Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Remainers,are you sure the EU has no hint of Europe's dark past?Plus Brexit thoughts watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    People like you act as if we have reached an end of history but the era of the nation state will end.

    .
    This is the type of thing that most worried me about remainers.
    Global governance is seen as progressive not sinister,and it's friend corporate monopoly. The 'post democratic era' as Jack Straw enthuses about. They are all bedfellows.
    Institutions such as the family and the nation state are binding and moral in nature. Political forces that want to destroy them(New Labour anyone?) should not be trusted.
    As the previous poster points out- throughout history, people have valued tribe, it is evolutionary and human nature- the people who see themselves as entirely above this seem pseudo-sophisticated at best, and crazed at worst, for wanting an unconditionally borderless world that enforces militantly the notion of 'equality'.
    Rather than seeing themselves as having any common human traits with all(this would be simply ghastly) and asking what is the best and most civilized way to manifest such tribalism,(Civic nationalism, in my view- a civilized, non ethnic nationalism). they claim it can simply cease to exist. They refuse to see it may have civilizational purposes, that it may have driven great cultures and advances.
    The irony about this equal, united world they claim to want, is that the one form of equality there is definitely not allowed to be, is economic or class equality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) To say that our nurture is a stronger force than our nature is merely an unsubstantiated bare assertion. What makes you think technology will harmonise the culture of the world? Only peoples acceptance of certain ideas and practices makes that possible, technology can culturally divide people as unite--all you need to do is look at blogging and twitter subcultures to see that. Some ideas are indeed better than others, that doesn't mean people will recognise that they are. You have a misplaced faith in progress.

    2) Dealing with security/survival threats like terrorism or environment change is not a harbinger of some cosmopolitan world government. Few people would like things like family law, school curricular or social policy dealt with at an international level. That would be a recipe for the destruction of peoples cherished identies as well as an inculculable loss of power for the average citizen.

    3) The will for a Federal Europe equivalent to India or the United States is dream harboured by select group of people. As we are already seeing, such grand designs are coming up against a more powerful force--their own people.

    4) You merely dream of some cultural harmonisation that will justify the dismantling of national polities--If that is possible it will be won through highly authoritarian if not violent means--not an overly optimistic process of reasoned debate. NAFTA will never become the EU because no American wants a open border with Mexico let alone shared governance where the Supreme Court is no longer supreme. The AU will never become the EU because South Africans will never accept an open border with Zimbabwe or Mozambique.

    5) History is littered with failed trading blocs/monetary unions which failed to take into account pre-existing cultural and institutional norms: Latin Monetary Union, the ERM, Scandinavian monetary union etc. These were the disasters of fools who thought they were being clever.

    6) And if shared ideas or culture were enough to justify supranational unity, the nations of South America would have formed a single state years ago.

    The problem with your conception of things is that you think grand processes like technology or cultural and institutional 'harmonisation' will lead to what you want and that petty details are simply inconvenient facts to be ironed out. Poltics, let alone life has never worked that way.
    1: tell me who in the west is currently advocating going back to feudalism? Or bringing back Slavery or abolishing equal rightS? Even on the internet it's hard to find support for these views. I don't believe in linear progress for definite, but pretending progress doesn't exist is absurd.

    2: human rights are gradually trumping so called peoples rights- look at the growing movement of women's rights activists in the ME or Gay rights campaigners in Africa. Ideas are spreading like wildfire and will gradually take hold.

    3: we could well be seeing the end of the EU, but we could also see it reenergised. In any case, A) it was only by 2% and B) it hasn't happened yet anyway.

    4: In five hundred years they may well do. Sure they may not do, but five hundred years ago people would have doubted the same about Europe.

    In any case, I've only mentioned my support for a united Europe. I don't envision a world state so much as i envisage there being no real need for any government if say In 1000f years when we have colonies on Mars and have eradicated poverty.

    5: That's why their needs to be full fiscal Union.

    6: everything's possible in time.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unio...erican_Nations

    To be fair theyve been busy dealing with the fallout from US and Soviet backed dictatorships.

    I'm an optimist for sure, but I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    This is the type of thing that most worried me about remainers.
    Global governance is seen as progressive not sinister,and it's friend corporate monopoly. The 'post democratic era' as Jack Straw enthuses about. They are all bedfellows.
    How I see it a world state makes as much sense as an anarchist government: it sort of defeats the purpose.

    Institutions such as the family and the nation state are binding and moral in nature. Political forces that want to destroy them(New Labour anyone?) should not be trusted.
    How on earth did New Labour want to destroy the Family? The nation state doesn't have agency . I may as well say that my fence is moral in nature.


    As the previous poster points out- throughout history, people have valued tribe, it is evolutionary and human nature-
    I agree. I disagree that this is a fixed concept.



    the people who see themselves as entirely above this seem pseudo-sophisticated at best, and crazed at worst, for wanting an unconditionally borderless world that enforces militantly the notion of 'equality'.

    Rather than seeing themselves as having any common human traits with all(this would be simply ghastly) and asking what is the best and most civilized way to manifest such tribalism,(Civic nationalism, in my view- a civilized, non ethnic nationalism). they claim it can simply cease to exist. They refuse to see it may have civilizational purposes, that it may have driven great cultures and advances.
    The irony about this equal, united world they claim to want, is that the one form of equality there is definitely not allowed to be, is economic or class equality.
    I think equality and Liberty are both abstractions. We will never be entirely equal or entirely free.

    By equality I support the notion that we should all adhere to the same ethical principles which are universal in character. These transcend cultural or 'tribal' differences.

    eg it is inherently wrong that in certain countries they make rape victims marry their attackers as part of an honour system.

    See Sam Harris's the moral Landscape on TED talk for more .
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: tell me who in the west is currently advocating going back to feudalism? Or bringing back Slavery or abolishing equal rightS? Even on the internet it's hard to find support for these views. I don't believe in linear progress for definite, but pretending progress doesn't exist is absurd.

    2: human rights are gradually trumping so called peoples rights- look at the growing movement of women's rights activists in the ME or Gay rights campaigners in Africa. Ideas are spreading like wildfire and will gradually take hold.

    3: we could well be seeing the end of the EU, but we could also see it reenergised. In any case, A) it was only by 2% and B) it hasn't happened yet anyway.

    4: In five hundred years they may well do. Sure they may not do, but five hundred years ago people would have doubted the same about Europe.

    In any case, I've only mentioned my support for a united Europe. I don't envision a world state so much as i envisage there being no real need for any government if say In 1000f years when we have colonies on Mars and have eradicated poverty.

    5: That's why their needs to be full fiscal Union.

    6: everything's possible in time.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unio...erican_Nations

    To be fair theyve been busy dealing with the fallout from US and Soviet backed dictatorships.

    I'm an optimist for sure, but I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes.
    1) Moral progress is an incredibly vague term. What some call 'progress' others will call degeneracy. What you refer to as 'progress' is simply the fruition of a certain set of moral ideas which you subscribe to. That's all it is. Furthermore, no one needs to advocate the return of slavery on an open forum for it to return--and slavery is still very much alive in the 21st even though it is illegal everywhere. You chose the wrong example. The only constant in history is that all institutions and civilisations eventually collapse. In the long run your so called 'progress' is a comforting mirage that will unravel just like everything else that came before.

    2) Just because there are feminists in the Middle East it doesn't mean that feminism is succeeding in the Middle East. It has often been noted that women's rights were better when the Shah was in charge of Iran, then the Islamic Revolution came and wiped much of that away. Things like women's rights and status have ebbed and flowed throughout history. That's how perilous your so called 'progress' is. There are Gay rights campaigners in Africa but so what? This whole second point of yours just a random non-sequitur you threw into the debate.

    3) We could see all sorts of things 're-energised', but that isn't an argument when you don't have anything to back it up. As for you point about Brexit, yes it was a 2% margin, but don't pretend that 48% actually liked the EU, the European Union has never been popular, so many of the voters who voted remain dislike its institutions and policies like free-movement. Fervent supporters of EU integration are a small minority in this country.

    4) "In five hundred years they may well do. Sure they may not do, but five hundred years ago people would have doubted the same about Europe."--In five hundred years time humans we will live on Mars, have gills so can breathe in water, flying cars will be as abundant as Iphones: who knows anything can happen in the future right? That's just not an argument.

    5) On the point of fiscal union: European integretion creates a problem, but don't worry, more European integration is the solution. Yes currency unions can only work under the supervision of a single state. But like so many people on this issue you're so blase with the seriousness of these implications. With European institutions as the are now with their enormous lack of democratic accountability, what makes you think it will be so easy to run roughshod over the national institutions of European nations? Full fiscal union entails the abolition of national government, an end to the unique welfare states of Europe, the complete subjugation of all areas of national policy to a European treasury. Doing this would be tantamount to national suicide for the peoples of Europe--unlike yourself they care quite a bit about their country.

    6) See point 4.

    'Globalisation', 'technological progress', 'shifts in attitude'--these are just pious and abstract wishes. Human beings destroy communities as quickly and as easily as they make them. There is no reason to believe that 'shifts in attitudes' will necessarily lead to the outcomes you want. This is not a process you control.Groups like ISIS can spread their message as effectively as any western feminist, so much for your enlightened technological progress...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) Moral progress is an incredibly vague term. What some call 'progress' others will call degeneracy. What you refer to as 'progress' is simply the fruition of a certain set of moral ideas which you subscribe to. That's all it is.

    Furthermore, no one needs to advocate the return of slavery on an open forum for it to return--and slavery is still very much alive in the 21st even though it is illegal everywhere. You chose the wrong example. The only constant in history is that all institutions and civilisations eventually collapse. In the long run your so called 'progress' is a comforting mirage that will unravel just like everything else that came before.

    2) Just because there are feminists in the Middle East it doesn't mean that feminism is succeeding in the Middle East. It has often been noted that women's rights were better when the Shah was in charge of Iran, then the Islamic Revolution came and wiped much of that away. Things like women's rights and status have ebbed and flowed throughout history. That's how perilous your so called 'progress' is. There are Gay rights campaigners in Africa but so what? This whole second point of yours just a random non-sequitur you threw into the debate.

    3) We could see all sorts of things 're-energised', but that isn't an argument when you don't have anything to back it up. As for you point about Brexit, yes it was a 2% margin, but don't pretend that 48% actually liked the EU, the European Union has never been popular, so many of the voters who voted remain dislike its institutions and policies like free-movement. Fervent supporters of EU integration are a small minority in this country.

    4) "In five hundred years they may well do. Sure they may not do, but five hundred years ago people would have doubted the same about Europe."--In five hundred years time humans we will live on Mars, have gills so can breathe in water, flying cars will be as abundant as Iphones: who knows anything can happen in the future right? That's just not an argument.

    5) On the point of fiscal union: European integretion creates a problem, but don't worry, more European integration is the solution. Yes currency unions can only work under the supervision of a single state. But like so many people on this issue you're so blase with the seriousness of these implications. With European institutions as the are now with their enormous lack of democratic accountability, what makes you think it will be so easy to run roughshod over the national institutions of European nations? Full fiscal union entails the abolition of national government, an end to the unique welfare states of Europe, the complete subjugation of all areas of national policy to a European treasury. Doing this would be tantamount to national suicide for the peoples of Europe--unlike yourself they care quite a bit about their country.

    6) See point 4.

    'Globalisation', 'technological progress', 'shifts in attitude'--these are just pious and abstract wishes. Human beings destroy communities as quickly and as easily as they make them. There is no reason to believe that 'shifts in attitudes' will necessarily lead to the outcomes you want. This is not a process you control.Groups like ISIS can spread their message as effectively as any western feminist, so much for your enlightened technological progress...

    1: I do not subscribe to morality as it is generally understood as it leads to relativism (one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist etc) . I believe in a scientific ethics as put forward by Sam Harris in The moral Landscape in that science can show us the best way to human flourishing. I agree that all civilisations will fall in time. I disagree that striving to make a better world is pointless though. Whilst Slavery still does exist it is certainly. It is not as prevalent and as accepted in the past.

    2: I have already said that I do not believe that progress is linear. But, I believe we are slowly reaching a high point. Poorer areas in the third world are going to lag, but even there, things are changing. Change is the only other constant in human history.

    3: the UK has been on the forefront at blocking EU initiatives, particularly on tax evasion. With the UK gone, the EU will have a barrier removed. where's your evidence to back up that the remain voters don't like the EU?

    4: saying nothing's going to happen because of human nature isn't an argument either.

    5: a Central European bank with a directly elected EU president would be democratically viable in my opinion, certainly more so than the current arrangement. As all economies are interlinked and determined by others power is more important than full Independence. Pre euro Europe economics was mainly France and other countries begging Germany to devalue the deutche mark.

    6: Isis is currently being annihilated by the international community. By any stretch, I don't think societal progress is inevitable and will require us to fight for it.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: I do not subscribe to morality as it is generally understood as it leads to relativism (one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist etc) . I believe in a scientific ethics as put forward by Sam Harris in The moral Landscape in that science can show us the best way to human flourishing. I agree that all civilisations will fall in time. I disagree that striving to make a better world is pointless though. Whilst Slavery still does exist it is certainly. It is not as prevalent and as accepted in the past.

    2: I have already said that I do not believe that progress is linear. But, I believe we are slowly reaching a high point. Poorer areas in the third world are going to lag, but even there, things are changing. Change is the only other constant in human history.

    3: the UK has been on the forefront at blocking EU initiatives, particularly on tax evasion. With the UK gone, the EU will have a barrier removed. where's your evidence to back up that the remain voters don't like the EU?

    4: saying nothing's going to happen because of human nature isn't an argument either.

    5: a Central European bank with a directly elected EU president would be democratically viable in my opinion, certainly more so than the current arrangement. As all economies are interlinked and determined by others power is more important than full Independence. Pre euro Europe economics was mainly France and other countries begging Germany to devalue the deutche mark.

    6: Isis is currently being annihilated by the international community. By any stretch, I don't think societal progress is inevitable and will require us to fight for it.
    1) How can science prove whether the death penalty is right or wrong as opposed to any other moral theory? How can science demontrate that it is right or wrong to lie? how can science help a statesman decide whether it is morally right or wrong to declare war on his neighbours? This 'scientific ethics' is nothing original, progressives have a long standing habit of calling their particular views 'scientific' e.g. Karl Marx 'Scientific Socialism'.

    2) Change is constant, but it is not progress, it's just change. It's convenient you only cared to think about how poor countries lag, first world countries are very bit as vulnerable to decay as poor ones. In the early 20th century Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, look at it now. In the 1980s economists believed that Zimbabwe would be the first African nation to achieve first world status, look at Zimbabwe now.

    3) I never said that European leaders will not attempt at further integration, everyone knows that. The point is whether they have the mandate, the legitimacy and popular consent of their people to attempt all these things or whether they will succeed. Given the large majorities which support the reduction of immigration it is highly unlikely that that an organisation that stipulates open borders would be popular.

    4) Did I say nothing will happen in the future, or even imply that? Even for a straw man argument, that's pretty poor.

    5) A European central bank already exists. Are you trying to say that central banks should have elected presidents or are you flat out saying the EU should become one country with a single head of state and government? If your argument is the latter, this is where you run into the prejudices of the European people. Plus you don't get to decide what institutional arrangements the EU will have, you don't even have an idea of what form they will ultimately take. your suggestion has the validity of a fantasy football team.

    6) Clearly you did not even attempt to understand the point. It's not about how well ISIS is doing militarily. I said groups like ISIS are every bit as effective at getting their message across as any western feminist. The point being, technological progress does not entail the success of any particular view or political project.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) How can science prove whether the death penalty is right or wrong as opposed to any other moral theory? How can science demontrate that it is right or wrong to lie? how can science help a statesman decide whether it is morally right or wrong to declare war on his neighbours? This 'scientific ethics' is nothing original, progressives have a long standing habit of calling their particular views 'scientific' e.g. Karl Marx 'Scientific Socialism'.

    2) Change is constant, but it is not progress, it's just change. It's convenient you only cared to think about how poor countries lag, first world countries are very bit as vulnerable to decay as poor ones. In the early 20th century Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, look at it now. In the 1980s economists believed that Zimbabwe would be the first African nation to achieve first world status, look at Zimbabwe now.

    3) I never said that European leaders will not attempt at further integration, everyone knows that. The point is whether they have the mandate, the legitimacy and popular consent of their people to attempt all these things or whether they will succeed. Given the large majorities which support the reduction of immigration it is highly unlikely that that an organisation that stipulates open borders would be popular.

    4) Did I say nothing will happen in the future, or even imply that? Even for a straw man argument, that's pretty poor.

    5) A European central bank already exists. Are you trying to say that central banks should have elected presidents or are you flat out saying the EU should become one country with a single head of state and government? If your argument is the latter, this is where you run into the prejudices of the European people. Plus you don't get to decide what institutional arrangements the EU will have, you don't even have an idea of what form they will ultimately take. your suggestion has the validity of a fantasy football team.

    6) Clearly you did not even attempt to understand the point. It's not about how well ISIS is doing militarily. I said groups like ISIS are every bit as effective at getting their message across as any western feminist. The point being, technological progress does not entail the success of any particular view or political project.
    1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

    (This is the abridged version)

    2: Zimbabwe and Argentina do not share the long history of Liberal Democracy that the west does. Also human agency factors in here, is poor decisions made by Mugabe etc.

    3: open borders between European countries is not so much the issue. As Nigel Farage said, free movement wouldn't be a problem if it was with the original western members.

    4: you have implied that we have a fixed human nature. I do not believe that to be the case. Sure humans are wicked at times. There may even be at some level a genetic disposition towards this. There are things we can do though as per 1 to minimise this.

    5: yes it was the latter option. What are you on about? I pick the party that I think will most reflect my vision as to what the EU should look like, just as I would for the UK.

    6: this is true, but i think this shows the globalised nature of the conflict of ideas we are facing at the present.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

    (This is the abridged version)

    2: Zimbabwe and Argentina do not share the long history of Liberal Democracy that the west does. Also human agency factors in here, is poor decisions made by Mugabe etc.

    3: open borders between European countries is not so much the issue. As Nigel Farage said, free movement wouldn't be a problem if it was with the original western members.

    4: you have implied that we have a fixed human nature. I do not believe that to be the case. Sure humans are wicked at times. There may even be at some level a genetic disposition towards this. There are things we can do though as per 1 to minimise this.

    5: yes it was the latter option. What are you on about? I pick the party that I think will most reflect my vision as to what the EU should look like, just as I would for the UK.

    6: this is true, but i think this shows the globalised nature of the conflict of ideas we are facing at the present.
    1) As expected, this is simply a vague and revamped version of utilitarianism, it doesn't actually answer moral questions and dilemas in a way that is different to any other moral theory. There is no 'scientific ethics'. there is just science, ethics and the ethics of doing science.

    2) Having a long history of liberal democracy will not save a country from decline, just like having a long history of monarchy will not save you from republicanism. This is just wishful thinking on your part, again.

    3) Well open borders is the issue, where have you been these last few years? huge majorities of public opinion (60-75% in some cases) want immigration to be drastically reduced. Open borders with western european countries weren't a problem in the past because they made little difference, now they make a big difference so people dislike them.

    4) Human nature has not changed over time, so in that sense it is fixed. there is no such thing Neolithic human nature as opposed to medieval or modern human nature. There is no American human nature as opposed to Nigerian human nature. Human beings have their own set of psychological traits and predispositions and qualities--just like Tigers, Chimpanzees, Lions Gorillas etc.

    5) I was being careful not misconstrue your point given the host of potential options European integration could pursue. You don't necessarily need an elected President for the EU to become a single federal state. You can choose whatever political party you wish, the point I have been making and continue to hold is that your political aspirations for European Political Union are destructively naive.

    6) Its very good you recognised that. A global landscape of competing ideas does not tell you which political ideas will win.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) As expected, this is simply a vague and revamped version of utilitarianism, it doesn't actually answer moral questions and dilemas in a way that is different to any other moral theory. There is no 'scientific ethics'. there is just science, ethics and the ethics of doing science.


    2) Having a long history of liberal democracy will not save a country from decline, just like having a long history of monarchy will not save you from republicanism. This is just wishful thinking on your part, again.


    3) Well open borders is the issue, where have you been these last few years? huge majorities of public opinion (60-75% in some cases) want immigration to be drastically reduced. Open borders with western european countries weren't a problem in the past because they made little difference, now they make a big difference so people dislike them.

    4) Human nature has not changed over time, so in that sense it is fixed. there is no such thing Neolithic human nature as opposed to medieval or modern human nature. There is no American human nature as opposed to Nigerian human nature. Human beings have their own set of psychological traits and predispositions and qualities--just like Tigers, Chimpanzees, Lions Gorillas etc.

    5) I was being careful not misconstrue your point given the host of potential options European integration could pursue. You don't necessarily need an elected President for the EU to become a single federal state. You can choose whatever political party you wish, the point I have been making and continue to hold is that your political aspirations for European Political Union are destructively naive.

    6) Its very good you recognised that. A global landscape of competing ideas does not tell you which political ideas will win.
    1: Sure it has its roots in utilitarianism and like most ethics relates to the best way of how to live. It's USP is that it has an objective and universal nature whilst retaining a degree of pluralism. At the present we have either religious absolutism , realism (which I believe is a pretence ) or relativism which is ethical cancer as alternatives.

    2: sure, but it helps. The liberal democratic peace theory remains to be falsified after more than 100 years even when it works against that states interest to do so.

    3: well there you have it. By your own logic Open borders isn't the issue its the quantity. I think there are ways in which the EU can reduce the quantity.

    4: sorry, I should have clarified my position better . I believe we have a basic fixed human nature (essentially boiling down to survival) that we can mitigate through processes of civilisation. That is to say with. No other resources to call upon humans will build houses out if sticks and mud. Yet here we are building skyscrapers and airplanes etc. just because we have the potential to revert back to savages doesn't mean we shouldn't aim high any more than we shouldn't build things better than mud huts.

    5: Possibly, possibly not. Voting in any way (or not voting at all) is also frought with risks). Perhaps you could articulate your alternative Nd I might have something to work with

    . 6: I may not know which will win, but I do know which ones I would want to win and don't wish to be a passive bystander in the war of ideas. I would hope that you wouldn't want to either .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Imagine this

    Japan
    Canada
    USA
    India
    China

    Would they choose to sign up, as they are now, to:

    Free movement with trade partners.
    Trade partners making most of their laws.
    Governed by the unelected not in their country.
    Currency union with trade partner(s) where there economy will be calibrated to much more trade within this union, and less ability to make other relationships.
    A plan for a single military and foreign policy and flag with this(these) trade partner(s).
    Referendums where the constitution is not accepted ignored or held again until 'right' result
    Threatened with economic punishment if they leave and try and be sovereign and make their own relationships.

    Would they join?
    Interesting. USA is a federation of 50 odd broadly autonomous states. India (population 1.2 billion) and China (population 1.3 billion) seem to get on as a units. India specifically has over 40 official political parties and despite having only one party China does not see mass social unrest. Canada has a land mass not dissimilar to Europe and two national languages (English and French). Only Japan whose economy has been stagnant for the last 20 years is the odd one out. Are you really saying that culturally people north south east and west in these countries are the same?

    So what was your point? That large numbers of culturally, socially and politically diverse people can not cooperate under a single political entity?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    We're not talking land mass. Canada is 35-40 million people, with a pretty homogenous foundation. The US is a totally different case, again it has much more in common in foundation and a single language. China 'does not see mass unrest' because it is deeply authoritarian, that's what large states end up being to control populaces. Yes India is diverse, they were unified by the commonality of Brtiish colonization...In these cases I was pointing out that within those countries, it would never be framed, in a national debate, racist to be independent, or not to not operate on the free movement or economic terms we do, or to not wish homogenize your army or foreign policy, or to accept law making powers being held elsewhere. You have made a tangential point to avoid my rather obvious one about the dire deal and fake supposed benefits of EU membership.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: Sure it has its roots in utilitarianism and like most ethics relates to the best way of how to live. It's USP is that it has an objective and universal nature whilst retaining a degree of pluralism. At the present we have either religious absolutism , realism (which I believe is a pretence ) or relativism which is ethical cancer as alternatives.

    2: sure, but it helps. The liberal democratic peace theory remains to be falsified after more than 100 years even when it works against that states interest to do so.

    3: well there you have it. By your own logic Open borders isn't the issue its the quantity. I think there are ways in which the EU can reduce the quantity.

    4: sorry, I should have clarified my position better . I believe we have a basic fixed human nature (essentially boiling down to survival) that we can mitigate through processes of civilisation. That is to say with. No other resources to call upon humans will build houses out if sticks and mud. Yet here we are building skyscrapers and airplanes etc. just because we have the potential to revert back to savages doesn't mean we shouldn't aim high any more than we shouldn't build things better than mud huts.

    5: Possibly, possibly not. Voting in any way (or not voting at all) is also frought with risks). Perhaps you could articulate your alternative Nd I might have something to work with

    . 6: I may not know which will win, but I do know which ones I would want to win and don't wish to be a passive bystander in the war of ideas. I would hope that you wouldn't want to either .
    1) If it is simply another version of utilitarianism it will suffer the problems of utiliatarianism, it is not adding anything new to the debate other than science might discover more effective ways of discovering utility. But that would put science in its traditional role of finding out what 'is' rather than what 'ought' to be moral--which destroys the idea of 'scientific morality'. And what happens when your so called 'scientific morality' comes to conclusions which are totally inimical to your moral and political beliefs? What happens when 'scientific morality' suddenly says your human rights are actually inimical to 'human flourishing'?

    2) Well no it doesn't. In the long run being a liberal democracy doesn't prevent a society from declining materially or institutionally. Liberal democratic peace theory is about relations between states, you've simply thrown it in here here when its not relevant.

    3) Open borders are the problem, ideally British people want their government to able to decide who comes here and in what numbers, they don't want the EU to decide that on their behalf.

    4) Human beings won't revert to savagery, human beings are savages. Your original point is that human nature is malleable, civilization has done nothing to change human nature. You can aspire to whatever heights you like, but the point is your aspirations for humanity are wrong.

    5) Well I would have thought my alternative view of Europe was obvious. The alternative to European integration is no European integration.

    6) Ah but that was not your original point. You said: "I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes." Presumably, those 'shifts in attitude' are towards your points of view, but now you've admitted that you don't know whether that will be the case. .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    2: Zimbabwe and Argentina do not share the long history of Liberal Democracy that the west does. Also human agency factors in here, is poor decisions made by Mugabe etc.

    3: open borders between European countries is not so much the issue. As Nigel Farage said, free movement wouldn't be a problem if it was with the original western members.
    2)

    Portugal had a dictatorship from 1926 to 1974
    Spain from 1936 to 1975
    Italy 1922 to 1943
    Romania 1974 to 1989(Ceausescu)
    Milosevic in Serbia 1989- 91 (done for Genocide and war crimes)

    France is patchy, and a relatively new nation.

    France and the United States are rightly considered the birth places of modern democracy. But while Americans have enjoyed the political and institutional stability of the "one and indivisible Republic" for over 200 years, the French since 1789 have experienced a succession of short-lived regimes: a Directoire, a consulate, two empires, two monarchies, and five republics, as well as the Vichy regime during World War II. In France, as one President of the Fifth Republic has noted, political crises tend to lead to institutional crises which threaten the regime itself. In such moments, the French have thrice heeded the call of charismatic and prestigious leaders (Napoleon I, Napoleon III, and Marshall Pétain) whose temperaments and politics paid short shrift to democracy. But twice they have turned to General Charles de Gaulle, who led the French Resistance against the Nazis and, in 1958, founded France's current regime, the Fifth Republic. To date, it has proven a robust, prosperous and stable democracy.

    Then you have the former USSR states.

    Greece had a dictatorship from 1967-1974.

    Turkey has had coup d'etats(three I can find) and now many are worried Erdogan is on the road to dictatorship.

    Germany...well, we know.

    Poland

    In many respects, the Second Republic fell short of the high expectations of 1918. As happened elsewhere in Central Europe, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, the attempt to implant democracy did not succeed. Governments polarized between right- and left-wing factions, neither of which was prepared to honor the actions taken by the other.[21][22]

    In March 1968, student demonstrations at Warsaw University broke out in the wake of the government's banning of the performance of a play by Adam Mickiewicz (Dziady, written in 1824) at the National Theatre in Warsaw earlier that year,[137] because of its alleged "anti-Soviet references". Subsequently state security and ORMO units attacked protesting university students in several major cities.[138]

    In what became known as the March 1968 events, Moczar used the spontaneous and informal celebrations of the outcome of the 1967 Arab–Israeli war and the Warsaw theatre affair as pretexts to launch an anti-intellectual and anti-Semitic (officially designated as "anti-Zionist" press campaign, whose real goal was to weaken the pro-reform liberal party faction and attack other circles.[17][25][138] Thousands of generally secular and integrated people of Jewish origin lost their employment and some 15,000 Jews emigrated between 1967 and 1971.[139] Of prewar Europe's largest Jewish community, only several thousand people remained in Poland.[140]

    Other victims were college students, many of whom were expelled from their institutions and had their careers destroyed, academic teachers who tried to defend the students and the academic institutions themselves: Warsaw University had several departments administratively dissolved.[k] Liberal intelligentsia members, Jewish or not, were removed from the government and other places of employment. Leftist intellectuals and student leaders lost what was left of their faith in the ostensibly socialist government. Finally the Party itself was purged of many thousand suspect members, people who somehow did not fit the new environment of intolerance and hatred

    On 13 December 1981, claiming that the country was on the verge of economic and civil breakdown, and alleging a danger of Soviet intervention,[210] General Wojciech Jaruzelski began a crack-down on Solidarity. Martial law was declared, the free labor union was suspended and most of its leaders detained.[17] Several thousand citizens were interned or imprisoned and much larger numbers were subjected to various forms of harassment.[209] Polish state militia (Milicja Obywatelska, the police) and paramilitaryriot policeZOMO suppressed the strike action and demonstrations. Military forces entered industrial enterprises to clamp down on the independent union movement.[211] A series of violent attacks included the pacification of Wujek Coal Mine during which 9 people were killed.[155] The martial law offensive was directed primarily against workers and their Union; they, rather than intelligentsia activists, were the object of the most brutal treatment.[202] The authorities succeeded in imposing on members of Solidarity an individual and collective trauma, from which the broken mass movement would not be able to recover.[195] The Catholic Church strove to exert on Solidarity a moderating influence both before and after the martial law.[212]

    Initially, the regime leadership intended to remold Solidarity into a compliant union, stripped of its intelligentsia advisers and compatible with the state socialist system. The failure to incite most ranking Solidarity leaders to collaborate, especially Wałęsa's refusal to extend any cooperation along this course of action, resulted in the government adopting the goal of total liquidation of the union movement.[213]

    Strikes and protests followed, but were not nearly as widespread as those of August 1980.[202] The last mass street demonstrations that Solidarity was able to muster occurred on 31 August 1982, the second anniversary of the Gdańsk agreements.[214] The "Military Council of National Salvation" banned Solidarity officially on 8 October.[215] Martial law was formally lifted in July 1983, though many heightened controls on civil liberties and political life, as well as food rationing, remained in place throughout the mid-to-late 1980s.[216] With all the restrictions, however, "the official cultural realm remained far more open than it was prior to 1980" and "cultural policy continued to be the most open in all of Eastern Europe".[217] Among the concessions in the civil and political rights area granted by the troubled regime were the establishment of the Constitutional Tribunal in 1982 and of the Polish Ombudsman office in 1987.


    http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/2...e-dictatorship



    I'm sure there's more about Eastern Europe. That's enough though.



    3)


    It is an issue when we have very disparate economies, and poor ones, exacerbated by the single currency and workers being used for low wages, hence people in those richer economies on the low end of the labour market being given very marginal options and terrible quality of life or no quality of life.
    It is also an issue that Europe seemingly has no strong border controls and even where it does, the leaders of Europe are very pro-open borders anyhow. Of course the corporates love cheap Labour, and maybe the politicians love divided people, especially poor people. It is also clear what is going on within Islam and what swathes of muslim migrants will mean. ISIS explicitly stated they would use the crisis to flood Europe with terrorists.
    So for self-described 'progressives' and the left, many of whom are cossetted from these effects(and more) to self-servingly and contemptuously proclaim what is best for all in this regard and call everyone stupid for opposing it is just insufferable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) If it is simply another version of utilitarianism it will suffer the problems of utiliatarianism, it is not adding anything new to the debate other than science might discover more effective ways of discovering utility. But that would put science in its traditional role of finding out what 'is' rather than what 'ought' to be moral--which destroys the idea of 'scientific morality'. And what happens when your so called 'scientific morality' comes to conclusions which are totally inimical to your moral and political beliefs? What happens when 'scientific morality' suddenly says your human rights are actually inimical to 'human flourishing'?

    2) Well no it doesn't. In the long run being a liberal democracy doesn't prevent a society from declining materially or institutionally. Liberal democratic peace theory is about relations between states, you've simply thrown it in here here when its not relevant.

    3) Open borders are the problem, ideally British people want their government to able to decide who comes here and in what numbers, they don't want the EU to decide that on their behalf.

    4) Human beings won't revert to savagery, human beings are savages. Your original point is that human nature is malleable, civilization has done nothing to change human nature. You can aspire to whatever heights you like, but the point is your aspirations for humanity are wrong.

    5) Well I would have thought my alternative view of Europe was obvious. The alternative to European integration is no European integration.

    6) Ah but that was not your original point. You said: "I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes." Presumably, those 'shifts in attitude' are towards your points of view, but now you've admitted that you don't know whether that will be the case. .
    1: 'Ought' is subjective. 'Is' isn't Whether or not somebody ought to suffer us disputable. The fact somebody is suffering isn't (for the most part. If certain human rights are proven to a large degree to be detrimental then we should investigate what they are and reach an informed decision based on reason and evidence rather than say instinct or superstition. 2: as we are discussing States at all levels it is relevant if we are witnessing a decline in conflict between certain states with the same ruling ideology, as this shows a measure of progress.3: the British people want lower taxes, better funded public services, cheaper energy and a cleaner environment despite the contradictions in these things. The British people want all sorts of different things. Your presumptive arrogance on speaking on behalf of the entire nation ( as I notice brexiters tend to do) is far more worrying and dangerous than having an idea as to what I think would be the best path for the country to take. 4: humans have very clearly managed to find ways to manage and control their baser instincts. Whilst no method is infallible, we know that some methods are better than others. 5: More broader. If we are still savages in your view who won't change, what is the point??6: I obviously can't guarantee they will but I think there is a very good chance they will do. I can't guarantee I'll be alive tomorrow, but I'm not going to go out and blow my savings on that possibility. Of course, i am also taking a risk in predicting and working towards a desired future- but as I see it, the risk is just as likely if not more so as part of independent states than as part of a collective. More so, in my opinion. Self interested states have no inclination to rescue those unfortunate souls in a 'sovereign' dictatorship such as North Korea. If we did have a multi state tyranny it is in every Everyone's interest to defeat it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Your presumptive arrogance on speaking on behalf of the entire nation ( as I notice brexiters tend to do) .
    Oh, the irony. A political class where 75% believe in something that 52% of the public, on a 72% turnout, ignores people for years and does exactly that. If you broke that down to the Labour party there would be a vastly greater disconnect, and they are right now fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they the MP's select their leaders and not record numbers of people now engaged with democracy who want something totally different. What interests have anyone in Remain establishment(and the advocates of the whole political paradigm that goes along with it) shown in anyone else? They have 'spoken for the entire nation', and ignored them and shown them contempt, for two decades. They have got away with their arrogance, and their presumption that they could **** people over and trick them long enough. Yes they still want to do that outside the EU, but one layers is gone, and they are not so sure now. It does not have to continue and they are rightly rocked.

    Look at both Brexit and Corbyn support, they are unique in their high turnouts and engagement, and the whole political, and media class despises it. So they despise the democratic will. The status quo and consensus politics of the last twenty years have fed off apathy and disgust and people just reluctantly voting in some prison-state like way for something marginally less awful, when there is little real choice. The moment liberty, and a sniff of changing something with representative democracy, comes to town, they loathe it. What does this say about the media, and the politicians elected to represent people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    in the wake of everything that has happened in the last month, I can't believe most of those who supported Brexit, you were literally conned, and Theresa May will deliver us the least-Brexit style Brexit possible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    in the wake of everything that has happened in the last month, I can't believe most of those who supported Brexit, you were literally conned, and Theresa May will deliver us the least-Brexit style Brexit possible.
    Wrong. Italy will leave the Euro next, then there is the French election..they have had enough of open borders. The EU is, rightly, doomed. Back to sovereign nations, running their currencies, we can co-operate in Nato and the UN. And maybe there will be some remainers, a much more two tier Europe, the remainers that consider themselves too small for independence will be dominated by Germany.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Wrong. Italy will leave the Euro next, then there is the French election..they have had enough of open borders. The EU is, rightly, doomed. Back to sovereign nations, running their currencies, we can co-operate in Nato and the UN. And maybe there will be some remainers, a much more two tier Europe, the remainers that consider themselves too small for independence will be dominated by Germany.
    wanna bet £10?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    wanna bet £10?
    Can't do it on here. But Italy will leave the Euro and then maybe the EU. The EU is doomed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) If it is simply another version of utilitarianism it will suffer the problems of utiliatarianism, it is not adding anything new to the debate other than science might discover more effective ways of discovering utility. But that would put science in its traditional role of finding out what 'is' rather than what 'ought' to be moral--which destroys the idea of 'scientific morality'. And what happens when your so called 'scientific morality' comes to conclusions which are totally inimical to your moral and political beliefs? What happens when 'scientific morality' suddenly says your human rights are actually inimical to 'human flourishing'?

    2) Well no it doesn't. In the long run being a liberal democracy doesn't prevent a society from declining materially or institutionally. Liberal democratic peace theory is about relations between states, you've simply thrown it in here here when its not relevant.

    3) Open borders are the problem, ideally British people want their government to able to decide who comes here and in what numbers, they don't want the EU to decide that on their behalf.

    4) Human beings won't revert to savagery, human beings are savages. Your original point is that human nature is malleable, civilization has done nothing to change human nature. You can aspire to whatever heights you like, but the point is your aspirations for humanity are wrong.

    5) Well I would have thought my alternative view of Europe was obvious. The alternative to European integration is no European integration.

    6) Ah but that was not your original point. You said: "I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes." Presumably, those 'shifts in attitude' are towards your points of view, but now you've admitted that you don't know whether that will be the case. .
    1: 'Ought' is subjective. 'Is' isn't Whether or not somebody ought to suffer us disputable. The fact somebody is suffering isn't (for the most part. If certain human rights are proven to a large degree to be detrimental then we should investigate what they are and reach an informed decision based on reason and evidence rather than say instinct or superstition. 2: as we are discussing States at all levels it is relevant if we are witnessing a decline in conflict between certain states with the same ruling ideology, as this shows a measure of progress.3: the British people want lower taxes, better funded public services, cheaper energy and a cleaner environment despite the contradictions in these things. The British people want all sorts of different things. Your presumptive arrogance on speaking on behalf of the entire nation ( as I notice brexiters tend to do) is far more worrying and dangerous than having an idea as to what I think would be the best path for the country to take. 4: humans have very clearly managed to find ways to manage and control their baser instincts. Whilst no method is infallible, we know that some methods are better than others. 5: More broader. If we are still savages in your view who won't change, what is the point??6: I obviously can't guarantee they will but I think there is a very good chance they will do. I can't guarantee I'll be alive tomorrow, but I'm not going to go out and blow my savings on that possibility. Of course, i am also taking a risk in predicting and working towards a desired future- but as I see it, the risk is just as likely if not more so as part of independent states than as part of a collective. More so, in my opinion. Self interested states have no inclination to rescue those unfortunate souls in a 'sovereign' dictatorship such as North Korea. If we did have a multi state tyranny it is in every Everyone's interest to defeat it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2016
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.