|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:52 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 04:53, 02 Aug 2013.
|
If you want to work less, can't you just negotiate with your employer? Thing is some people want to work like six hours a day while still earning as much as eight hours of work a day. That won't work. You can't earn more than what you produce.
also I wouldn't really say France is a rich country, don't they have huge debts? there have been talks of it becoming the next Greece which honestly wouldn't surprise given the direction that country is heading
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 06:43 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 06:44, 02 Aug 2013.
|
Quote:
You can't earn more than what you produce.
Of course you can, there are people who produce nothing and earn ridiculous amount of money. It's also possible and actually predominant in certain economic sectors and countries to earn less than you produce (effort > benefit). Such economic paradoxes have been around for ages, mainly because dumb things like "always rational behaviour" or "freedom of negotiation" are presumed.
Quote:
also I wouldn't really say France is a rich country, don't they have huge debts
So this makes the US a third world country then?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 06:50 AM |
|
|
You and Xerox are using different meanings of the word "earn". You're using it to mean something like "obtain", and he means "acquire through free exchange". If you steal or plunder something, you're not earning it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 07:10 AM |
|
|
|
"Free exchange" is another oversimplistic nonsense.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 07:21 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
Yes, that is one of the prime problems. Citizenship should be attained by working and paying taxes. Citizenship gives you access to wellfare benefits. Those who use the wellfare state become the same people who fund it. Social turism removed, wellfare problems solved.
Yes,because EU countries are accepting people in droves, its not like you have to work and overcome a catch 22 situation and finally live while working illegally up to 10 years to get a citizenship and somehow survive there.
Yep, people are totally exploiting immigration laws.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 07:29 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
"Free exchange" is another oversimplistic nonsense.
If you give something to me willingly in return for me giving something else to me willingly, it's free exchange. If I use force or threaten to use force on you, or if I initiate fraud, it's not free exchange. Nothing oversimplistic about it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 07:34 AM |
|
|
|
Except that this doesn't exist in reality. Your idea of "threatening" is waving a gun in front of someone or otherwise directly forcing him to do something. There are hundreds of indirect threats, all of them related to social inequality, which make the "free exchange" purely ideal - just because you and the other libertarians pretend that they don't exist, it doesn't mean that they really don't.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 08:43 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
No. I think people like yourself are to blame for investing nothing in trying to create a working multicultural society.
Doomforge said:
Nobody needs to kick out anyone. Just get rid of the ridiculous welfare for breeding, and voila.
You both prone the total eradication of the social welfare and in same time emphasize for a multicultural society, but have you the slightest idea on how all this is contradicting?
The welfare, major cultural achievement of the western societies, is a comprehensive system designed to protect citizens from the hazards of an industrial, capitalist economy. It's design is combined with several state subsidized traineeships, for everyone getting out from universities or schools. This was carefully imagined to avoid abuses and work around, and to keep an economical and ethical balance. This balance is nullified when it comes to immigrants which did not benefit from those traineeships in their mother country, therefore they skip the most important step, and by this will exploit only the social welfare effects, when ignoring the causes.
"Multiculturalism" is a recent invented term, used by our politicians which are for the most unable to deal with uncontrolled immigration, and used forth and back without any decency. Hypocrisy is the only word to describe people who live in the western freedom, yet support systems of thought which deny that freedom. Liberalism is betrayed by other people who put the comfort of immigrant minorities before the insistence on an irreducible list of western civic values: democracy, mutual tolerance, equality of liberty, the rule of law. Let's hear it from the mullahs, right and left...eh?
No one is arguing for mono-cultural uniformity, nor there is any disrespect implied for the cultural varieties that enrich our countries. But we're learning that, out of concern for the defense of immigrants, we tiptoe round the values and norms that constitute the obligations that are central to being European, and the policies to serve them.
So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious frankly, even fearful, to stand up to them.
Rousseau wrote that man by nature is not rational. Prior to political life, in what Rousseau called the state of nature, men were solitary beings, having little or no interaction with one another. Solitary man lacked language, because he had no need for language. And if man did not possess language, he could not possess reason. For Rousseau, man by nature is not altogether different than any of the irrational beasts. Man began to speak, and therefore think, by some chance natural catastrophe, such as an earthquake or volcano, that brought men together and forced them to interact with one another. From Rousseau's premise, the very nature of language, and the elements of human thought, reflect nothing but the environmental and cultural forces that produced them. All human language and morals, political and religious, are the varying and purposeless effects of varying and purposeless physical causes. Reason became one of the many customs or habits of particular peoples living together in particular places at particular times.
Upon Rousseau's theoretical hypothesis, instead of pursuing the truth about man and how he ought to live, anthropology, and its "multicultural" disciples, assume that reason is incapable of telling us how man should live, because reason itself is but an invention of different cultures. As evidence they trot out various examples of the many disagreements between different cultures about basic moral and political questions. From this multiplicity of perspectives, they conclude that there is no objective ground upon which we might judge or rank the many cultures of the earth, the values of each culture are equally valid compared to the values of any other culture.
This is the intellectual basis of multiculturalism, and its emphasis on diversity. As there are many interpretations of right and wrong, the only thing we can know is truly wrong is the belief that we can know true right from true wrong. It means, therefore, it is wrong to think we can objectively distinguish civilized peoples from barbarous peoples. Immediately, however, certain problems arise for the multiculturalism, the biggest being the obvious fact that multiculturalism is a product of one culture, modern western philosophy. Consider that nowhere in tribal Africa, or in the Balkans, or among militant Islamists, or in Iraq, or in Communist China or North Korea is there any demand for multicultural diversity. In short, multiculturalism is, itself, not multicultural.
Whether we reject or redefine patriotism, the multiculturalist believes patriotism must be subdued and subordinated to the "wider" claims of multicultural diversity. When thinking about the politics of multiculturalism, we should recall that multiculturalism not only exercises leftist political influence, it is a product of those politics. Some multiculturalists try to defend the advent of the term "multiculturalism" as a new, positive way to speak about diversity. In some sense this is true. But it was not by chance that the term "multiculturalism" was coined at the same moment, in the mid to late 1980, when race-based preferences and quotas were coming under increasing public and legal scrutiny.
Intellectually, multiculturalism is indefensible and embarrassingly inconsistent. It is refuted and undermined by its own argument. Politically, multiculturalism is dangerous. Multiculturalism represents nothing less than the political suicide of the Europe. Multiculturalism attempts to undermine the good principles upon which Europe is built, and it is corrosive of the patriotic spirit that fills the hearts of free men and women. Though it operates much more subtly, multiculturalism is no less a threat to our free institutions than the terrorists using bombs or planes. It is the test of the European people whether they have the intelligence to identify multiculturalism for the mistake it is, and the resolve to ensure that it does not triumph.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 10:15 AM |
|
|
Correction:
"Multiculturalism" is a phrase coined in a very happy time - at least in Germany - when the general city outlook and cultural offerings were enriched by things like outlandish restaurants or snackshops, Asian foodstuff, Indian trinkets, folkloristic musicians and street festivals and a general rise in tolerance because everything just seemed to come together, and in fact the WORKING IDEA of this was a factor in the creation of the EU.
Germany has had a lot of muslims themselves - we INVITED additional workers from Turkey, because we needed workers for the simple stuff, and religion has never been much of a problem with them.
So it's neither the muslimic religion in general nor the immigrants that are at the root of the problem, nor is multiculturalism impossible - the US have been multicultural from the start, and Britain has been having this as long either, considering their Irish, Scottish and Welsh people and later the people from the colonies.
No, it would seem that the problem is much more RECENT and needs a more differentiated discussion, not this general witchhunting on one side and the glorification of some humanist ideal on the other. This is definitely not a black/white problem.
P.S.: I know from personal experience that 30 years ago a lot of French complained about the JEWS controlling too big a part of the business world.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 10:48 AM |
|
|
Oh, everyone knows that jews control a big part of the business world, is just a censure issue, you can't talk about anymore without going in troubles. Now, there is no problem whoever controls anything, jews, indiands or klingons, but it becomes a problem from the moment this clique acts following racial preferences, which could be hardly proved with all the censure around. We created our own vicious circle.
And immigration as concept is not a problem, we all move out and in, more or less. It is the percentages who changed through years and became a serious threat. From 250 000 immigrants rushing every year in France, more than half are illiterate and impossible to integrate in a system designed to take care of us by offering apprenticeship steps at various moments of life. This is where cultures are clashing, and when the notion of multiculturalims reveals only being a turnabout.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 01:56 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 14:00, 02 Aug 2013.
|
Salamandre: I agree with most of your post. I am against political multiculturalism. In fact, much of my political work IRL is about opposing multiculturalism for many of the reasons you mentioned. But there's a difference between a country being multicultural and multiculturalism as a sort of ideology. I recognize that I live in a multicultural society but that does not mean I support an ideology where civil rights and liberties are not based on your citizenship, but on your culture or religion. I believe that a sort of "national unity" is necessary for a multicultural country to work, which is why I support ideas of including constitutional or civic patriotism.
When it comes to wellfare, I do support some safety net (I like negative income tax as it doesn't weaken incentives to work), some public healthcare and tax funded education (up to college/university where degrees that are not demanded on the labour market shouldn't be subsidized)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 03:20 PM |
|
|
Zeno:
Of course there are other threats one can make. For example, "Do X or I won't give you a job." Is that a threat? It can reasonably be called one, yes. But is there anything wrong with it? The only scenario in which there is something wrong with it is if you owe someone a job unconditionally, or at least have to give them a job without making them do X. But no such obligation exists - no one has the right to be hired for any particular job, and an employer is perfectly at liberty to offer that position or not. There's a problem with threats if you threaten to do something you wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise. There's not a problem with threats if you threaten to do something that's fine for you to do otherwise.
"Do X or I'll shoot you" and "Do X or I'll steal from you" are bad, because regardless of whether they do X, you're not allowed to shoot them or steal from them.
"Do X or I won't give you a job" and "Do X or I won't sell to you" are fine, because regardless of whether they do X, you're perfectly at liberty to not offer them a job or sell to them.
Salamandre:
Quote:
You both prone the total eradication of the social welfare and in same time emphasize for a multicultural society, but have you the slightest idea on how all this is contradicting?
A multicultural society is a result, but it's not a goal, it's just that the effect of good immigration laws happens to be a multicultural society. There's not contradiction here - in fact, the combination of immigration restrictions and no welfare is more contradictory. Welfare is unjustified because the government is taxing people's voluntary exchanges (sales tax and income tax) against their will to fund something that doesn't benefit them. Immigration restrictions are unjust because they ban certain kinds of voluntary exchanges altogether (which is even worse than a tax), such as bringing an immigrant to your country to work for you. The welfare state is among the less just inventions of the West.Quote:
So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious frankly, even fearful, to stand up to them.
Obviously, it's wrong to give someone a pass on their problematic views because they're a Muslim or an immigrant. Just like we can condemn Westerners when they're racist, sexist, etc, we should also condemn Muslims and immigrants when they exhibit those same flaws. And indeed, there is much in Islam and in traditional Arabic culture that is objectionable, and we shouldn't hesitate to condemn it. Sexism is bad. Beating women and intimidating them is bad. Forcing women to wear the veil is bad. Don't be afraid to speak out against such harmful cultural practices. But if that's the problem, condemn the negative aspects of other cultures as much as necessary - but that doesn't justify immigration restrictions.
As for patriotism, to subdue it isn't enough. It must be eradicated completely. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 03:52 PM |
|
|
Another word misused and spoiled by leftists or random quotes. Patriotism is a virtue, but its applications depend on how is used.
The love for one's ancestry, culture or homeland is the root meaning of patriotism. The true patriot is the one who disinterestedly or self-sacrificingly strives himself to promote the well-being of his country. If you remove "disinterestedly" then you get the nationalism.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:12 PM |
|
|
It's foolish to like or dislike your ancestry. You didn't choose it. To you, they're just strangers who lived long ago.
Culture is nothing more than a set of practices of a certain group, such as people who live in a certain area. You can like certain practices, and even the net sum of those practices, but that's not quite patriotism. "I like burgers and individualism", for example, is not synonymous with "I like America." So liking a culture isn't quite patriotism.
As for liking your homeland, it's just a territory of land occupied by strangers and administered by the same government. The government is a service provider (you don't love plumbers, dentists, and carpenters, do you?), and the people are, again, strangers, so you can't love them either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:25 PM |
|
|
|
I am sorry, I am very far from agreeing on your impersonal views and I am very indifferent toward people not in deep love with their mother land. In my opinion,they are disconnected from history. My country holds a primordial place in my heart and by all means I will always try to promote its unique culture wherever I go or I am allowed to. My father being russian, I am tied to two cultures at once and I cherish both.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Do X or I won't give you a job" and "Do X or I won't sell to you" are fine, because regardless of whether they do X, you're perfectly at liberty to not offer them a job or sell to them.
So when there's a famine, if I buy all the food on the market, create a monopoly and sell all the food to you at tripled price, that's just okay?
Quote:
It's foolish to like or dislike your ancestry. You didn't choose it. To you, they're just strangers who lived long ago.
I'm in the middle here. I think it's wrong to turn it into an ideology or a form of nepotism. When it comes to politics nobody should favor their country just because it's theirs and stand up to the decisions if they think they are wrong. And yes, there is no objective, rational reason to justify such kind of love but then why does love needs to be objective? I probably like some food, music, cultural patterns, etc etc only because I was born where I was born, just like I love my mother because she happens to be my mother. There's nothing wrong or necessarily irrational with that if you don't idealize the situation.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So when there's a famine, if I buy all the food on the market, create a monopoly and sell all the food to you at tripled price, that's just okay?
If it's okay for me to buy up all the food and not sell it, it's okay for me to buy up all the food and sell it to you for tripled price.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:51 PM |
|
|
|
Well, it isn't okay for you to buy all the food to begin with. Or if we go mvass-logic on this, if I do buy all the food, the objective self-interest of the others demand that they crack my skull open with a club and pillage my warehouses.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 04:58 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 05:52, 07 Aug 2013.
|
artu said:
Well, it isn't okay for you to buy all the food to begin with. Or if we go mvass-logic on this, if I do buy all the food, the objective self-interest of the others demand that they crack my skull open with a club and pillage my warehouses.
now you're talking. i absolutely, 100% agree with this. just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. you should take into account the benefit of others, who, like yourself, are trying to find something to eat for themselves, and their families.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 05:04 PM |
|
|
artu:
If the choice to starve or kill, obviously the correct choice is to kill. I'm not going to dispute that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
