AaronMk

Brexit

Recommended Posts

Jolly Jack is always good for pushing propaganda. I think the 'people didn't know what they were voting for' is the media's way of throwing a hissy fit that Britan voted to get out of the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Foxx said:

Jolly Jack is always good for pushing propaganda. I think the 'people didn't know what they were voting for' is the media's way of throwing a hissy fit that Britan voted to get out of the EU.

It's not even media bitching, it was shown through actual trends that no one knew what would happen if they left. And what the fuck was even being voted on.

 

Reposting for context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-06-24 at 6:14 PM, "User" said:

Time will tell whether or not this decision makes sense.  I've heard all the talking points from both sides and studied the issue myself and while I see an argument can be made for xenophobia from some camps regarding the situation in Britain the fact that this nationalism is getting larger with each passing week all over Europe and America should clearly say something and be ringing alarm bells all over Brussels and the rest of the continent. I agree with you that the EU needs major institutional change but it drives me nuts to see every argument for nationalism or independence portrayed as xenophobia, being politically incorrect, or some other "oh don't offend now!" diatribe when the intent isn't there to being with.  Collectivism is not the be all and end all - at least not in the immediate future   You can't integrate entirely with such different cultures all over the continent right away, these things take time.  How upset would you be if people who were unelected not from your country were making decisions on how you live your life to your detriment. 

One thing we can both agree is that the EU needs to change, it has the right idea, but it's trying to do too many things too quickly. The power needs to come back to the people and not in unelected individuals or elites that control the destinies of those everywhere else. 

I fully agree with your standing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2016 at 5:26 PM, Alpha268 said:

@AaronMk.

Apparently tho, people start to realize what they have voted for...

total_defeat_by_jollyjack-da7yer2.jpg

Everything's been said.

 

This is more than balanced out by the number of people who were terrified that leaving the EU would destroy Britain overnight, and who voted to remain out of fear.

There were persistent stories flying around that Britain was suddenly going to collapse, or that it would revoke all kinds of human rights. People honestly thought that right after  Brexit the government was going to start expelling foreign nationals, and all kinds of other things.

These people now realize that the sky hasn't fallen, and that 90% of their lives will remain unchanged. If there were another referendum they would change their mind and vote to leave, because they now know that the scare stories were all false.

Just look at what happened in Scotland after their referendum. Support for independence is now lower now that people realize that England has no plans to walk all over them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Revanche said:

Highly relevant 

R.I.P. European Union.

Good riddance!

I don't believe in borderless societies. As much as I'm open to trade and communication.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lord Seraph said:

Good riddance!

I don't believe in borderless societies. As much as I'm open to trade and communication.

 

 

I, for one, don't believe in borders at all. I consider them to be contrived concepts that exist only within the minds of people, and not "reality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Revanche said:

I, for one, don't believe in borders at all. I consider them to be contrived concepts that exist only within the minds of people, and not "reality".

Nations and their people should have more control over their own laws. Not some overbearing unelected entity.

Europe is committing economic, societal, and cultural suicide by importing too many migrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What defines a nation or a people? Why should the people from *draws weird shape on map* be considered different from the people of *draws another weird shape on map*?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Revanche said:

What defines a nation or a people? Why should the people from *draws weird shape on map* be considered different from the people of *draws another weird shape on map*?

Different places have different ways of life.

Different laws. Some laws work of some, not others.

There is no denying we as a species are tribal creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are different on the individual level, though. And that which is right and just, and thus should be the law surely cannot be said to be dependent upon location. It must be universal, or nonexistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Revanche said:

People are different on the individual level, though. And that which is right and just, and thus should be the law surely cannot be said to be dependent upon location. It must be universal, or nonexistent.

Humans are also territorial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even see fit to factor humanity into my equations, as I feel true objective thought would discount circumstantial matters, such as being inherently territorial. Of course, being territorial doesn't extend to nations, really.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Seraph said:

Nations and their people should have more control over their own laws. Not some overbearing unelected entity.

Europe is committing economic, societal, and cultural suicide by importing too many migrants.

I died a little on the inside when reading the last sentence.

From an economic point of view, we need more people in Europe. It is no secret that the demographic change will have a huge impact on our economies when we fail to raise more children. The "native" population is shrinking in European countries, and if we close our borders now for immigration, that would be economic suicide, as we fail to provide the many needed workers for economic growth.

Same for the society: Without a huge base of works, many systems implemented on a social level couldnt be in effect: In fact, healthcare and pension will be supported by less and less people if we dont have a growing population.

And cultural suicide? Dont you think that opening borders for other countries could also be a way of cultural enrichment? How many things our culture can learn from people with different views?

4 hours ago, Revanche said:

I don't even see fit to factor humanity into my equations, as I feel true objective thought would discount circumstantial matters, such as being inherently territorial. Of course, being territorial doesn't extend to nations, really.

Additionally: I have always supported a strong European Union, and I actually hoped that the EU would take over more and more responsibilities. There is, in my opinion, no need for nation states within Europe, as Europe can only stand up when working together. Our economic power will evaporate in a few centuries, and so will our political power, if we fail to cooperate.

At the end, I can agree on the idea of a nationless global society. However, for that to work, we will need to see a working example, where a supernational institution can successfully lead a conglomerate of nation states, where every state is successfully integrated.

That being said, of course the Brexit was a horrible idea, but I hope the EU learns from its mistakes (and so does the british population, really).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alpha268 said:

At the end, I can agree on the idea of a nationless global society. However, for that to work, we will need to see a working example, where a supernational institution can successfully lead a conglomerate of nation states, where every state is successfully integrated.

 

A wholly integrated and capable conglomerate would simply become another, larger nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Revanche said:

A wholly integrated and capable conglomerate would simply become another, larger nation.

So you want anarchy? If there's no nation then there is no government and if there is no government there is no society. We would have no laws and if someone decided to break into your house and set it on fire you'd have to deal with it yourself, no fire department or police. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

 

As for the one conglomerate nation I have this to say. Most of us in the U.S. seem dissatisfied with the country and i'd like to pin that primarily on the country being too big and communication lost between the people and the Government. Having multiple nations is good for two reasons: 1) No one that is truly evil can control the world easily, imagine if Hitler had been elected to be president of the world. 2) It allows other nations to see what doesn't work and topples a nation so they can avoid it, if the world is one giant nation then the scale of a mistake could cause permanent devastation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to eradicate borders, not eliminate organisation in society.

Mathematically speaking, no number of nations is better in order to prevent evil, as it won't affect the overall amount of evil ruling. It's no better or worse if the whole world is evil some of the time or if only part of the world is evil all of the time, inherently. One could always forsake such centralised government to avoid the risk of an evil rule.

Mistakes today can still (and do) cause permanent devastation in today's nations, and a unified man would not have to live in the same manner everywhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Revanche said:

I want to eradicate borders, not eliminate organisation in society.

Mathematically speaking, no number of nations is better in order to prevent evil, as it won't affect the overall amount of evil ruling. It's no better or worse if the whole world is evil some of the time or if only part of the world is evil all of the time, inherently. One could always forsake such centralised government to avoid the risk of an evil rule.

Mistakes today can still (and do) cause permanent devastation in today's nations, and a unified man would not have to live in the same manner everywhere.

 

If the world is ruled by singular nation then if someone evil is elected to run the country it would be catastrophic. They would have control of the police and with no outside nation to fight against them they would have control to do whatever they want. Imagine what would have happened in WW2 if we didn't have other nations to oppose Hitler once he came to power.There are evil people in the world and we can't prevent that but by them only having a small chunk of the world they only affect a small chunk of the human race once they get into power. A country without a centralized government is a just a bunch of smaller countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other nations tend to allow evil so long as it's not in their country. And we have evil rulers now, too. Sure, they don't rule everything simultaneously, but neither do the good rulers. A word of 5% evil 100% of the time and a world of 100% evil 5% of the time are no better or worse than one another. Furthermore, these flaws arise from the centralisation of governmental power, which is not in any way a necessity. A country without a centralised government is not a bunch of smaller countries unless it has numerous centralised governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MoltenKitten said:

So you want anarchy? If there's no nation then there is no government and if there is no government there is no society. We would have no laws and if someone decided to break into your house and set it on fire you'd have to deal with it yourself, no fire department or police. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

 

As for the one conglomerate nation I have this to say. Most of us in the U.S. seem dissatisfied with the country and i'd like to pin that primarily on the country being too big and communication lost between the people and the Government. Having multiple nations is good for two reasons: 1) No one that is truly evil can control the world easily, imagine if Hitler had been elected to be president of the world. 2) It allows other nations to see what doesn't work and topples a nation so they can avoid it, if the world is one giant nation then the scale of a mistake could cause permanent devastation. 

 

And they wonder why right wing nationalism is on the rise and backlash against globalism. The politically correct left has created this monster wave of resentment by pushing the boundaries too far.

 

8 hours ago, Alpha268 said:

And cultural suicide? Dont you think that opening borders for other countries could also be a way of cultural enrichment? How many things our culture can learn from people with different views?

If your idea of "cultural enrichment" is importing barbaric standards from trash heap regions of the world that is intolerant and incompatible to 1st world values. I feel sorry for you.

I fail to see how anyone can tolerate ideologies that promote intolerance.  Borders are supposed to keep things like this out of nations that don't want it. Borders protect.

Populations reach equilibrium overtime. The reason why Europe and other first world countries hasn't been having high birthrates is because of the low mortality rate as a result of higher standards of living. They had a sustainable population.

 

I'm all for open communications, sanctioned trade and immigration though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe as a continent was already culturally rich and diverse.

They had the most brilliant minds that helped lead to first world standards in the top nations of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Revanche said:

A wholly integrated and capable conglomerate would simply become another, larger nation.

Im not sure if you got my thought there. A nationless society still needs a government. This government, however, needs to watch over the whole world, basically making the world one single nation. With only one "human" nation, there are no other nations, and with that, you basically have a nationless society, where the world is governed by one system. No more "us" and "them" (at least when looking at nations).

18 hours ago, Lord Seraph said:

If your idea of "cultural enrichment" is importing barbaric standards from trash heap regions of the world that is intolerant and incompatible to 1st world values. I feel sorry for you.

I fail to see how anyone can tolerate ideologies that promote intolerance.  Borders are supposed to keep things like this out of nations that don't want it. Borders protect.

Populations reach equilibrium overtime. The reason why Europe and other first world countries hasn't been having high birthrates is because of the low mortality rate as a result of higher standards of living. They had a sustainable population.

I and feel sorry that you have to come to belittle me over a contrary opinion, while generalizing a whole cultural group as intolerant and incompatible to values of the first world. We both know that continous talking over this will lead to nothing but spite, so I refrain from additional comments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A topic that is sort of being hit here but no one is hitting it right on the nose though Revanche is very close is the term called the Imagined Community. This was a term coined by Benedict Anderson who I have had two long session of my history classes discussing the concept. The fact of the matter is that much like the hour and the minute communities don't actually exist. The concept of the border and difference is entirely an animistic concept. To hit another point here with what was Said about comparing the US to the EU is the fact that a lot of people from the US are looking at the EU as if it is similar to how the US governs states. While it is true that the EU sees a lot of varying cultures none of these cultures are as individualist as many of the styles/cultures you see in the US. Last thing is I see the discussion that One Ruler could get control of the world and rule it. Fact of the matter is this just wouldn't happen. While you say one leader can get control of the world the system would not allow it to happen. If we were to have a world government it would just end up being a more active style of the UN which features a huge amount of checks and balances that requires a considerable agreement on the parts of many not just one. Even look towards the US here. If a President of the Earth system was enacted their would still be a Senate/Council underneath them that would keep the checks and balances in place. Think about it how many times has the president actually been able to just go we are doing this and no one can stop me. The only major example in recent history that comes to my head is the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which has to do with the Vietnam War which the entire US and further populations understand how poorly that went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cyber Commander said:

A topic that is sort of being hit here but no one is hitting it right on the nose though Revanche is very close is the term called the Imagined Community. This was a term coined by Benedict Anderson who I have had two long session of my history classes discussing the concept. The fact of the matter is that much like the hour and the minute communities don't actually exist. The concept of the border and difference is entirely an animistic concept. To hit another point here with what was Said about comparing the US to the EU is the fact that a lot of people from the US are looking at the EU as if it is similar to how the US governs states. While it is true that the EU sees a lot of varying cultures none of these cultures are as individualist as many of the styles/cultures you see in the US. Last thing is I see the discussion that One Ruler could get control of the world and rule it. Fact of the matter is this just wouldn't happen. While you say one leader can get control of the world the system would not allow it to happen. If we were to have a world government it would just end up being a more active style of the UN which features a huge amount of checks and balances that requires a considerable agreement on the parts of many not just one. Even look towards the US here. If a President of the Earth system was enacted their would still be a Senate/Council underneath them that would keep the checks and balances in place. Think about it how many times has the president actually been able to just go we are doing this and no one can stop me. The only major example in recent history that comes to my head is the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which has to do with the Vietnam War which the entire US and further populations understand how poorly that went.

The US government has checks and balances too but if you ask 90% of the population they will say it's corrupt. The only thing keeping the Government from making our lives hell is the threat of war. If there's no other governments in the world then they can do whatever they want because there's no one to stop them. Not to mention that pre ww2 Germany also had checks and balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lord Seraph said:

Populations reach equilibrium overtime.

They don't. They really, really don't. If the conditions exist to grow, they will, even if the results are disastrous and ultimately have a negative effect.

 

5 hours ago, Alpha268 said:

Im not sure if you got my thought there. A nationless society still needs a government. This government, however, needs to watch over the whole world, basically making the world one single nation.

You spoke of a 

On 28/08/2016 at 11:24 AM, Alpha268 said:

supernational institution can successfully lead a conglomerate of nation states

, not a unified world-nation. It was that which I spoke of when I said that it would "simply be a larger nation", as it would be, so long as other nations existed. If there is only one "side", there are no "sides", if they're exist more sides that teh chosen one, even if it was composed of distinct former entities and is vast, those "sides" remain.

3 hours ago, MoltenKitten said:

The US government has checks and balances too but if you ask 90% of the population they will say it's corrupt. The only thing keeping the Government from making our lives hell is the threat of war. If there's no other governments in the world then they can do whatever they want because there's no one to stop them. Not to mention that pre ww2 Germany also had checks and balances.

Other countries likely wouldn't go to war with the U.S. government if it went evil. Furthermore, they don't have the kind of power of which you speak, after all, the people who actually enforce their will, cops, soldiers, etc., would likely be opposed to evil actions on an ideological basis (although I don't doubt their capacity for such actions).

 

Maybe I should just post my political views in order to get it out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now