immigrants so far... Clearly showing that the people don't even really know why they vote for something, they just vote based on knee-jerk reactions to arbitrary fears. The people who actually live among these immigrants largely don't seem to agree with those who hardly ever met an immigrant...

This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the voting pattern.

Examples:


People vote conservatively - for what they know. If people are familiar with a multicultural society, they may vote for its continuation and/or expansion. If they are not, they will vote against it.

People may dismiss out of hand that there are issues with the society or place that they live in if it goes against their experience in everyday life.

For example, if 1 in every 25,000 inhabitants in city A has been robbed at some point in their lives compared to merely 1 in every 250,000 in city B (10 times fewer), the average inhabitant of city A might still reject any notion that it is more dangerous to live in their city compared to city B, because the vast majority of them have indeed never been robbed.

If no statistics existed, it would also be difficult for even observant inhabitants to accurately compare the two cities in terms of robberies; certainly so if the differences are relatively small (e.g. a 20% difference rather than 1,000%).

[Legs]

So let's wait until the advent of real Brexit and see what will happen to the pound and other things.
Exactly. All the predictions were based on certain actions being taken, none of those actions have been taken, listening to the brexiteers it appears they are in no hurry to take any of those actions in the near future , if ever at all.

[Fragony]

Frag's fond of talking about consequences and how it's all for the greater good. Because he's in Holland and doesn't have to face those actual consequences. A bit like those hardcore neoliberals who prescribed no pain no gain solutions for Yeltsin's Russia, while they're safely in New York and elsewhere.

Oh it had consequences for me but sometimes you just have to take a risk. Greater good, yeah, the EU is a monster. I hope the Netherlands will join your misery very soon, unlikely it will happen but the EU isn't exactly popular here

[Husar]

It seems to me that what the elected 'elites', on average, are first and foremost elites in, is the understanding of their party's platform and ideology, not how to run the country the best - neither in the short nor long term.

So do you agree that all the idiots mostly just elect other idiots or would you perhaps say you're generalizing a bit and there are politicians who work hard to do their jobs well and those who don't?
I wasn't the one who called them elites by the way, I was going with other peoples' terminology.
And if you're saying that politicians should be willing to try things that are not part of their platform, then I guess Merkel is the perfect politicians, but then why are her voters going to the AfD? Perhaps the voters want those party ideologies? Perhaps voters always complain about the status quo and then vote against change? And we're right back to the stupid plebs, you see...


I don't see much of a reason to assume a priori that the average citizen's gut feeling about the right course of action is less wise than the ideologically correct and much more elaborate course of action proposed by the average elected representative, though the latter may of course be much easier to translate into action given the political system in place.

You also don't see radio waves... :rolleyes:


This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the voting pattern.

Examples:

People vote conservatively - for what they know. If people are familiar with a multicultural society, they may vote for its continuation and/or expansion. If they are not, they will vote against it.

I agree, people may not be able to cope with change, which is what I said...they have this arbitrary fear of change and vote based on that...
"Fear is a bad advisor" is an old German idiom...


People may dismiss out of hand that there are issues with the society or place that they live in if it goes against their experience in everyday life.

For example, if 1 in every 25,000 inhabitants in city A has been robbed at some point in their lives compared to merely 1 in every 250,000 in city B (10 times fewer), the average inhabitant of city A might still reject any notion that it is more dangerous to live in their city compared to city B, because the vast majority of them have indeed never been robbed.

If no statistics existed, it would also be difficult for even observant inhabitants to accurately compare the two cities in terms of robberies; certainly so if the differences are relatively small (e.g. a 20% difference rather than 1,000%).

This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the crime pattern.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Which country has the 6th biggest economy in the world?

California.

[Viking]

So do you agree that all the idiots mostly just elect other idiots or would you perhaps say you're generalizing a bit and there are politicians who work hard to do their jobs well and those who don't?
I wasn't the one who called them elites by the way, I was going with other peoples' terminology.
And if you're saying that politicians should be willing to try things that are not part of their platform, then I guess Merkel is the perfect politicians, but then why are her voters going to the AfD? Perhaps the voters want those party ideologies? Perhaps voters always complain about the status quo and then vote against change? And we're right back to the stupid plebs, you see...

My point is that their job is to a great extent to work for the party (line), whether they work hard or not.

If you have politicians that are bucking the party line, that may not be ideal if their knowledge of the party ideology was what that allowed them to rise in the ranks in the first place (i.e. that's the skill they have been evaluated for; maybe their gut feeling as independent individuals is horrible).

A more ideal reality may be one where the politicians who both know the party ideology the best as well as the most probable consequences of as many relatively common policies as possible in a wide range of scenarios rise to the highest ranks; and where political parties would advertise to potential voters the society that they could realistically achieve given the principles of their ideology and current realities, as well as the compromises they would be willing or not willing to make in these scenarios.

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.


I agree, people may not be able to cope with change, which is what I said...they have this arbitrary fear of change and vote based on that...
"Fear is a bad advisor" is an old German idiom...

Fear is not necessary, a mere preference for the status quo is enough; whether that status quo is multicultural or not. When you use word fear, I get the feeling that you are primarily thinking about one side.


This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the crime pattern.

Whatever the explanation for the robbery pattern would be is beside the point here, which is that it can be very difficult for ordinary people to know based on everyday experience e.g. whether something has improved, gotten worse or largely stayed the same (a very slow and gradual change may also be difficult to notice).

[Pannonian]

My point is that their job is to a great extent to work for the party (line), whether they work hard or not.

If you have politicians that are bucking the party line, that may not be ideal if their knowledge of the party ideology was what that allowed them to rise in the ranks in the first place (i.e. that's the skill they have been evaluated for; maybe their gut feeling as independent individuals is horrible).

A more ideal reality may be one where the politicians who both know the party ideology the best as well as the most probable consequences of as many relatively common policies as possible in a wide range of scenarios rise to the highest ranks; and where political parties would advertise to potential voters the society that they could realistically achieve given the principles of their ideology and current realities, as well as the compromises they would be willing or not willing to make in these scenarios.

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.

In a functional parliamentary democracy, the high ranking politician is a combination of someone who is capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios, and someone who is aware of the consequences on the ground, or at least a balance of the two. That's why the top political elite are either people who have been educated to an extremely high level (David Cameron), or who have gone up through the ranks whilst being tested and found capable at every level (John Major). It's rare that you have someone who has not gone through either route, but has caught the wind of a current movement (Jeremy Corbyn). The Labour Party has a tradition of the self-educated John Major route, unlike other parties which tend to go for the social elite, but from Attlee onwards Labour too has been led by said elite. There's still a good number of working mums in the PLP though, who by definition are people capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios.

[Husar]

My point is that their job is to a great extent to work for the party (line), whether they work hard or not.

If you have politicians that are bucking the party line, that may not be ideal if their knowledge of the party ideology was what that allowed them to rise in the ranks in the first place (i.e. that's the skill they have been evaluated for; maybe their gut feeling as independent individuals is horrible).

A more ideal reality may be one where the politicians who both know the party ideology the best as well as the most probable consequences of as many relatively common policies as possible in a wide range of scenarios rise to the highest ranks; and where political parties would advertise to potential voters the society that they could realistically achieve given the principles of their ideology and current realities, as well as the compromises they would be willing or not willing to make in these scenarios.

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.

What Pannonian said. And also consider that it is not black and white because cause and effect in a system that includes millions of humans are not always very clear. If we could definitely prove that one party is right and all the others are wrong, there'd be no need for democracy. Of course there are also different interests that different parties and politicians try to work for. If curbing some corporate freedoms is good for the country but some of the corporate owners also own newspapers, you can guess what happens. Suddenly you have "two opinions" in the country.
And then you have people who complain about legislation they don't even seem to fully understand. Like the ban on advertising that drinking lots of water makes you healthier or so, which looked stupid on a superficial look but actually made sense as the ad was highly misleading to make more profit.


a mere preference for the status quo

That's a euphemism for fear of change.


Whatever the explanation for the robbery pattern would be is beside the point here, which is that it can be very difficult for ordinary people to know based on everyday experience e.g. whether something has improved, gotten worse or largely stayed the same (a very slow and gradual change may also be difficult to notice).

Eh, yes, and? That justifies taking to the streets to demonstrate against the islamization of the occident, which is not really happening, or to vote for a party that declares homosexuality a mental illness? Your argument is besides my point that some people are merely idiots who don't think but put a lot of effort into voicing their badly-thought-out ideas. If there is an increase in crime rates that noone really notices, then maybe the entire rhetoric of the end of the western world as we know it is also incredibly stupid?
The other question is why do you seemingly argue that you trust the majhority of AfD voters to have made a sensible choice and at the same time you seem to argue that the people who don't vote for them are not sensible enough to notice the crime increase? So basically the effect of a policy is easier to see from afar than if you're actually affected by it? Are you making an argument that all voting laws should be changed so that only people from neighboring countries can vote and citizens can't?

[Viking]

In a functional parliamentary democracy, the high ranking politician is a combination of someone who is capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios, and someone who is aware of the consequences on the ground, or at least a balance of the two. That's why the top political elite are either people who have been educated to an extremely high level (David Cameron), or who have gone up through the ranks whilst being tested and found capable at every level (John Major). It's rare that you have someone who has not gone through either route, but has caught the wind of a current movement (Jeremy Corbyn). The Labour Party has a tradition of the self-educated John Major route, unlike other parties which tend to go for the social elite, but from Attlee onwards Labour too has been led by said elite. There's still a good number of working mums in the PLP though, who by definition are people capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios.

In any country that has been at least somewhat functional, I would expect that the art of running the country with a certain level of skill would be embedded in the the party structure and program in some sense of any political party that has been active in the governance of that country.

Thus, in a 'well-run' country, becoming part of the party elite is likely to indicate that some level of skill in running the country has been gained along the way.

Yet, even if a country is what we could call functional or well-run, the potential for improved governance may still be substantial. Perhaps more importantly, if some part of a party program has been optimal for most of a political party's history, a change in the (e.g. geopolitical) environment may leave such policies outdated and inefficient, maybe even dangerous.

This latter part is where there could be a significant difference between the idealistic scenario I am describing and current reality. Although perhaps many political parties and leaders already are at this level of pragmatism, I contend that many parties and politicians are leaning heavily on the dogmatic side and adapt to new realities inconveniently slowly, if at all. The ideology and platform of a party tend to in practice to place taboos on the implementation of or change in certain policies that perhaps should be changed or implemented.


If we could definitely prove that one party is right and all the others are wrong, there'd be no need for democracy.

Not quite. You may for instance be of the opinion that either capitalism or socialism should be implemented regardless of outcome, as your preferred ideology is morally good in and of itself.

Similarly, different people may think differently on what compromises are acceptable and which ones are not despite agreeing on many or most fundamental principles, and different political parties could represent different compromises.


That's a euphemism for fear of change.

No. If you prefer pizza over hamburger, it's not necessarily because you fear hamburgers.



Eh, yes, and? That justifies taking to the streets to demonstrate against the islamization of the occident, which is not really happening, or to vote for a party that declares homosexuality a mental illness? Your argument is besides my point that some people are merely idiots who don't think but put a lot of effort into voicing their badly-thought-out ideas. If there is an increase in crime rates that noone really notices, then maybe the entire rhetoric of the end of the western world as we know it is also incredibly stupid?
The other question is why do you seemingly argue that you trust the majhority of AfD voters to have made a sensible choice and at the same time you seem to argue that the people who don't vote for them are not sensible enough to notice the crime increase? So basically the effect of a policy is easier to see from afar than if you're actually affected by it? Are you making an argument that all voting laws should be changed so that only people from neighboring countries can vote and citizens can't?

Different people can vote for the same party despite having very different world views. Some might vote AfD because they fear Islamisation, some because they worry about crime or immigration in general, but not so much about Islam. Some might vote for it because they consider it the lesser of many evils.

The primary purpose of what I wrote was to illustrate how different models are capable of explaining the phenomenon that people from places with many immigrants are less sceptical of immigration than people from places with few or no immigrants. It simply does not have to mean that people from the first group are better informed on the consequences of immigration.

A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

[Pannonian]

In any country that has been at least somewhat functional, I would expect that the art of running the country with a certain level of skill would be embedded in the the party structure and program in some sense of any political party that has been active in the governance of that country.

Thus, in a 'well-run' country, becoming part of the party elite is likely to indicate that some level of skill in running the country has been gained along the way.

Yet, even if a country is what we could call functional or well-run, the potential for improved governance may still be substantial. Perhaps more importantly, if some part of a party program has been optimal for most of a political party's history, a change in the (e.g. geopolitical) environment may leave such policies outdated and inefficient, maybe even dangerous.

This latter part is where there could be a significant difference between the idealistic scenario I am describing and current reality. Although perhaps many political parties and leaders already are at this level of pragmatism, I contend that many parties and politicians are leaning heavily on the dogmatic side and adapt to new realities inconveniently slowly, if at all. The ideology and platform of a party tend to in practice to place taboos on the implementation of or change in certain policies that perhaps should be changed or implemented.

It doesn't always happen though; see the current state of the British Labour party for example. Those who have had any kind of experience of government, administration, or even real world work have been written off for their connotations with the "Blairite" (ie. business friendly) ideology. The rump that is left, especially those in the inner core who direct the party, have no experience except participating in protests and writing about them. There is actually a fair amount of administrative and political talent in the PLP that could form a formidable shadow or even government cabinet. However, the direction of the party is such that that talent is being squeezed out by purist ideologues, with the support of the fanatical new membership (members who voted Labour in the 2015 election back Smith 2:1, but the new members back Corbyn in far greater numbers). One sadly illustrative banner from one of Corbyn's rallies read, "I'd rather have principles than power". Not the best approach to have when you're the only viable opposition.

[Husar]

Not quite. You may for instance be of the opinion that either capitalism or socialism should be implemented regardless of outcome, as your preferred ideology is morally good in and of itself.

Similarly, different people may think differently on what compromises are acceptable and which ones are not despite agreeing on many or most fundamental principles, and different political parties could represent different compromises.

With the first thing we're back to idiot plebs, which was my point, that the plebs vote for something without actually knowing whether it will help or not. If they think their ideology is good just because it's their ideology, then that is exactly what they do.

As for the second part, that has nothing to do with right or wrong, it's about different interests and preferences. Some interests can still be morally wrong if the moral goal is to let everyone have a good life, i.e. the supposed goal of most western democracies and economic systems.


No. If you prefer pizza over hamburger, it's not necessarily because you fear hamburgers.

It is, you fear that the hamburger will not make you as happy as the pizza.
You also forgot to mention that you demonstrate on the streets about the hamburgerization of pizza places just because some pizza places put a single hamburger on a menu with 50 options.


Different people can vote for the same party despite having very different world views. Some might vote AfD because they fear Islamisation, some because they worry about crime or immigration in general, but not so much about Islam. Some might vote for it because they consider it the lesser of many evils.

A lot of 'mights' there, mate. And the numbers disagree with you:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/wahl-in-mecklenburg-vorpommern/analyse-der-landtagswahl-afd-mobilisiert-veraengstigte-nichtwaehler-14415882.html

The voters say themselves that immigration is an important reason for them to vote AfD, there's no reason for you to make BS-reasons up when they freely admit that this is why they vote AfD...


The primary purpose of what I wrote was to illustrate how different models are capable of explaining the phenomenon that people from places with many immigrants are less sceptical of immigration than people from places with few or no immigrants. It simply does not have to mean that people from the first group are better informed on the consequences of immigration.

A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/world/dresden-protests-against-immigrants/
You tell me how likely it is that they become strangers in their own country, i.e. actually know what they're talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sebastian-christ/why-is-germanys-afd-party-so-popular_b_9829578.html
If you think they know more about immigration, prove that immigration is indeed fundamentally flawed.

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking... :dizzy2:

[Montmorency]

For example, if 1 in every 25,000 inhabitants in city A has been robbed at some point in their lives compared to merely 1 in every 250,000 in city B (10 times fewer), the average inhabitant of city A might still reject any notion that it is more dangerous to live in their city compared to city B, because the vast majority of them have indeed never been robbed.

If no statistics existed, it would also be difficult for even observant inhabitants to accurately compare the two cities in terms of robberies; certainly so if the differences are relatively small (e.g. a 20% difference rather than 1,000%).

Just to mention, the difference between the cities would then be statistically insignificant as 1/25000 (or several hundred individuals for most large cities) is a vanishingly-low figure not achieved anywhere.

For City B, it might as well be worth considering whether those dozens who claim to have been robbed are mistaken. Robbery like the rarest genetic disorders or somatic anomalies known to man, but less serious. Anyway...



There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.


But, why politicians? This is a fundamental philosophical question, whether and how humans can judge causality. Notably, this is one of the things that cuts the floor out of discussions about "right" governance.


This latter part is where there could be a significant difference between the idealistic scenario I am describing and current reality. Although perhaps many political parties and leaders already are at this level of pragmatism, I contend that many parties and politicians are leaning heavily on the dogmatic side and adapt to new realities inconveniently slowly, if at all. The ideology and platform of a party tend to in practice to place taboos on the implementation of or change in certain policies that perhaps should be changed or implemented.

There's a distinct element you've missed here, and it is that politicians have to acutely juggle the interests and demands of various societal stakeholders. Crucially, what I mean by this is not simply subsumed by "electorate" or "lobbyists". Politicians must be attuned to the attention and behaviors of individuals, groups, and abstractions existing only in the past or future, all possibly representing the same thing but in opposing ways. In fact, I would suggest that these considerations play a much larger role in the actual activities of legislatures and their members than either "policy" or "dogma/ideology". This is why politics rarely flows according to either pragmatism or ideology.


A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

Probably good for later comment.

[Gilrandir]

You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking... :dizzy2:

According to Sarmatian, moving away from the event location (combined with google search) is the only way to get an objective picture of it. The further you move, the more you know about the society in question.

[Fragony]

According to Sarmatian, moving away from the event location (combined with google search) is the only way to get an objective picture of it. The further you move, the more you know about the society in question.

A very devided one. Can we at least just agree on being some seriously twisted people being there. Ukraine is way too complicated for simple solutions.

[Gilrandir]

A very devided one. Can we at least just agree on being some seriously twisted people being there. Ukraine is way too complicated for simple solutions.

He gave a universal recipe for obtaining a true to life picture.

As for the complicated Ukraine, can you name countries just fine for simple solutions?

[Viking]

With the first thing we're back to idiot plebs, which was my point, that the plebs vote for something without actually knowing whether it will help or not.

Not necessary. My focus was on the idea/fact that outcomes can be intentionally be disregarded by people. For example, a pacifist may refuse to use violence even if it is the only means to save someone they care for.


As for the second part, that has nothing to do with right or wrong, it's about different interests and preferences. Some interests can still be morally wrong if the moral goal is to let everyone have a good life, i.e. the supposed goal of most western democracies and economic systems.

Weighing compromises can very much have to do with concepts of right and wrong.


It is, you fear that the hamburger will not make you as happy as the pizza.

I think the definition of 'fear' that you seem to be using is far too trivial. I am thinking of fear as something connected to a (significant) physiological response, not the mere presence in the mind of the idea that something is less preferable than something else.


The voters say themselves that immigration is an important reason for them to vote AfD, there's no reason for you to make BS-reasons up when they freely admit that this is why they vote AfD...

That's one of the items in my list. The list was not supposed to cover the most common reasons, because that was not what was interesting in that particular context (which was whether or not it was justified to vote AfD). If most people eat shellfish because they are worried they'll get skewered by Neptune's trident otherwise, you can still eat shellfish for your own personal and very different reasons.


You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/world/dresden-protests-against-immigrants/
You tell me how likely it is that they become strangers in their own country, i.e. actually know what they're talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sebastian-christ/why-is-germanys-afd-party-so-popular_b_9829578.html
If you think they know more about immigration, prove that immigration is indeed fundamentally flawed.

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking... :dizzy2:

My point was not specific to AfD (it's not the first time I have heard about such voting patterns), but to the reasoning you implicitly used in the paragraph I earlier quoted.

It is ultimately a mix of the ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. You can have a parachutist who knows nothing about why parachutes work, and you can have someone who has never parachuted who knows everything about why they work. While personal experience certainly is relevant, it is easy use to it fallaciously in argumentation.

Now, a big part of your argument seems to be that these people are 'stupid'. If we accept that, then chances are they'd still be stupid if they had grown up in a city with more immigrants and therefore had been less sceptical of immigration. They don't understand what they are talking about, whether they support or oppose immigration.


But, why politicians?

They are at the core of the topic of this thread.


There's a distinct element you've missed here, and it is that politicians have to acutely juggle the interests and demands of various societal stakeholders. Crucially, what I mean by this is not simply subsumed by "electorate" or "lobbyists". Politicians must be attuned to the attention and behaviors of individuals, groups, and abstractions existing only in the past or future, all possibly representing the same thing but in opposing ways. In fact, I would suggest that these considerations play a much larger role in the actual activities of legislatures and their members than either "policy" or "dogma/ideology". This is why politics rarely flows according to either pragmatism or ideology.

Not quite sure what you are talking about here; but there's not just what politicians actually do (implement), but also what they say they want to implement. It is through which policies they say they would like to have in place (given current realities) many politicians strike me as dogmatic.

[Husar]

Not necessary. My focus was on the idea/fact that outcomes can be intentionally be disregarded by people. For example, a pacifist may refuse to use violence even if it is the only means to save someone they care for.

Like I said, idiots.
Why do you want to find something to disagree when we are actually in constant agreement? ~;)


I think the definition of 'fear' that you seem to be using is far too trivial. I am thinking of fear as something connected to a (significant) physiological response, not the mere presence in the mind of the idea that something is less preferable than something else.

Or maybe your example was far too trivial and had nothing to do with the actual problem of people fearing immigrants. You were comparing hamburgers and immigrants.


That's one of the items in my list. The list was not supposed to cover the most common reasons, because that was not what was interesting in that particular context (which was whether or not it was justified to vote AfD). If most people eat shellfish because they are worried they'll get skewered by Neptune's trident otherwise, you can still eat shellfish for your own personal and very different reasons.

Not if they vote for a politician who bans shellfish.


It is ultimately a mix of the ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. You can have a parachutist who knows nothing about why parachutes work, and you can have someone who has never parachuted who knows everything about why they work. While personal experience certainly is relevant, it is easy use to it fallaciously in argumentation.

Of course you can, you can also have a world that rests on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space. How does that help the argument that takes place on our planet?


Now, a big part of your argument seems to be that these people are 'stupid'. If we accept that, then chances are they'd still be stupid if they had grown up in a city with more immigrants and therefore had been less sceptical of immigration. They don't understand what they are talking about, whether they support or oppose immigration.

Exactly, that is why we need a political elite to show them the way.
It would be preferable though if all the idiots were on the "right" side of history.

[Pannonian]

Like I said, idiots.
Why do you want to find something to disagree when we are actually in constant agreement? ~;)

Or maybe your example was far too trivial and had nothing to do with the actual problem of people fearing immigrants. You were comparing hamburgers and immigrants.

Not if they vote for a politician who bans shellfish.

Of course you can, you can also have a world that rests on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space. How does that help the argument that takes place on our planet?

Exactly, that is why we need a political elite to show them the way.
It would be preferable though if all the idiots were on the "right" side of history.

Liberal democracy isn't functional when the sovereign people believe too much in the liberalism and democracy without taking on any of the responsibilities that should come with these rights. They theoretically have the right to disregard the advice of experienced experts and go with a meme-based movement. But the practical results would not be good.

[Viking]

You were comparing hamburgers and immigrants.

The principle is the same.


Of course you can, you can also have a world that rests on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space. How does that help the argument that takes place on our planet?

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?

[Sarmatian]

According to Sarmatian, moving away from the event location (combined with google search) is the only way to get an objective picture of it. The further you move, the more you know about the society in question.

:laugh4: :laugh4:

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

[spmetla]

Liberal democracy isn't functional when the sovereign people believe too much in the liberalism and democracy without taking on any of the responsibilities that should come with these rights. They theoretically have the right to disregard the advice of experienced experts and go with a meme-based movement. But the practical results would not be good.

That's when we have the problem of the tyranny of the masses as in ancient Athens. The representative part of the older American system was its great strength; yes, there was more backroom dealings and corruption but at the end of the day competent technocrats made things happen.
Remember Themistocles that had to trick the Athenians into building a fleet to counter the hated rivals in Aegina so that they could actually have a fleet for the far off Persian threat.

I actually wish that the US no longer elected Senators directly in order to remove that part of Congress from the threat of ignorant populism. Unfortunately the problem of democracy is that you get the government you deserve, not necessarily the one you need.

[Pannonian]

That's when we have the problem of the tyranny of the masses as in ancient Athens. The representative part of the older American system was its great strength; yes, there was more backroom dealings and corruption but at the end of the day competent technocrats made things happen.
Remember Themistocles that had to trick the Athenians into building a fleet to counter the hated rivals in Aegina so that they could actually have a fleet for the far off Persian threat.

I actually wish that the US no longer elected Senators directly in order to remove that part of Congress from the threat of ignorant populism. Unfortunately the problem of democracy is that you get the government you deserve, not necessarily the one you need.

The problem is that anti-technocracy has become a virtue in and of itself, seen most clearly in Michael Gove's remark, "We think we've had enough of experts", but also seen in the virulent anti-Blairism of the Labour party, which has purged the executive parts of all experience of any kind of government and administration, and replaced them with people with experience of nothing except protest marches. To return to the Athenian parallel, Socrates has lost the argument after Arginusae, and no one with any kind of talent will be interested in leading after the generals have been purged.

[spmetla]

The rise of the anti-expert is a strange thing of the times. Holistic medicine which has merits in preventative health has become the voque thing for the overly educated liberated anti-corporate feminists. Same thing with politics, immigration isn't a problem right now in the US but someone building a wall to keep the Mexicans out has become a warcry.
Thanks to people being able to 'research' on wikipedia/google they all think they know enough to discredit actual experts.

It's another reason that I wish we also had run-off ballots in the US, that way everyone could vote for the wingbat they want and also for the lesser of two evils without having to throw their vote away. Would prevent some of the swing to the fringes (left and right) that's happening on both sides of the Atlantic.

[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? :dizzy2:


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/sachsen-anhalt-afd-politiker-homosexuelle-ins-gefaengnis-stecken-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]

:laugh4: :laugh4:

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.

~:smoking:

[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/politik/regional/afd-waehler-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/politik/regional/afd-waehler-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" (:clown:) 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" (:clown:) 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-russia-stalin-idUSBRE9240O120130305



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-rich-what-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. :rolleyes:

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.

https://vimeo.com/8934020

18876

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.