daniel
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by daniel
-
-
"We" are not doing anything of the kind. "We" have not abandoned anyone in your example. You are trying to forge a duty where no such duty exists on the basis of another person's need. The fact that another innocent person needs something, does not give him a claim over anyone else.
Aside from the hyperbole, there is another alternative called charity. Why do you assume that no-one would volunteer to help such children? From the sounds of it, you would, and I suspect that there may be others who would do the same.
Quite right. On the point about chairty I read an interesting fact today that in the US where the government takes around 30% of the nations wealth citizens on average give £17 a month to charity, in the UK where the government takes around 40% its only £7 a month.
-
Does anyone know what the lastest polls say? How are the Free Democrats doing? I wish they had enough support to form a government of their own.
-
I can see with what you are saying. But I would rather see a very weak pan-European government - more along the ideas of a common market perhaps rather than lots and lots different local solutions to the same problem. For example, at least the european ideal has lead to a lifting of tarrifs across the 25 European Union States (if not from outside).
I agree that a very weak government would be good. I would just prefer very weak government for all member states and no EU at all. I see no reason for a pan-European government. If there are joint problems, such governments could work together if they wanted. But as each state faces different problems I think it would be good for them to have separate governments for the reasons I suggested above. Also I think different solutions are good - it leads to the best being achived and eventually adopted. With one power this would not occur.
-
I am sorry - when I say "a European Union" - I don't mean the one we are having foisted on us now. But I see nothing wrong with an over-arching structure replacing the twenty-five we have now.
I prefer decentralised power. I find that giving power to people who are closer to problems is usually more effective as opposed to giving total power to a group of people in some far off area. Its not just a question of geography of course but of culture and politics i.e those on the continent are much more left wing. The problem with an over-arching structure is that it would tend to give blanket solutions, this of course would be problematic - a solution for Poland is not always apprpriate for say Ireland. We can see the truth of this in the Euro - a single currency is not suitable for such a variety of economies.Centralised power tends to lead to blanket politics and thus bad politics.
-
I quite agree with you - that is why I say that I am all for a European Union if it is accompanied with a dismantling of our the national governments .
Really? Arn't you put off given that the EU is dominated by protectionists? The likes of Germany and France have a mercantillist mentality which is alien to the more free market stance of the English speaking world. Also the EU has a democratic deficit.
-
My high school was fine, for example in English I was once allowed to write an essay on the evils of the Euro - I got an A and the teacher wrote that I had convinced her. My university, the London School of Economics, which has a history of being Marxist, is not as left wing as I thought, though my professors can't help but mock George W Bush.
-
It's hard to understand, Dan, but in America there has been a sort of counter-sexual revolution. After the sixties and seventies era of free love and liberalism, there has been a renewal of conservatism and "family values" (last election, polls found Family Values as the most important factor in voting) Parents who once defied their parents by sleeping with every person they could grab are now horrified at the fact that they, now are parents and their children are doing the same thing. How many people here, when inquiring in to the lifestyle of their parents prior to their marriage, hear the phrase "It was a different time"?
Things are pretty much the opposite in the UK. Only 1 in 20 people go to church, people mock religion (for the 2001 census around 40,000 people claimed their relgion was Jedhi [from Star Wars] and now, due to the high number, it is classed as a religion in the UK) and the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Though church and state are united in the UK but people who are members of the church of England (like me) rarely bother - I haven't been to church in 19 years - since I was christened (i wasn't chrisented because my parents are religious but rather because its the done thing). Though the BBC is showing a program about the silver ring thing, which just comes across as odd.
-
What kind of question is that to ask? What concern is it to a rational individual what "the world" would be better off with or without?
Since I live in the world I rather care about what happens in it. For someone who asks what kind of question it is to ask, you certainly haven't given a short reply
. -
At the moment I'm watching the trade union congress on television. What are people's views on trade unions? Would the world be better without them? Have they succeded in gaining good working conditions? If not, who has and how?
-
It's true that Germans are not allowed to feel any sort of nationalism.
That's not what I mean. I hold the conviction that if you go far enough to the left, you end up at the far out right and the other way around. I don't fear hatred for foreigners. I fear socialism. Half of Germany consists of ex-socialists.
I also don't think this is anything to fear for the reasons i gave as well - the electoral system and the hatred left wing parties have for one another as well as the abilty of people to support the right in times of hardship and the fact that economically things are getting better. Coupled with other factors such as Germany's membership of the EU thus restrcting how extreme a government can become (70% of our laws are made in Brussels).
-
I think Germany has had its worse time and things will get better, for example unemployment is already going down. Furthermore even if things get worse in the long term they may very well get better with Merkel being elected. People seem to think bad situation = extremists gain power. Of course this has occured before, but it dosen't always occur this way, for example, the UK was in a terrible position in the late 1970s but elected Thatcher. Merkel looks set to be Germany's chancellor and Germany is no where as bad as the UK in the late 1970s. Also nationalism is relatively weak in Germany, there is still alot of shame about starting two world wars (a German friend was opposed to the Iraq war, when I asked why he said 'Germans can't bomb other states') and support for a Federal Europe shows this. Thus i don't think there is any right wing extremist threat. And a left wing threat is also unlikely given the electoral system of Germany and the hatred left parties leaders have for one another.
-
Wherever there are people willing to sacrifice something, there is an opportunity for a tyrant.
I agree and that tyrant in that case is the European Union, thus i believe there is a threat to Germany from the EU, but not from a left wing party in the next 10 years or so as the original post on this thread suggested and I explained why.
-
While this is true, it does not make behaving in a feminine way a good thing.
Don't confuse the idea of doing something that is nonfashionable because it is right with the idea of doing something nonfashionable simply to nonconform. If you could prove that walking like women do is objectively more masculine than walking in the way that men traditionally do, then you might have a point. But women walk the way they do because it is objectively feminine: it displays the hips, a female secondary sex characteristic.
You shouldn't refrain from "camp" just because people say so: you should refrain because it is degrading to your masculinity.
But what is masculinity? I know what society says its is, but that dosen't make it right. Ayn Rand once said "What is proper for a man is proper for a woman....There is no particular work which is specifically feminine." Thus is there anything which is specifically masculine? Of course I'm male but if i have pout lips or long eyelashes, which are rather femine in the eyes of society, how should i behave? Isn't it impossible to truly say if one way of behaving is femine and another is masculine?
Also wouldn't it be more degrading to behave in a way that I don't like?
-
What is that supposed to mean? I don't. And I will vote CDU-FDU, because of moral issues. I still believe that the state deficit can't be reduced and that this will show most clearly if it is really tried. I'd wish that a turnaround works, but it won't.
And I believe it will show during the next 10 years which will then result in the rise of the new left party. That's what happened 70 years ago.
State bankrupt, economy down, left party voted.
The problem is everyone believes that Hitler was 'right' (politically, not epistemologically) and what we should learn from history is to like foreigners in general and jews in particular. That the jews were 'the rich' and that this was why they were killed has not entered public opinion and it won't.
If you don't learn your history lesson, you have to repeat it.
It's supposed to mean what it says. My curiosity was aroused because I understand pessimism is much stronger in the East and was wondering if this was true in your case, in order to know I had to ask.
Is it insulting to ask someone if they are from the East?
I'm confident that Germany will get better for the reasons i have given. Also Hitler came to power for a range of reasons from his charisma to the Nazi's tapping into German nationalism. At the time so many Germans were nationalist (bitter at defeat etc), today this is not the case with many in favour of a federal Europe and sacrificing their soverignity for it. It wasn't just economic reasons.
Either way poverty doesn't mean turning to the left. Look at 1970s UK, after strikes, massive debt (forced to beg the IMF), shortages, 3 day weeks etc the British people voted for Thatcher (in the UK we are comparing your Merkel to our Thatcher), the most right wing prime minister of the 20th century. Also if poverty did mean turning to the left so many of those (poorer)southern states in the US would be democrat and many of the northern states would be Republican, this of course is not the case.
Also won't your electoral system prevent such heavy concetrations of power and thus prevent an extreme party coming to power. Though Weimer Germany also had PR this was more fragile than the present electral system i.e mixed system.
After a history of going to extremes - fascism and communism and seeing the disastrous results surely Germans would realise their errors. Perhaps I'm too optimistic of humans?
-
On the pink T-shirt issue. I refuse to wear one. Got one for birthday. Didn't wear it.
About a natural way of moving your body, read Feldenkrais. He's good. You feel better when you apply his stuff.
But the question was:
What is masculine and what is feminine?
Hmmm....
I'd say that aggressive confident goal-orientedness makes a good man.
If this trait is not there, well ... that's not a real man, I'd say.
I wonder what JMeganSnow has to say about this.
What makes a good woman.
The first thing that pops into my mind is beauty, but that's not enough. There are beautiful women I wouldn't want to talk to or date because they're stupid.
I also believe that a woman need some sort of confident goal orientedness. At least I like women who have their own mind.
I guess this classic femininity is nothing but suppression of women's minds.
And it makes them boring.
I agree that confident goal-orientedness makes a good man. Also i think if one is like this while acting in a way which society views as femine is fine, it dosen't take away the goal-orientedness. If a man is not goal orientated i wouldn't say he's not a real man, just he lacks ambition. On the issue of women, i think a good woman is confident and goal orientated, for example Margaret Thatcher was a good woman in my opinion. I don't think they have to be beautiful, rather they have to be an achiever.
-
My reasoning is that there is -always- a lack of money in capitalism, because the money that already exist is also the debt of some guy having to pay it off. That's where money takes its value from. This debt he has is rising. The money he has spent is not. The only way out is other people taking on new debt and taking over the problem. This is economic growth.
Money coming in from abroad will indeed help Germany to survive and it could be the fuel for the economic motor to start again. That means that entrepreneurs believe they can actually sell what they produce and take on the debt to produce it, which then leads to an upward spiral. If the incoming money takes over the part of public debt in terms of pushing money into the market we may actually be saved. But to do that, private investors must put more money into the market than the state takes out so that the amount of money still rises.
Let's hope it works.
It will only worsen the economies of their home countries.
In the end we will have to eliminate public debt on earth. This is what I'm trying to say. Everything else is just postponing the problem and making it worse in the end.
Yes and I think things are looking optimistic when it comes to investors putting more into the economy for the reasons I mentioned above. That coupled with a government which wants to cut spending makes things look good and that's why I don't think Germany will turn fascist as a CDU -FDU coalition looks likely. If only Germany has a first past the post system and the FDU was the major party of the right!
PS do you live in the East and who will you vote for?
-
Yup, the CDU will win and the FDP will have their part in it, too. And they will start a campaign based on supply-side economics.
According to that theory things will happen as you say.
I just say that they won't, because the theory is wrong.
I want to start an extra thread on this in the economics part of this forum.
The rise in foreign investor interest is due to the belief in supply-side economics.
I believe that this sort of political activity (i.e. less political activity) is good in general and if it weren't for the state deficit I would agree completely.
But the deficit is there and I see no way it can be reduced.
Therefore I don't share the optimism.
Reality will decide at last.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning? I'm a student of political science not economics. Also if there is more money coming into the economy from abroad, people are beginning to buy more things, businesses expect to expand, goverment is looking to cut spending etc won't this mean there will be more revenue coming into the government to pay off debt? A Laffer Curve type episode - rising investment = rising revenue which means the government can pay off debts?
-
Let them argue. I believe that they're wrong. And I told the reasons. Please attack them. I can't.
I have, for example unemployment is not rising (unemployment has fallen for 4 months in a row and there are 50% more job vacancies than there were a year ago). Also:
Firms are now allowed to sell their cross-shareholdings without paying CGT.
According to Morgan Stanley 30% of Germany's workforce is in part time or temporary jobs thus firms are able to deploy their labour more flexibily than in the past.
Two thirds of Germany's top 30 listed companies produced improved results for the second quarter of the year.
All major banks have their costs and balance sheets under control.
The country is the world's leading exporter, selling goods worth 733bn euro ($920bn, £500m) a year and growing.
Profits at Germany's large companies are soaring.
Business confidence is also improving - several respected surveys suggest company bosses are getting bullish about the future.
Of course there are problems (after all the socialists have been in power for along time and you have the Euro) but to say things are getting worse and there is a serious possibilty of fascism returning is just wrong. Not only is the economic situation improving as the above stats show (as well as those I provided in my past post which have not been countered) but having PR and a min threshold reduces the risk of an extreme party gaining power. Most likely the CDU will win, hopefully with the Free Democrats playing a big role. Thus left to itself the economy will improve - the risk is politicians but as socilaists look likely to be defeated the right will be able to put in place its much more sensible econmic policies. The CDU, despite a history of welfare support, is shown good signs for example appointing Kirchhof, as shadow finance minister, who supports a flat tax.
Hitler came to power when things were VERY bad with hyperinflation. This is not the case and as i have said things are getting better and look set to continue if the German people vote for a right wing party.
The main problem is domestic demand: people arn't spending. But imports have begun to rise again, which is an indicator of increased domestic demand. Also as the BBC notes 'foreign investors, especially hedge funds, are already busy snapping up Germany's undervalued companies and assets, hoping to capitalise on the country's potential for growth'. These capitalists have faith and so do I.
-
That's what I figure as well, although I don't consider attention from others as such to be a valid source of happiness. I'm not sure what your opinion of that idea is, though, as sadly internet text does not communicate your tone.
There's a fine line between doing something as a joke and permanently turning yourself into a walking joke. (literally in this case) You should have more self-respect and dignity than to walk around like that all the time.
Ignoring for a second that too much concern for the opinions of others is the vice of second-handedness, what makes attention as such something that one would want from other people? Wouldn't one care what kind of attention one is getting? Ridicule, disgust, and hatred are forms of attention. So are respect and love. Even if it were true that attention from others was a value (which it isn't!), this would only be true of good attention!
Attention in the respect that someone is seen as out of the norm. After all who wants to be normal? Also some people who claim to be 'manly' but would never behave in camp manner are quite amusing: they want to be seen as brave yet they are afraid people will think badly of them if they behave in a certain way. That just seems cowardly. Thus behaving in a way which stands out is perhaps not good because someone gets attention but they behave bravely - they do what others won't. Thus in a way behaving femine is brave and therefore it brings happiness. I would hope all have enough self respect as to do what makes them happy, as opposed to deny their urge to behave in the way they want just because some people may snigger.
-
I hate how everywhere I go, when the topic of communism arises for whatever reason, someone ALWAYS says:
"Oh, but communism isn't bad. It's horrible in practice, but the theory behind is is actually very great."
AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
How can I possibly get it into people's heads that this is wrong?
Isn't this the primary issue? The reason why communism always has a chance of coming back is because there are thousands that still believe it is a very noble idea to make everyone equals and have governments regulating the distribution of goods. Everytime someone says something like this I just want to scream. Most of the people that make these comments are alsoreligious, so they use altruism as an excuse, then suddenly I feel like stabbing a Bible because of it's notion of "Love your neighbor more than yourself".
Someone please help me....
-J
I hate that too. I usally end up saying something like if it's bad in practice, it's bad in theory. Also make it more relavent to them - tell them under communism they would be held back by some pen pusher. In pure capitalism no one holds a man back but himself. Also why do they want to have the same standard of living as a lazy person? Since many are obsessed with equalty I mention equality of opportunity.
-
What optional value gives rise to a man walking like a woman?
Perhaps it could be argued that such a mannerism sets someone apart and if one values attention from others it is a value as such attention brings happiness. I'm still trying to process these thoughts though. What do you think?
-
You have asked a very broad question. Answering fully would be exhausting. Perhaps you could limit your question a little by explaining what your purpose his. It would also be helpful if you gave an example from your own experience, an example of an argument you couldn't answer to your satisfaction.
For example i've been told the individual is not the basic unit, we achieve more as a collective, they point to team sports or a man and a women producing another human for example. Thus a political/economic system based on individualism is not right.
-
Perhaps wearing pink has a much different implication in Britain or more likely in my circles -right wingers. Popular culture in the UK views it as camp.Well, I'm a manly man and I wear pink shirts (some of the time), so you can totally forget about the pink shirt thing. I advise against pink pants, though.The one thing you can be sure of is that Rand never advocated denying nature, so if it's in your nature to walk like a girl (and I mean that in the nicest way), then it would be just plain wrong for you to walk like me. If you walk the way you do because of a bunion and a torn ligament, then there's no sense in which your walk could be wrong. If you chose to walk the way you do, then the obvious question is, why? If it's "so that I can fit in with the crowd better, even though I hate it", then it's wrong. When you ask a moral question about whether it's right or wrong, the rightness is not intrinsic to the action. So if your behavior is a recognition of optional values, then it's right; if your behavior is a denial of your nature, it's wrong.Thanks, its the former.
-
What counter arguments do you encounter when debating Objectivism with religious people and socialists? And how do you defuse them?
Working For A Think Tank
in Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
Posted
Does anyone know how well think tanks pay? How much do those with doctorates get? (If only ARI opened a European branch!!!)