European Union election results, all the fascists do really well

[Cornerstone]

Not for "everyone". Member states of the European Union. Any country can leave the union with a simple political majority. People make it sound worse than it is. Compared to other kinds of cancer sticks, menthol cigarettes are needlessly terrible for you and your vocal chords. No one should be allowed to cause themselves that much damage and have the rest of us pay for it.

The whole point of the European Union is to collect European thought with the power of influence. For example, North Americans have the EU to thank for making most consumer electronics like TVs and coffee machines more cost effective and less damaging to the environment.

Banning freedom. What a shameless hyperbole.

But we as people are just not involved in the process. Unless we dedicate a disproportionate amount of time and energy to understanding the overly-complex system.
Which bills get votes and which don't isn't a case of 'this is what the people want'. Which ones even get to the point that they can be voted on by the people we got to represent us is long and cumbersome. People, especially politicians, simply do not work out of altruism and if our society is not based on altruism we shouldn't be passing laws that put blanket bans like the one on menthol and flavoured tobaccon across huge swathes of the globe. It's reckless and nobody will want to leave because it looks terrible and is a huge statement.

You say 'why should we pay for them?' Well, there is usually some personal fault in many injuries and illnesses.
What if all disease is mental in origin? What if cannabis can cure many diseases? The EU doesn't care if these are true, healthcare is really quite shoddy anyway.
The more you make healthcare a financial argument, the less altruistic is becomes and further we move from being people who can handle the responsibility of being part of a super-state in an effective and healthy way.

What you say is, to a point, true. BUT...the negative aspect in fact and in potential is so much worse than cigarettes.

Also, I sometimes smoke flavoured tobacco where I never smoke tobacco by itself. Soon it will be banned?
Realistically, are there going to be people you can call up to meet selling cherry & vanilla tobacco illegally?
Or am I more likely to be left with no option but the biggest tobacco companies who make the most poisionous products of all.

Flavoured tobaccos are made by small companies, not John Player and the fucking Marlboro man.
These tobaccos are what keep some shops afloat because it is their only unique product. They are newsagents but can't compete with supermarkets.
These people are often conosseuirs as well, but soon it'll be 20 decks only at the robotic self-checkout. Scan your chip to prove your age.

Healthcare is a racket so that argument is weaksauce for me. If the biggest argument for it is financial then have trade agreements. No social engineering.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I do wish the U.S. would increase the number of representatives in the House. As population has continued to increase, the more diluted the voice of the locals, for whom they represent, has become. Since the number of representatives in the House has become fixed, it has become more representative of large sections of a State and not local people.

Im saying get rid of the vast majority of them. With the I internet we have the ability to give the people a vote down to the smallest level. We just have to make sure it cant be tampered with and that only American citizens can vote.

 

[muir]

Im saying get rid of the vast majority of them. With the I internet we have the ability to give the people a vote down to the smallest level. We just have to make sure it cant be tampered with and that only American citizens can vote.

Absolutely!

With the internet everyone could have a say in the running of their community at every level

There could be total transparency

As far as i'm concerned you should be able to go online and see where every cent of taxpayers money has gone and the taxpayers should be able to decide at every turn what that money is spent on...until they evolve past money altogether of course

 

[Cornerstone]

Absolutely!

With the internet everyone could have a say in the running of their community at every level

There could be total transparency

As far as i'm concerned you should be able to go online and see where every cent of taxpayers money has gone and the taxpayers should be able to decide at every turn what that money is spent on...until they evolve past money altogether of course

If nations had intranets as secure as military and intelligence operations and provided good access to everyone (easily done), people could even be allowed to directly distribute some of their own taxes. I'm sure there'd need to be some kind of mandatory tax still to ensure the critictal infrastructure doesn't go to shit but a percentage could easily be allocated online to what people actually believed was important.

We could vote on individual laws and issues online. Right now I don't think it is secure enough but if it were funded it could be done.

Direct democracy could be implemented gradually online and people could learn to become active citizens if it were made clear.
The official pages would have to be very plain and neutral to allow people to compare arguments side-by-side. Propaganda would be a self-funded option.

 

[muir]

If nations had intranets as secure as military and intelligence operations and provided good access to everyone (easily done), people could even be allowed to directly distribute some of their own taxes. I'm sure there'd need to be some kind of mandatory tax still to ensure the critictal infrastructure doesn't go to shit but a percentage could easily be allocated online to what people actually believed was important.

We could vote on individual laws and issues online. Right now I don't think it is secure enough but if it were funded it could be done.

Direct democracy could be implemented gradually online and people could learn to become active citizens if it were made clear.
The official pages would have to be very plain and neutral to allow people to compare arguments side-by-side. Propaganda would be a self-funded option.

Totally!

Its that and so much more!

Let's say you have a service to offer or a resource and someone elsewhere in the world needs that then you can coordinate an exchange

I know this happens to an extent already but there are middle men that skew things for example governments, money and the profit motive

What i'm trying to say is that resources could be allocated in a more practical way. Without the profit motive people can begin to think about needs rather than wants and resources can go towards renewables instead of polluting and finite forms of energy

This guy has an interesting idea about building self sufficient communites that provide through abundance a viable alternative to capitalism...literally growing a new system out of the shell of the old:

[video=youtube;LoJcxQgmMms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJcxQgmMms[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

Well, the will of the people is already “watered down” or gone out the window all together…
The US public favors background checks for guns - Congress votes against it.
The public favors Gay Marriage - Congress ignores it.
The public favors ending the war in Afghanistan - Congress ignores them.
The public favors decriminalizing Pot - ignored.
The public favors climate change to be addressed - ignored.
Wall street regulations - ignored.
Money for education - ignored.
Infrastructure - ignored.
Health care for all - consistently voted against.
I could go on and on, and on.
We are at the whims of people like the Koch Brothers and their lobbyists now….we are not a government for the people, by the people.
Corporations are not people….money is not free speech.

 

[j654dgj7]

But we as people are just not involved in the process. Unless we dedicate a disproportionate amount of time and energy to understanding the overly-complex system.
Which bills get votes and which don't isn't a case of 'this is what the people want'. Which ones even get to the point that they can be voted on by the people we got to represent us is long and cumbersome. People, especially politicians, simply do not work out of altruism and if our society is not based on altruism we shouldn't be passing laws that put blanket bans like the one on menthol and flavoured tobaccon across huge swathes of the globe. It's reckless and nobody will want to leave because it looks terrible and is a huge statement.

You're absolutely right here. I think the EU is too undemocratic and closed in it's structure. I voted for one of the eurosceptic parties myself because I believe that the EU needs to severely redefine its' structure and roots to allow for more participation and openness. Luckily people are naturally skeptical of politicians and especially what they do behind closed doors, and eventually they will have to confront that skepticism head-first. Hopefully this recent election will give them a "wake up call" of sorts.

You say 'why should we pay for them?' Well, there is usually some personal fault in many injuries and illnesses.
What if all disease is mental in origin? What if cannabis can cure many diseases? The EU doesn't care if these are true, healthcare is really quite shoddy anyway.
The more you make healthcare a financial argument, the less altruistic is becomes and further we move from being people who can handle the responsibility of being part of a super-state in an effective and healthy way.

Let there be research! I'm all for science, and can't see any reason why cannabinoids aren't tested for it's usefulness in medicines and cures.

My "why should we pay" was directed at the wrong person in my other post. What I meant to write was that the people who produce the very unhealthy and cancer-inducing menthol cigarettes should be held accountable, and no longer be allowed to produce them the way that they are. Just like there are limits to how much nicotine and additives you can put in a cigarette, there should at least be restrictions on how damaging your cigarettes are. I didn't mean to blame the users of the product, addictions are incredibly hard to kick as we all know.

What you say is, to a point, true. BUT...the negative aspect in fact and in potential is so much worse than cigarettes.

Also, I sometimes smoke flavoured tobacco where I never smoke tobacco by itself. Soon it will be banned?
Realistically, are there going to be people you can call up to meet selling cherry & vanilla tobacco illegally?
Or am I more likely to be left with no option but the biggest tobacco companies who make the most poisionous products of all.

I can only speak for what I believe to be good choices and decisions. I would ban all cigarette products for anyone under the age of 18. This would allow for anyone currently addicted and who chooses to smoke cigarettes to continue doing so, while hopefully preventing a young generation from picking it up. I don't think that's realistic though, so I believe in containing the future damage that tobacco use is likely to bring with it. Pressuring the tobacco companies to making cigarettes without additives is a great start. I would also love to see a cigarette option for people that contains less tar, and fewer mg's of nicotine, as I've mentioned before. Personally I've never been a smoker since it has killed nearly half of my family, but I understand why people do it. It's just a matter of what your opinions are, I guess.

Flavoured tobaccos are made by small companies, not John Player and the fucking Marlboro man.

These tobaccos are what keep some shops afloat because it is their only unique product. They are newsagents but can't compete with supermarkets.
These people are often conosseuirs as well, but soon it'll be 20 decks only at the robotic self-checkout. Scan your chip to prove your age.

This is outside of my field. You might be right, and I'm inclined to believe you. The little guy always gets screwed in the end.

Healthcare is a racket so that argument is weaksauce for me. If the biggest argument for it is financial then have trade agreements. No social engineering.

I don't know why you mean by these statements. How is health care a racket? What do you mean by social engineering? I'm not familiar with the term.

 

[Lark]

Now, who are these "fascists" that you mention?

Golden Dawn in Greece and the National Front in France.

 

[Lark]

If nations had intranets as secure as military and intelligence operations and provided good access to everyone (easily done), people could even be allowed to directly distribute some of their own taxes. I'm sure there'd need to be some kind of mandatory tax still to ensure the critictal infrastructure doesn't go to shit but a percentage could easily be allocated online to what people actually believed was important.

We could vote on individual laws and issues online. Right now I don't think it is secure enough but if it were funded it could be done.

Direct democracy could be implemented gradually online and people could learn to become active citizens if it were made clear.
The official pages would have to be very plain and neutral to allow people to compare arguments side-by-side. Propaganda would be a self-funded option.

The best versions of this kind of idea I have heard of are not political in the sense of democratic ideas but some asset based welfare and market socialist ideas.

John Roemer (spelling) had an idea that each citizen be given an allocation of shares upon reaching the age of majority from which they could derive dividends as a replacement for the wide variety of (often means tested) benefits which welfare states provide but also an "untradeable" or "not for sale" portion of shares which they could invest, divest and reinvest how they choose and as often as they choose, in theory they could then exercise a control over the allocation of funding in public services, possibly in services generally because I'm not sure how or whether there would be a restriction upon investment decisions towards education, health, policing, fire services etc.

I know that Charles Murray, in his unexpected support for citizens income, suggested that a portion of the payment be mandated for some kind of health insurance, the rest being a payment to use how you see fit, it is a variation, much, much more modest, on the asset based welfare idea.

 

[Lark]

You're absolutely right here. I think the EU is too undemocratic and closed in it's structure. I voted for one of the eurosceptic parties myself because I believe that the EU needs to severely redefine its' structure and roots to allow for more participation and openness. Luckily people are naturally skeptical of politicians and especially what they do behind closed doors, and eventually they will have to confront that skepticism head-first. Hopefully this recent election will give them a "wake up call" of sorts.

I tend not to believe that the EU is flawed or anything of that kind and doesnt neet any severe redefinition or root and branch reform, a lot of the issues driving the election of the fascists were national state issues and each national state is empowered to deal with them but I think the media likes to keep a certain picture of the EU as a bureaucratic nightmare because the media is euroskeptic and also it services politicians, both to promote euroskepticism and to encourage people to believe that they cant do anything about anything in any case.

I even think, now, that the fact the fascist parties were reported as doing so well in the elections was a strategy itself, kind of a "look at all these extremists, so unlike here, so unreasonable" and "but we are stuck with them" and we must share the european parliament with people we would not elect to a national partliament kind of thing. Its a little like some of the conventional criticisms by US libertarian undercurrents about the UN, ie you wouldnt elect a communist but at the international level the UN gives them powers of veto in global politics.

To my mind there's a problem with the public's perception and understanding for the most part, the european elections often result in people voting for parties they would not elect otherwise, there's a variety of discussion as to why, for instance not considering it as seriously, ie as inconsequential, to protest votes etc. There is a point to the saying that in democracy people get the government they deserve.

 

[Somewhereelse]

I tend not to believe that the EU is flawed or anything of that kind and doesnt neet any severe redefinition or root and branch reform, a lot of the issues driving the election of the fascists were national state issues and each national state is empowered to deal with them but I think the media likes to keep a certain picture of the EU as a bureaucratic nightmare because the media is euroskeptic and also it services politicians, both to promote euroskepticism and to encourage people to believe that they cant do anything about anything in any case.

I even think, now, that the fact the fascist parties were reported as doing so well in the elections was a strategy itself, kind of a "look at all these extremists, so unlike here, so unreasonable" and "but we are stuck with them" and we must share the european parliament with people we would not elect to a national partliament kind of thing. Its a little like some of the conventional criticisms by US libertarian undercurrents about the UN, ie you wouldnt elect a communist but at the international level the UN gives them powers of veto in global politics.

To my mind there's a problem with the public's perception and understanding for the most part, the european elections often result in people voting for parties they would not elect otherwise, there's a variety of discussion as to why, for instance not considering it as seriously, ie as inconsequential, to protest votes etc. There is a point to the saying that in democracy people get the government they deserve.

I don't quite believe in "the wisdom of the crowd". To make the decision you want to make, before judgement comes in, first you need data. But in reality the provision of data is rarely based on a impartial and complete basis. The ideal situation is the freedom of speech always allow different views have a voice. But in the real world, it's just bizarrely off track.

Also, in terms of judgment, people incline to hear/see what they want to believe, as if it's part of their identity and their dignity. Don't even think to "fool" them convert to something more than they are...

 

[Lark]

I don't quite believe in "the wisdom of the crowd". To make the decision you want to make, before judgement comes in, first you need data. But in reality the provision of data is rarely based on a impartial and complete basis. The ideal situation is the freedom of speech always allow different views have a voice. But in the real world, it's just bizarrely off track.

Also, in terms of judgment, people incline to hear/see what they want to believe, as if it's part of their identity and their dignity. Don't even think to "fool" them convert to something more than they are...

There is a degree of confirmation bias in operation, yeah, but then a lot of the people who I encounter who are inclined to highlight this in operation are very much subject to it themselves, a lot of publishing and I mean fiction aswell as non-fiction promote this sort of "sophisticate" version of "insight" and its anything but its just repeating something you heard, you know?

I dont believe in the wisdom of crowds either, sometimes I dont believe in the wisdom of individuals either.

 

[Cornerstone]

I don't know why you mean by these statements. How is health care a racket? What do you mean by social engineering? I'm not familiar with the term.

I appreciate your in-depth reply

Yeah, this was a bit vague I admit. I guess what I mean is that what we have is allopathic medicine that is tied in with big money too much.
Allopathic medicine, if you don't know, is about relieving the unpleasant symptoms before tackling the root. This is not inherently awful in that is does relieve suffering.
However, when all of society is geared toward profit maximisation and healthcare is not immune (pardon the pun), the most profitable course of action is to refrain from tackling the root altogether. How far does this go? How long is a piece of string? I am not 100% certain that we are at the point of malice from most professionals. However, healthcare (general and psychiatric) is very much evidence based in practice. This means that it is based on research coming from universities. Healthcare, like many sectors of society, is becoming increasingly dominated by fewer and fewer corporations (GSK, Pfizer etc.) and so the means with which professionals work are decided by businessmen rather than scientists and health workers. Allopathic medicine is favoured and it is these companies who offer the best opportunities for research since they dominate the field. In short, altruistic scientists and doctors have increasingly little choice but to practice allopathic medicine whether they agree with it or not in order to practice and research at all.

The amount of evidence needed to be able to test a medicine on humans requires lab time that is only affordable by these companies unless the funds are generated in another sector and the research undertaken privately. Even then, with cannabis, it would be illegal.

By the way, cannabis is a Class B drug here. Extracted, concentrated THC (what Rick Simpson Oil is), is Class A - the most illegal.

 

[j654dgj7]

Golden Dawn in Greece and the National Front in France.

Number of countries in the EU = 28
Number of countries that Greece and France are together = 2

"all the fascists"? I would go so far as to say that National Front isn't a fascist party. They're nationalistic and kooky, but not fascists.

In my original post I speculated that you might have meant those two countries. In the vast majority of the 28 countries, people barely gave the eurosceptic parties a few more votes than in 2009. The fact is that the power structure in the EU is the exact same as it was before.

 

[muir]

I don't quite believe in "the wisdom of the crowd". To make the decision you want to make, before judgement comes in, first you need data. But in reality the provision of data is rarely based on a impartial and complete basis. The ideal situation is the freedom of speech always allow different views have a voice. But in the real world, it's just bizarrely off track.

Also, in terms of judgment, people incline to hear/see what they want to believe, as if it's part of their identity and their dignity. Don't even think to "fool" them convert to something more than they are...

The crowd know what they need

part of the problem under the current system is that the providers of the data for example the mainstream media are owned and controlled by the few NOT the crowd and they give skewed information to the crowd

We need to end their media monopoly so that the public can get good information and make informed decisions then we need to ensure the public have the means to have their voice heard