The slow revolt of Western electorates

[Galactus]

(they are not refugees)

Yes they are. 

The refugees are a good example. If they are (literally) drowning, one has an obligation to help them. But there is no equally strong obligation to keep millions of refugees as citizens for many years or forever. 

Once they are citizens they are well, citizens, and have the same rights as any other citizen. (anything else  is of course fundamentally anti-democratic) While citizenship can be revoked, it's a bit of a hassle, and for various reasons, cannot be revoked if the holder does not hold another citizenship. (IE: You have the right to a citizenship)

 

 

 

[Savannah]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

Sweden is a sterling example. The previous prime minister, Reinfeld, had as his explicit goal the destruction of the welfare state. He implemented this goal by mass immigration from outside Europe of people incompatible with the Swedish labour market. An imported ethnic underclass. It was the perfect storm, that probably has transformed Sweden forever. (Whether for better or worse is exactly a question of ideology. If, like me, you’re a social democrat, the result is a catastrophe. I’m afraid the Swedish welfare state is dead. But we’ll know more in 2017, when the bill arrives to the municipalities.)

 

Maybe Sweden will sell  more arms to Saudi Arabia then. 

[Happy Ent]

11 hours ago, Galactus said:

Not allowing refugees entry would undermine the entire point of the welfare state, at that point it wouldn't be a welfare state at all, but simply a system for propping up a certain social class. 

I don’t understand that argument at all, but I’m afraid that unpacking this would derail the thread.

[Savannah]

It's not correct that a welfare state with guarded borders would be propping up just one social class.
Universal healthcare and education is possible to maintain only if it's both used and funded and therefore considered useful  and worthy of funding by all the classes. Otherwise the state simply can't fund the services.

This has very much to do with the topic at least in a social democracy. 

[Jo498]

Once they are citizens I agree. At least in principle, the destabilizing danger in communities that are too large and do not share sufficient communal bonds can still be a problem. For the sake of argument I am willing to admit all kind of bonds creating community, I only submit that the mere membership in the human race is not sufficient to create such community bonds because most of us are not saints, in any case we cannot *realistically demand* by most people to be some kind of saints.

And we can clearly see that in (comparably) young nations (e.g. Germany, even more obvious in the Balkan) or such with a strong federal tradition and local cultural differences (e.g. the US) local/regional community bonds are often favored (certainly emotionally, often also in political practice) vs. the national ones. It is not that very diverse and large communities are not possible; one could argue that medieval European christendom was such a community, despite many differences (and wars) among each other, there was in some ways more unity than in the current EU: one religion, one church, one pope, one emperor, one shared language (Latin). But it is doubtful that such large communities could work as smaller nations with welfare states work.

But I cannot see an obligation to let everyone become a cititzen of the state he would like to. This is very different from both help in a life threatening situation and from temporary shelter after someone escaped such a situation. If one thinks that such a further obligation exists, I think there is a further argument needed, it does not simply follow from the obligation to help in immediate need.

[Cubarey]

"I do not think it is completely unreasonable that the state can impose some restrictions, including curtailing of such freedoms as freedom of speech on its civil servants, military etc."

 

Why should government employees not have the full freedom of speech afforded other ctizens. A state official who marches in a may Day parade, Gay Pride Parade a Civic Pride Parade is making as much of a political statement as a military man or civil servant who marches in an anti-government, anti-immigrant or even a pro-nazi parade. I understnad Gemany particular concerns about Nazi speech but otherwise why should anyone be  prohibited from expressing their opinions. Are we to accept that their are a range of ideas and philosophies that are acceptable and those that fall outside that group? Who gets to decide? And is notgiving anyone the power to decide what speech should be free itself tather problematic? 

[Happy Ent]

This is another liberal-authoriarian divide. We liberals of course think that it is the state’s task to protect the freedom of speech of employees against the (completely understandable) wishes of their employers, be they private or public. These kinds of protections are one of the few important functions of the state: protect the powerless against the powerful. Popper, Popper, Popper.

[Jo498]

A servant of the state should not openly support a party that is explicitly hostile towards that state. This is a very different case from any other employer and it is not concering any old private opinion. Of course it can be abused and as I said there is probably a case to be made that it was abused against leftist in the 1970s. One of the classic questions in political philosophy is "Who guards the guardians?" Checks and balances are needed, that is, another group of meta-guardians takes care that the guardians do not abuse their power. But we also want to make pretty sure that some persons do not become guardians in the first place, namely those prone to corruption and power abuse or not supportive of the core of the constitution. (Because any power can be abused but one obviously needs to wield power to keep order, protect the weak and restrain abuses of power.)

[Galactus]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

This is another liberal-authoriarian divide. We liberals of course think that it is the state’s task to protect the freedom of speech of employees against the (completely understandable) wishes of their employers, be they private or public. These kinds of protections are one of the few important functions of the state: protect the powerless against the powerful. Popper, Popper, Popper.

Ironically, that would be the authoritarian solution, rather than the liberal one. (where employers are free to set whatever rules they want while employees are always free to quit) Freedom of contract and all that. 

That said, the issue is sufficiently complex: Eg. emailing your company's pricing plan to your biggest competitors would certainly be grounds for firing, and for good reason. Divulging confidentially held information (by eg. a policeman, doctor, etc.) likewise. It gets even weirder when it comes to eg. Priests, employees of political parties, etc.

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

This is another liberal-authoriarian divide. We liberals of course think that it is the state’s task to protect the freedom of speech of employees against the (completely understandable) wishes of their employers, be they private or public. These kinds of protections are one of the few important functions of the state: protect the powerless against the powerful. Popper, Popper, Popper.

Except that it is generally considered a good thing to maintain a distance between political advocacy and holding a bureaucratic position. It undermines faith in the machinery of government for the two to be mixed.

[Jo498]

14 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

This is another liberal-authoriarian divide. We liberals of course think that it is the state’s task to protect the freedom of speech of employees against the (completely understandable) wishes of their employers, be they private or public. These kinds of protections are one of the few important functions of the state: protect the powerless against the powerful. Popper, Popper, Popper.

But Brendan Eich was powerful and privileged. Calling him out (and ruining his career) for privately supporting a campaign to supress equal rights for the weak was an act of justice to protect the weak from the strong. Or at least this is the position of the people who support the wielding of "soft power" in such a case. Same applies to stuff the state does, e.g. affirmative action.

The problem is that such things usually cannot be decided formally or impartially. Although often only implicitly all ethical (and political) positions are tied to a concept of the Good and the Good Life, of values and rights. It is an illusion that one can cast out almost all content in favor of abstraction and formal procedures. It sneaks back in anyway, so it is far better to have it explicitly on the table. (E.g. is marriage some temporary contract between some people who like each other? Then it is obviously unfair to deny it to people of the same sex. (But why only two spouses? there is more historical precedent for socially recognized heterosexual polygamy than for same-sex-monogamy) But the "other side" (e.g. presumably Eich) obviously disagrees that this is a proper understanding of marriage, so calling them out as denying equal rights is simply presupposing a particlar and different understanding of the very social institution in question.)

But I think this would lead to far afield in this thread although it there are obviously relations to the topic at hand. Modern bureaucracy and business pretend to be "neutral" in all kinds of ways but from a different perspective, they obviously aren't. Even if most things are not biased in the obvious way the famous Anatole France quotations mocks: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

[Wouter]

On 8-12-2016 at 10:16 PM, Happy Ent said:

Sweden is a sterling example. The previous prime minister, Reinfeld, had as his explicit goal the destruction of the welfare state. He implemented this goal by mass immigration from outside Europe of people incompatible with the Swedish labour market. An imported ethnic underclass. It was the perfect storm, that probably has transformed Sweden forever. (Whether for better or worse is exactly a question of ideology. If, like me, you’re a social democrat, the result is a catastrophe. I’m afraid the Swedish welfare state is dead. But we’ll know more in 2017, when the bill arrives to the municipalities.)

For real? This guys is said to be a "moderate" "liberal-conservative" on Wikipedia. If what you describe is his actual goal, then he is a lunatic. How can this kind of people reach power and keep it for years in Sweden? Are those people just as self-destructive as ISIS supporters are?

As for the welfare state, the welfare is supposed to be shared among the inhabitants of the country, not outside it. The contribution to the Welfare State is also limited to the state borders. If the position would be that it has to extend to, say, Africa, then the system would collapse because the contributors in Sweden would have to be taxed at a rate of like 2000% in order to sustain it.

[Happy Ent]

9 hours ago, Wouter said:

For real? This guys is said to be a "moderate" "liberal-conservative" on Wikipedia.

His goal of the destruction of the welfare state is well-documented in his own book, Det sovande folket.

Whether or not his implementation of current immigration politics was a conscious and callous method is undocumented, and I may be slandering him. There are certainly more than one narrative about this, and I apologise if I presented my viewpoint as a consensus. But there is no doubt that the policy results (labour market reforms, distrust of institutions, etc.) are exactly what he originally desired so either he’s a bumbling idiot who out of ignorance happened implement exactly what he wanted to (but unknowingly) or he is the political genius that his colleagues give him credit for.

[Happy Ent]

17 hours ago, Wouter said:

How can this kind of people reach power and keep it for years in Sweden? Are those people just as self-destructive as ISIS supporters are?

Sweden is characterised by extreme consensus in the public sphere, well-oiled mechanisms for social control, state-controlled tv and radio and a shockingly narrow palette of political opinions in the printed press. It’s the country without comment sections. It’s a very small country with a tradition for utopian visions. As Olof Palme, the social democrat architect of modern Sweden, famously said, “Politics is Will.” This kind of stuff chills my blood, but Swedes are homo sovjeticus, believing the body politic to be manned with neutral technocrats who want nothing else than to further optimise their well-functioning, tiny society, built on extreme ethnic homogeneity. No Swede remembers an armed conflict, no Swede understands the concept of conflicting goals. It’s a country that is completely unprepared for the harsh realities of the world.

[Wouter]

10 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Sweden is characterised by extreme consensus in the public sphere, well-oiled mechanisms for social control, state-controlled tv and radio and a shockingly narrow palette of political opinions in the printed press. It’s the country without comment sections. It’s a very small country with a tradition for utopian visions. As Olof Palme, the social democrat architect of modern Sweden, famously said, “Politics is Will.” This kind of stuff chills my blood, but Swedes are homo sovjeticus, believing the body politic to be manned with neutral technocrats who want nothing else than to further optimise their well-functioning, tiny society, built on extreme ethnic homogeneity. No Swede remembers an armed conflict, no Swede understands the concept of conflicting goals. It’s a country that is completely unprepared for the harsh realities of the world.

If they vote en masse for people like Reinfeldt, then they surely are unprepared for reality.

Some of the things he says openly are unreal. Taken from here:-

 It is a choice of what country Sweden should be, Reinfeldt told TV4.

- Is this a country that is owned by those who have lived here for three or four generations or is Sweden what people who come here in mid-life makes it to be? he asked rhetorically.

- For me it is obvious that it should be the latter and that it is a stronger and better society if it may be open, said Reinfeldt.

In connection with TV4's "Nyhetsmorgon" during the Christmas Eve morning he went even further, claiming that Sweden's borders are only imaginary.

- What is Sweden? Is this country owned by those who lived here for four generations or those who invented borders? he said condescending.

Then he said that the Swedes are uninteresting as an ethnic group and that it is instead the immigrants that creates the new Sweden.

- It is what they do in Sweden that is Sweden, he claimed. 

It seems to me like the Swedish elected (at the time) a man who wants the end of Sweden, and certainly the end of the Swedish people. Self-destructive is indeed the word for it.

"A shockingly narrow palette of political opinions in the printed press" is also something I see in Belgium. But luckily, there is not yet an "extreme consensus" in the public sphere. Some newspapers have recently stopped allowing comment sections on their websites, for the obvious reason: the commenters usually disagree with a certain view in some articles, on balance.

[Galactus]

Jesus Christ. Have you guys never heard a liberal speak before? That's the cornerstone of the ideology, right there. That individuals, not states, governments, ethnicities or classes, are what matters.

[Happy Ent]

47 minutes ago, Galactus said:

Jesus Christ. Have you guys never heard a liberal speak before? That's the cornerstone of the ideology, right there. That individuals, not states, governments, ethnicities or classes, are what matters.

Oh, I am not shocked at all. This is his vision, he’s open about it, Swedes voted for it. Everything proceeds according to his plan. The irreparable destruction of the social democratic Swedish welfare state is a completely valid political plan that I merely happen to disagree with. I’m on the side of “Reinfeld is a political genius.” I just utterly and completely disagree with his plan because I’m on the left, don’t like segregation and hatred, prefer a secular state, prefer social mechanisms built on trust, prefer relatively little violence, and where my daughters could behaved like people everywhere they would want to go. These things are, I believe, gone. By democratic choice. I just disagree.

[Savannah]

11 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Sweden is characterised by extreme consensus in the public sphere, well-oiled mechanisms for social control, state-controlled tv and radio and a shockingly narrow palette of political opinions in the printed press. It’s the country without comment sections. It’s a very small country with a tradition for utopian visions. As Olof Palme, the social democrat architect of modern Sweden, famously said, “Politics is Will.” This kind of stuff chills my blood, but Swedes are homo sovjeticus, believing the body politic to be manned with neutral technocrats who want nothing else than to further optimise their well-functioning, tiny society, built on extreme ethnic homogeneity. No Swede remembers an armed conflict, no Swede understands the concept of conflicting goals. It’s a country that is completely unprepared for the harsh realities of the world.

Also the state owned daycare centers and schools are a part of the social control, as well as media.

[Savannah]

56 minutes ago, Galactus said:

Jesus Christ. Have you guys never heard a liberal speak before? That's the cornerstone of the ideology, right there. That individuals, not states, governments, ethnicities or classes, are what matters.

It takes a very certain type of individualism, type of individual,  to maintain a community when facing external or internal threats. 

 

[Iskaral Pust]

52 minutes ago, Galactus said:

Jesus Christ. Have you guys never heard a liberal speak before? That's the cornerstone of the ideology, right there. That individuals, not states, governments, ethnicities or classes, are what matters.

Perhaps I misinterpreted how that was directed but it's completely rational for liberals to object to a large influx of immigrants to their state because they represent a financial obligation for the native liberals via the welfare benefits of the state.  If a liberal has entered (or been coerced to enter) into a state-based collective welfare program, they would naturally object to bureaucrats expanding their obligation, especially if the expansion was not in the best interest of the natives, e.g. corporations lobbying for cheap labor, personal ideology of the bureaucrats, politicians seeking to expand a favorable voting demographic, etc.