Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[CaptainMcClellan]

Helgo, let me explain what government is for. This may shock you but governments exist merely to stop Person A from stealing from Person B - whether it be life, health, property, freedom, privacy, virginity, etc. What they do instead is act as an organization of the most clever thieves, or at least most audacious, that ever was in their state. Their only other legitimate function is to prevent mad scientists from making stupid Earth shattering things... And instead they pay for them. The purpose of Democracy is to decide who and how best to prevent the aforementioned. That's not happening where I am and it doesn't sound like it happens in any other government, so when do we decide that making a bigger government isn't going to make us any safer and more secure? That's my take on government and its power at present, but I'll freely admit I'm biased.

[Graknorke]

Actually I'm pretty sure the government's aim is meant to be to maximise the welfare of the population.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Governments are product of evolution. If they were as ineffective as anarchists claim they wouldn't exist.

[Owlbread]

Actually I'm pretty sure the government's aim is meant to be to maximise the welfare of the population.

This. States and governments should exist for the welfare of the population.

[Loud Whispers]

Aaaaaand there we go again with people dissing the EU parliament. It's no miracle that it's held to be an undemocratic monster when its democratic elements are not acknowledged at all.

Because a parliament automatically means democracy? I scoff in derision. Just because it's a few hundred making the arbitrary decisions that their subjugates are forced to adhere to doesn't make it any better than a single autocrat. Oligarchy, woo!

When that parliament is elected democratically - and it certainly is - it constitutes a democratic element. And it isn''t powerless either: Cameron helplessly flailing against Schulz's election ought to be enough evidence for that.
So quit yer scoffin', there's politics going on.

Oh right, the European Parliament where no receipts need be produced when claiming expenses and refuses to cooperate with Transparency International. And the notion of the European Parliament having power? The Federalists have the power, I wouldn't say the Parliament has power. Cameron flailling against Schulz and Juncker just goes to show how much the EU has been eroding away at democratic checks against the EU that now the Federalist bloc can prop up Federalist puppets in the Commission and the rest of the EU parliament can't do shit, the rest of Europe's parliaments can't do shit, the rest of Europe's head of states can't do shit. You cannot point to the MEPs and say; look how democratic it is!
...Whilst you strip away the power of parliaments that have existed centuries before the EU was born from people elected by their own people. What happened when the Dutch and French said no to the European Constitution? The EU ignored them and everything they opposed was carried on out under the Lisbon Treaty, all the same with a different name. Top lel m8, the first parliament to be incapable of drafting and repealing legislation is democratic. They can take legislation from the Commission, advise it or delay it a bit, but at the end of the day the Commission calls the shots and the parliament can do nothing. They can be ignored quite safely.

Actually I'm pretty sure the government's aim is meant to be to maximise the welfare of the population.

And I'm pretty sure the government's aim is to raise funds.

[CaptainMcClellan]

Actually I'm pretty sure the government's aim is meant to be to maximise the welfare of the population.

Nah. That's a theory about what a government should be, but it's not its responsibility, that's the responsibility of the populace itself.

Governments are product of evolution. If they were as ineffective as anarchists claim they wouldn't exist.

They are effective, at surviving. You're absolutely right about it being a product of evolution and applied properly, as happens sometimes, can be quite beneficial, but usually it's just a necessary evil, one that should be carefully watched and controlled. A smaller government is easier for its citizenry to audit, less of a leviathan.

Ninja'ed!

Actually I'm pretty sure the government's aim is meant to be to maximise the welfare of the population.

This. States and governments should exist for the welfare of the population.

should, not do. And it's even disputable if it should. It's not really its responsibility.

[Graknorke]

Why should it not be a government's responsibility? Why else would you even want one around?

[Loud Whispers]

Why should it not be a government's responsibility? Why else would you even want one around?

To raise funds

[Sheb]

Well, I wanted to answer this morning, but I had a long day of science ahead of me.

For me, the EU simply makes sense as a political unit. I have friends in 11 or 12 of the 28 member states. Our countries share a history and a continent, face the same geopolitical challenges, etc etc. Maybe it's also linked to my Belgianess: I'm not much closer to my Flemish cocitizens than to other Europeans, so Europe makes sense a a nation to me.

I don't like all the EU does (looking at you TTIP) or all its institutions (although ironically the "unelected officials" both me and the nationalists here dislike are mostly the products of countries refusing to let go and wanting to keep appointing officials). But I like Europe, the same way an American can like his country and wants it to stay in one piece even if he doesn't like the Electoral College and the policies of the current administration.

For that matter, I also think that the EU has been, by and large, a force for good. It's far from perfect, but the situation here is clearly better for the EU.

[Graknorke]

Why should it not be a government's responsibility? Why else would you even want one around?

To raise funds

To raise funds for..?

[Loud Whispers]

Churchill had it right when he wanted a European Union with the UK outside of it.

Why should it not be a government's responsibility? Why else would you even want one around?

To raise funds

To raise funds for..?

As the needs arise

[Graknorke]

At this point I can't tell if you're being deliberately awkward or are just having a hard time communicating what you mean.
What does "as the needs arise" even mean? What kind of thing do they need to raise funds for?

[Sergarr]

NINJAEDIT: A little coercion may be necessary. Your country's cultural and economic distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

Nowadays with internet to unite people by culture, language, religion, interests and so on. Phisical borders play smaller role. Being a nationalist I prefer national states but I think that in 21th century nations can stay healthy in any kind of political system as long as there are no discrimination.

50% of Bay12 nationalists agree: A nation does not necessarily need a state to go with it!
It's rare to find nationalists who are this progressive.

A nation does not necessarily needs a state, but it sure help to have one, in order to prevent the discrimination from happening. Just look at the history of Jews to see that. No matter what century it is, the anti-Semitic sentiments do not appear to go away at all.

[mainiac]

For that matter, I also think that the EU has been, by and large, a force for good. It's far from perfect, but the situation here is clearly better for the EU.

I would partially disagree.  While the EU is a good thing (rise incomes, avoid wars), the effects of the mismanagement of the currency imbalance have outweighed the good.  Remember it's not just Greece that is suffering, it's nearly every European economy suffering to a greater or lesser extent and a handful benefiting.  I expect that eventually a correction will happen and the good will outweigh the bad again but a lot of damage is gonna happen first.

You should get off your anti-German horse. I can see why you are against the German position economically, but don't go talking shit about a political system you apparently only understand rudimentarily.

Eh... a rudimentary understanding of the politics is all you need to understand the political economy and that's what I'm talking about.

Germany has pursued a policy of hard money for more then a decade now in the form of promoting an already large trade imbalance.  This has taken place within the context of an economy that can maintain full employment despite that hard money policy.  Any economist worth their salt futures knows that lowers the earnings of the middle class and helps those with capital (and possibly a stake in capital like a CEO or money manager).

It's sitting right there in the balance of trade and unemployment data, a huge elephant in the room.  It's pretty similar to what happened in China for a while, except China exploited it's own citizens instead of exploiting other countries.

[Owlbread]

should, not do. And it's even disputable if it should. It's not really its responsibility.

I made clear that I think it's a matter of "should" because a number of states/governments clearly do not exist for the welfare of their respective populations e.g. kleptocracies (e.g. a number of African states) or states that clearly exist for the benefit of the few/privileged like the Russian Federation or the PRC.

There's shades of grey there though - the United Kingdom is a state entirely built around the concept of keeping all the power and wealth in the hands of a small elite through centralised government, but even it has a better standard of a Welfare state than the United States through the NHS (for now, at least) and it has given token/meagre powers to the Union's constituent countries that have pushed enough for it, albeit in an unevenly distributed, partisan/political basis.

I think this is because our elite was smarter than all the others and understood that it's possible to placate people with a few morsels of what they want here and there and not have to give up any real power in the process. That's why the UK's never had a revolution.

Also, when you say "It's not really its responsibility" that's your opinion as much as the welfare stuff I've talked about is my own.