Jump to content

European politics: Into the "right" futur


Biglose

Recommended Posts

 

Well, for example, a country could, quite reasonably, operate a points-based system of immigration control, so that people with professional qualifications, capital, or skills in areas of work where there's a shortage of labour, were given priority ahead of people who did not possess these things.

 

As to the rest, of course people vote in the interests of themselves, their families, their neighbours, their countrymen in that order, well ahead of the interests of strangers.

Except when they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would not get far in political life by assuming the opposite.

Sure you would. Happens all the time.

How do you think social services get created and funded? How do you think civil rights movements occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you would. Happens all the time.

How do you think social services get created and funded? How do you think civil rights movements occur?

Because working class voters regarded social services and welfare states as being in their interests, and politicians who wanted to get elected saw it as being in their interests to offer them to them. And richer voters saw it as being in their interests to offer such benefits, rather than run the risk of revolution, after 1917.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because working class voters regarded social services and welfare states as being in their interests, and politicians who wanted to get elected saw it as being in their interests to offer them to them. And richer voters saw it as being in their interests to offer such benefits, rather than run the risk of revolution, after 1917.

Right, so you are now defining "in their interest" to include so many degrees of separation as to render your original point moot.

There were white abolitionists and there are and were male feminists and social welfare programs have enjoyed support from many groups that don't or may never benefit from them and on and on and on.

People don't always think of only themselves first and major political movements have been founded on that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so you are now defining "in their interest" to include so many degrees of separation as to render your original point moot.

There were white abolitionists and there are and were male feminists and social welfare programs have enjoyed support from many groups that don't or may never benefit from them and on and on and on.

People don't always think of only themselves first and major political movements have been founded on that fact.

That's why I listed the order in which people, in general, prioritise interests.

You won't get many people who prioritise starving children in Africa above their own family members, for example. That doesn't mean they won't make donations to charities, but their own families will come first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the rest, of course people vote in the interests of themselves, their families, their neighbours, their countrymen in that order, well ahead of the interests of strangers.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?

There are, after all, better angels of our nature. People frequently donate generously to charity for no reason than that the people they're helping are fellow human beings. It's also striking how when the Syrian refugee crisis became perceived as human beings suffering and dying, rather than an amorphous wave of threats to our safety, our jobs and our lifestyles, voters changed their preferred policies. The pendulum is now swinging back the other way, with many people vigorously pushing it in that direction, of course. But it's not good enough to just say 'that's how people are'. Do you think that's how people should be? Because they can be different. We know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?

There are, after all, better angels of our nature. People frequently donate generously to charity for no reason than that the people they're helping are fellow human beings. It's also striking how when the Syrian refugee crisis became perceived as human beings suffering and dying, rather than an amorphous wave of threats to our safety, our jobs and our lifestyles, voters changed their preferred policies. The pendulum is now swinging back the other way, with many people vigorously pushing it in that direction, of course. But it's not good enough to just say 'that's how people are'. Do you think that's how people should be? Because they can be different. We know that.

Well, I think that it is impossible for the vast majority of people to be completely, or even mostly, altruistic.  I think that trying to base public policy on people being completely or mostly altruistic is likely to be counter-productive, and would require a great deal of coercion on the part of the government.  Societies that have been founded on the basis that people ought to be altruistic (communist states, or theocracies) tend to be pretty awful places to live in.

That doesn't mean that people are Objectivists.  People do indeed make sacrifices for others, without expecting anything in return.  I think they're more likely to make sacrifices for those who are closer to them than they are to make them for strangers.  But, that doesn't mean they never make sacrifices at all for strangers.

The most sensible basis for public policy is enlightened self-interest, IMHO.  After all, in my example above, the rich voters who accepted the introduction of welfare states still got to keep most of their wealth.  Indeed, rich people generally got richer throughout the twentieth century, even as the poor got richer as well. 

WRT mass immigration from the Middle East, North Africa, and West Africa, I don't think you'll persuade most European voters to accept it, unless you can persuade them that there is some benefit to them from it.  People will want to know what the effect will be on themselves, their families, their communities, and their countries, now and in the future.   They will consider the welfare of the immigrants, but it won't be the top priority.  And, I don't think it's reasonable to expect otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think that it is impossible for the vast majority of people to be completely, or even mostly, altruistic.  I think that trying to base public policy on people being completely or mostly altruistic is likely to be counter-productive, and would require a great deal of coercion on the part of the government.  Societies that have been founded on the basis that people ought to be altruistic (communist states, or theocracies) tend to be pretty awful places to live in.

That doesn't mean that people are Objectivists.  People do indeed make sacrifices for others, without expecting anything in return.  I think they're more likely to make sacrifices for those who are closer to them than they are to make them for strangers.  But, that doesn't mean they never make sacrifices at all for strangers.

 

This is dependent on a lot more than monetary income though, and far more to do with trends in society, the media narrative and our own cultural story about ourselves. People generally want to be seen as "good" or at least as on the side of right. The main question now is how that is being framed. If there is a moral imperative to help those in need and not demonise people fleeing war, and our cultural narrative and our media support that, then that is what will happen. I know that better than anyone, being employed in public sector and at the direct beck and call of our elected representatives. If they say we should do something, then that machinery starts rolling. And after all, they are the elected representatives of the voters, who in turn vote depending on what the believe in, and what dictates their believes?

We do not live in a culturally neutral space, where some sort of biological drive on altruism percentage determines how we will act.

If nothing else, we can go back in history to see the truth of this. For a not too distant example, it can be useful to look at how Irish immigrants were treated in the UK during the Victorian days. If you transpose the narrative around this group to the group "Syrians" today, the difference is slight. Different time, different group, very similar thinking.

Sidenote: I might also add here that the more I read of Objectivism, the more I find it evil, objectively speaking. :lol: (If by "Evil" you mean "very harmful to society and humanity as a whole".) With Objevctivism, we will never get working sewers, for one.

 

Your point about people wanting to know what will happen to them and to their communities I completely agree with though, and working within the public sector planning process media is in my opinion most of the time really, really bad at giving any sort of reasonable reporting on that process. It's either awesome and some technical breakthrough, or it's the collapse of society as we know it. There is literally no middle ground that the media is interested in. I've found one so far, which I linked above. On the other hand, with a changing future, making forecasts when it comes to economic conditions, population, construction etc. can be very, very difficult and an extremely complex process. It's definitely not something suitable for a five minute soundbite in some news show which means it rarely gets reported on, or people can't be bothered to read it when it does. 

It also doesn't help that austerity politics is so popular, since public sector services like education, science & research, infrastructure, etc. need constant nurturing and funding in order to be efficient and able to build for the future, regardless of the amount of immigrants we get.

EDIT: This is for Khaleesi did nothing wrong, about how SD is totally hopeless in local councils when it comes to actual practicalities and real political work. You know, the stuff that actually matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think that it is impossible for the vast majority of people to be completely, or even mostly, altruistic.  I think that trying to base public policy on people being completely or mostly altruistic is likely to be counter-productive, and would require a great deal of coercion on the part of the government.  Societies that have been founded on the basis that people ought to be altruistic (communist states, or theocracies) tend to be pretty awful places to live in.

That doesn't mean that people are Objectivists.  People do indeed make sacrifices for others, without expecting anything in return.  I think they're more likely to make sacrifices for those who are closer to them than they are to make them for strangers.  But, that doesn't mean they never make sacrifices at all for strangers.

The most sensible basis for public policy is enlightened self-interest, IMHO.  After all, in my example above, the rich voters who accepted the introduction of welfare states still got to keep most of their wealth.  Indeed, rich people generally got richer throughout the twentieth century, even as the poor got richer as well. 

WRT mass immigration from the Middle East, North Africa, and West Africa, I don't think you'll persuade most European voters to accept it, unless you can persuade them that there is some benefit to them from it.  People will want to know what the effect will be on themselves, their families, their communities, and their countries, now and in the future.   They will consider the welfare of the immigrants, but it won't be the top priority.  And, I don't think it's reasonable to expect otherwise.

This is all very interesting, but none of it answers my question. I asked about your opinion, and in response you've talked some more about how public policy should be formulated. But what do you think about it? Not, what do you think people in general believe about immigration, or how altruistic are people, or what is it reasonable to expect, but, do you think all of this adds up to a good thing or a bad one?

(Incidentally I don't think most theocracies can reasonably be said to be based on altruism, even as an ideal. They're based instead on the idea that earthly rules should mirror religious ones, which may or may not be based on altruistic principles. Religiosity, not altruism, is surely the founding principle of a theocracy.)

I would say it's a bad thing when politicians appeal to the baser side of our nature, instead of the better side, and that we should not simply throw up our hands and say 'what are you going to do? That's people for you! We should just make public policy on the basis that people are inherently self-interested and try to deal with that.' There is much more we can, and should, do: and we know that it can be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting, but none of it answers my question. I asked about your opinion, and in response you've talked some more about how public policy should be formulated. But what do you think about it? Not, what do you think people in general believe about immigration, or how altruistic are people, or what is it reasonable to expect, but, do you think all of this adds up to a good thing or a bad one?

(Incidentally I don't think most theocracies can reasonably be said to be based on altruism, even as an ideal. They're based instead on the idea that earthly rules should mirror religious ones, which may or may not be based on altruistic principles. Religiosity, not altruism, is surely the founding principle of a theocracy.)

I would say it's a bad thing when politicians appeal to the baser side of our nature, instead of the better side, and that we should not simply throw up our hands and say 'what are you going to do? That's people for you! We should just make public policy on the basis that people are inherently self-interested and try to deal with that.' There is much more we can, and should, do: and we know that it can be effective.

Very well then.  I prioritise myself, my family, my friends, my community, and my countrymen, over and above people who don't fall into those categories.

I'm not sure that is either good or bad, but I do regard it as being fair and reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, isn't it nice to live in a country slowly turning brown. Get your boots on, I suppose?

Regarding the politicians'position on ID checks. Did I write how much I agreed with it? As a matter of fact I think it's a terrible idea. On the other hand, it's expected, since the housing issue has remained unsolved for 25 years, public housing is more or less gone, the framework for public sector to act is underfunded and our education sector could definitely use a huge boost. With housing + education and old fashioned social democratic bureaucracy, this could be fixed. It's a challenge, not a systemic collapse, which the naysayers are claiming. Sweden used to have a very robust public sector equipped to handle a lot of stuff, but unfortunately it has been privatised. A lot of really hard work us done by local councils, btw, and one of the main reasons for the lame ID-controls (which is a symbolic act and adds nothing in practice) is that the councils (kommunerna) cannot handle the organisation needed to receive so many people at once. Contrary to all alarmist reports, this is an issue for public sector organising, funding and management.

Further, it is clear why so many refugees come to Germany and Sweden: because the rest of Europe is basically shutting their door. That does not take a NASA scientist to figure out.

But I am really excited to see how much my daily commute will be delayed because of the ID checks of thousands of people on the Öresund bridge every day. I seriously wonder if the Stockholm politicians ever go south of Eskilstuna. Even you agree that it's "insufficient" although my wording would be "inefficient" since that's what it is. It will stop a few people sure, and it will cause insane amount of hassle for thousands of commuters along the west coast and all the way up to Kalmar. Although I imagine that none of the smartarses thinking this was a good idea has made the calculations of: "train time tables for Southern Sweden" + "amount of trains" + " amount of commuters". The Öresund trains run across the Öresund bridge, and then as far north as Göteborg and as far east as Kalmar. If they are going to stop every train on the bridge checking IDs, then the delays will have cascading effects all across southern Sweden and eastern Denmark. 

Hence: I do not think our politicians are handling this well. Their decision making so far has been mostly ineffectual. They need to really put their foot down and start building, borrow money and finally get our education system the injection it needs, fast track teacher education (because that part is ridiculously slow and complicated for no reason) get the old teacher certification from the 90s back, so anyone with academic qualifications can add on one year and get a teacher certificate within their subject, they need to add social housing, remove some hindrances in PBL etc etc etc. I could go on forever, but there is no political will to do this although it is painfully obvious it is needed.

Try this, for an article that finally takes about what is needed to be done, instead of just whining about OMG the sky is falling. If we have a situation that is causing issues, then we solve the problem, we don't sit there crying about how terrible everything is, and if at some point in the future, we can just erase the problem and carry on like before.

On the other hand, if I remember correctly, you were also the person who though that Malmö was one big ghetto, so I suppose there is just no reasoning on this. I made some casual questions among my colleagues and every single one of them thought Malmö was a brilliant place to visit and one of the most interesting citites in Sweden. So I guess not everyone is so taken with the doom and gloom? Perhaps that could be something to consider: the glass isn't always half empty, it's half-full.

 

None of what you propose will work. We have tried raining money on these migrant groups for many years now, and what has happened is just that all of the problems have only become worse as their numbers increased. There is no reason to believe that this development will stop if the migration rate increases even further, in fact it is far more rational to assume that the situation instead will deteriorate much faster than it did up until now. Similar developments are also taking place in the rest of Europe. You think this is a coincidence? 

As for the ID-stuff. Yeah, but there isn't much choice anymore. Something has to be done to control the borders, so you'll just need to suck it up and leave for work earlier in the morning. 

Source?

Sure, there are tonnes of them. Here is a relatively recent one from DN that gives an actual number as well: http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/amanda-bjorkman-att-slanga-passet-ska-inte-lona-sig/ . 

So as of last year 82% of the people seeking asylum here lacked passports. 82 %. 

This is not a new phenomenon either, you can find Riksdag propositions dating all the way back to 2005 mentioning that around 80-90% of asylum seekers come here without proper identification, so that we have little idea who they are besides what they claim. 

That's also what the entire debate about age testing the refugee "children" who come alone and make up a significant portion of total asylum seekers as of now, is about. It is widely known that tonnes of them lie about their ages and are actually full grown men, but since they don't have any ID-papers and say they are children it has been hard to do anything about that. http://www.expressen.se/ledare/alderstest-ar-bra-for-barn/

Either way, if you didn't know that a large proportion of asylum seekers here lack passports I kind of wonder how much you follow this entire subject in the first place, or read newspapers or anything? Because while Swedish media does hide a lot of the negative sides of immigration, this question has not really been one of them. It has been frequently mentioned both in major papers as well as on TV, so... yeah? 

As for Malmö it is not a ghetto, but it has large ghettos and they drag the city down. As of now they receive over five billion SEK in government subsidies per year, to prevent the city from going bankrupt. All of Norrland (basically the northern, rural half of Sweden) gets only around ten billion SEK, even though Malmö is a city and thus ought to be generating a surplus rather than running a huge deficit. So much for your idea of it being some sort of super-successful metropolis because it is close to Germany or whatever your argument was. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of what you propose will work. We have tried raining money on these migrant groups for many years now, and what has happened is just that all of the problems have only become worse as their numbers increased. There is no reason to believe that this development will stop if the migration rate increases even further, in fact it is far more rational to assume that the situation instead will deteriorate much faster than it did up until now. Similar developments are also taking place in the rest of Europe. You think this is a coincidence? 

As for the ID-stuff. Yeah, but there isn't much choice anymore. Something has to be done to control the borders, so you'll just need to suck it up and leave for work earlier in the morning. 

Sure, there are tonnes of them. Here is a relatively recent one from DN that gives an actual number as well: http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/amanda-bjorkman-att-slanga-passet-ska-inte-lona-sig/ . 

So as of last year 82% of the people seeking asylum here lacked passports. 82 %. Think about that number for a while. 

This is not a new phenomenon either, you can find Riksdag propositions dating all the way back to 2005 mentioning that around 80-90% of asylum seekers come here without proper identification, so that we have no idea who they are besides what they claim. Plus what can be gained from stuff like language tests and the like, which are notoriously inaccurate. 

That's also what the entire debate about age testing the refugee "children" who come alone and make up a significant portion of total asylum seekers as of now, is about. It is widely known that tonnes of them lie about their ages and are actually full grown men, but since they don't have any ID-papers and say they are children it has been hard to do anything about that. http://www.expressen.se/ledare/alderstest-ar-bra-for-barn/

 

You sound very frightened. And that bit about children who aren't children, adults posing as children or whatever, that's straight-up nonsense - sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound very frightened. And that bit about children who aren't children, adults posing as children or whatever, that's straight-up nonsense - sorry!

Yeah, I guess an American grocery worker who has never been here knows more about this than all our major political parties, including the pro-immigration left wing one that currently runs the government. Glad you told me. Maybe you'd be willing to consider being a king here instead of staying in the USA? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As for the ID-stuff. Yeah, but there isn't much choice anymore. Something has to be done to control the borders, so you'll just need to suck it up and leave for work earlier in the morning. 

Sure, there are tonnes of them. Here is a relatively recent one from DN that gives an actual number as well: http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/amanda-bjorkman-att-slanga-passet-ska-inte-lona-sig/ . 

So as of last year 82% of the people seeking asylum here lacked passports. 82 %. 

The DN article you posted seems to say that while 82% lacked some form of ID when seeking asylum, but that 50-60% of them submits some form of ID later on. So I don't think the 82% statistic should be seen as some form of unquestionable truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess an American grocery worker who has never been here knows more about this than all our major political parties, including the pro-immigration left wing one that currently runs the government. Glad you told me. Maybe you'd be willing to consider being a king here instead of staying in America? 

I don't know. It's kind of cold over there, isn't it? I like warm climates. But not too warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DN article you posted seems to say that while 82% lacked some form of ID when seeking asylum, but that 50-60% of them submits some form of ID later on. So I don't think the 82% statistic should be seen as some form of unquestionable truth.

Yeah, though those identification papers are often questionable and there aren't enough resources to check more than half of them. Either way that still leaves the remaining 40-50%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The summers are pretty warm. 

Perhaps I will consider hauling my royal ass over there for a summer visit then one day, what do you say?

In the meantime, yes it's true, I am only an American grocery worker and have not seen firsthand this phenomenon of which you speak; immigrants who are only pretending to be children. But seriously, that sounds like the plot of a fairy tale or mythological legend. Trickster creatures!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...