NationStates Jolt Archive

Knowing that Europe is very different from America, but also knowing that you HAD to choose, what European country would you say is the most similar to America in terms of anything from domestic policy, conservativness, foriegn policy, economics, people, culture...ect. ANYTHING...EXCEPT LANGUAGE.

I know America and Europe are very different...I just want to see which one America is the LEAST different from.

And PLEASE people, dont just pick England because they speak English. :headbang:

Theres obviously no right or wrong answer...and its probably gonna be hard to choose as all these countries are different from America, but PLEASE post the reason why you picked that country as the most similar.

Knowing that Europe is very different from America, but also knowing that you HAD to choose, what European country would you say is the most similar to America in terms of anything from domestic policy, conservativness, foriegn policy, economics, people, culture...ect. ANYTHING...EXCEPT LANGUAGE.

I know America and Europe are very different...I just want to see which one America is the LEAST different from.

And PLEASE people, dont just pick England because they speak English. :headbang:
England.

Because they speak English of course!!

But seriously, America has inherited many traditions straight from the UK, and France, but mostly the UK.

I'd say Germany. Hell, I don't know.

It depends.

Are we talking the whole thing or the coasts vs jesusland?

Ireland. Sad but true.

But I'm going to vote France anyway, just to annoy.

It depends.

Are we talking the whole thing or the coasts vs jesusland?

We are talking about the whole kaboodle.

Just like I wouldnt say...it depends, are we talking about Liberal Northern Protestant Germany or Conservative Catholic Southern Germany.

We're not comparing parts...were comparing the WHOLE THING.

and enough with Jesusland...:p

Ireland. Sad but true.

But I'm going to vote France anyway, just to annoy.

Oh come on, vote for real.:(

England, because they seem to be the most willing to go along with George Bushs illegal wars of oil and conquest

Ireland. Sad but true.


You have got to be kidding me!

England is far more similar. Hell, Italy is probably closer.

England, because they seem to be the most willing to go along with George Bushs illegal wars of oil and conquest

Is that the only thing you can think of.

America has had over 200 years of history, Europe over 2000 years....and all you can think of is George Bush?

Grow up...go post in the..kinderthread

Hmmm...mindless ideas of grandure, stubbornness, refusal to acknowledge that other social models could hold a grain of truth...

France it is.

Hmmm...mindless ideas of grandure, stubbornness, refusal to acknowledge that other social models could hold a grain of truth...

France it is.

Haha.

Why has no one thought of Switzerland?

It seems to me they are the most conservative country in Europe...socially and economically.

They sorta have more of an American style healthcare system, atleast more so than other Euro countries.

They are very capitalist.

Very free market.

Very low taxes.

Anybody?

Is that the only thing you can think of.

America has had over 200 years of history, Europe over 2000 years....and all you can think of is George Bush?

Grow up...go post in the..kinderthread
you can call me a child all you like, the fact is my post is still true

England, because they seem to be the most willing to go along with George Bushs illegal wars of oil and conquest
Do you seriously believe that the wars in iraq and afghanistan are for conquest. The only baseless claim that you could possible make is that the wars were primarily for boosting U.S. influence in the region. But again, these are just baseless claims made on emotion and ignorance. From experience, we invaded afghanistan to break the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan. That has largely been a success. I can't tell you from experience our inital reason for invading iraq but our reason for staying is a genuine one.

Our main objectives are as follows:

1. Provide security for the process of building a democracy and the building of basic services

2. Kill or capture any members of al-qaeda in iraq

3. Assist the process of training iraqi military/police forces in any way possible.

I fail to see how any of those objectives line up with your beliefs.

you can call me a child all you like, the fact is my post is still true

No its not.

But the fact is you were being a baby and bush bashing in a thread that had nothing to do with Bush.

Make your own thread...dont jack mine.

Do you seriously believe that the wars in iraq and afghanistan are for conquest. The only baseless claim that you could possible make is that the wars were primarily for boosting U.S. influence in the region. But again, these are just baseless claims made on emotion and ignorance. From experience, we invaded afghanistan to break the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan. That has largely been a success. I can't tell you from experience our inital reason for invading iraq but our reason for staying is a genuine one.

Our main objectives are as follows:

1. Provide security for the process of building a democracy and the building of basic services

2. Kill or capture any members of al-qaeda in iraq

3. Assist the process of training iraqi military/police forces in any way possible.

I fail to see how any of those objectives line up with your beliefs.

Ugh, come on man...do this in another thread.

Dont feed the trolling Bush basher.

Ugh, come on man...do this in another thread.

Dont feed the trolling Bush basher.
Gotchya. He just won't respond to me on any other thread and i don't have much time so i need to catch him some where.

Gotchya. He just won't respond to me on any other thread and i don't have much time so i need to catch him some where.

Lol, I understand...hes Bush bashing on his thread right below mine...go beat him there.

I'll go with you.

No its not.

But the fact is you were being a baby and bush bashing in a thread that had nothing to do with Bush.

Make your own thread...dont jack mine.
Actually you stated foreign policy as a way for the european countries to be similar to the US. I was pointing out how britian's foreign policy is very similar to that of the US

USA. Here or nowhere.

If Hillary is elected in 08 I'm moving to England, the mother nation.

Actually you stated foreign policy as a way for the european countries to be similar to the US. I was pointing out how britian's foreign policy is very similar to that of the US

Thats fine but you dont have to troll about his evil conquests and what not.

Post seriously or dont post at all.

Do the flaming on your own thread.

In my experience it's Britain (more so England) as a decent amount of culture is fairly interchangable between the two nations. There's still a hell of a lot different, believe me

It seems to me they are the most conservative country in Europe...socially and economically.
Xenophobic =/= Conservative.

They voted in gay marriage for example.

They sorta have more of an American style healthcare system, atleast more so than other Euro countries.
No they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
It's just like any other healthcare system in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Switzerland
And there are many other countries that are more free economically than Switzerland.

The UK, in my view. It is in many ways a continuation of the Empire.

Why has no one thought of Switzerland?

It seems to me they are the most conservative country in Europe...socially and economically.

They sorta have more of an American style healthcare system, atleast more so than other Euro countries.

They are very capitalist.

Very free market.

Very low taxes.

Anybody?

From memory the tax rate hits 70% on the wealthy and the huge amounts the spend on their train system marks a massive difference from the US in terms of mentality.

They do have some similarities (gun laws) but then obvious contrasts (nuetrality), there are better shouts out there

England for sure, as well as Ireland and Scotland as most have already said America derives most of what it is stright from there.

England would probably be the most prevalent answer but I'm going to say Germany only because of how their government is arranged.

England would probably be the most prevalent answer but I'm going to say Germany only because of how their government is arranged.
Its legal system is also closer to the US's.

No they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
It's just like any other healthcare system in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Switzerland
And there are many other countries that are more free economically than Switzerland.
I thought the American system was typical of a third way economy anyway, like the European ones. Also, based on that survey, isn't Switzerland very free economically?

Also, based on that survey, isn't Switzerland very free economically?
Yes, but certainly not exceptional in Europe.

Xenophobic =/= Conservative.

They voted in gay marriage for example.

Thats one thing. The majority party is a socially conservative and fiscally conservative party. Switzerland also didnt give women the right to vote until the 70's. It is most totally, a conservative country, more so in the German speaking areas, which are the majority, seeing as the how the SVP is most popular in the German areas.

No they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
It's just like any other healthcare system in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Switzerland
And there are many other countries that are more free economically than Switzerland.

So I was totally misinformed about the healthcare, but judgind by this map, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Index2006_EconFreedomMAP.jpg Switzerland ranks up there with Germany, Austria, the low countries, England, Sweden, Finland and Estonia in being the most capitalist/free market.

Now, lets look at that. Switzerland has the least taxes of any of those countries and I'm pretty sure the least regulations on corporations.

Which of those countries would you, as the economist, say are more capitalist/free market than Switzerland?

Also, as another poster just reminded me, Switzerland laws regarding guns are very conservative...more like America than any of its Euro counterparts...in that aspect anyway.

Yes, but certainly not exceptional in Europe.
Which would be then?

Also, as another poster just reminded me, Switzerland laws regarding guns are very conservative...more like America than any of its Euro counterparts...in that aspect anyway.
We would say liberal.

We would say liberal.

Err..right liberal, just not leftist, right?

Forgive me bro, for I am a ethnocentric dumb American. :p

Also, as another poster just reminded me, Switzerland laws regarding guns are very conservative...more like America than any of its Euro counterparts...in that aspect anyway.

Have you ever actually been to Switzerland?

Thats one thing. The majority party is a socially conservative and fiscally conservative party. Switzerland also didnt give women the right to vote until the 70's. It is most totally, a conservative country, more so in the German speaking areas, which are the majority, seeing as the how the SVP is most popular in the German areas.
Even so, it is a lot more socially liberal than it once was. Xenophobia and economic freedom are its main "conservative" traits



So I was totally misinformed about the healthcare, but judgind by this map, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Index2006_EconFreedomMAP.jpg Switzerland ranks up there with Germany, Austria, the low countries, England, Sweden, Finland and Estonia in being the most capitalist/free market.

Now, lets look at that. Switzerland has the least taxes of any of those countries and I'm pretty sure the least regulations on corporations.
Keep in mind that map lumps countries together in categories. It is not specific enough.

Which of those countries would you, as the economist, say are more capitalist/free market than Switzerland?
Indeed, which would be?

Have you ever actually been to Switzerland?

No...why would I have to go to Switzerland to know about their LAWS?

I'm willing to bet atleast half of these experts on America that roam NS have never even set foot on our soil.

What does it matter, I'm not seeing your point.

Thats one thing. The majority party is a socially conservative and fiscally conservative party.
Same in France...

Switzerland also didnt give women the right to vote until the 70's.
Much like the US, I presume?

It is most totally, a conservative country, more so in the German speaking areas, which are the majority, seeing as the how the SVP is most popular in the German areas.
As I said, the SVP does not represent conservatism any more than the BNP does.
Have you ever spoken to a Swiss person? I've met quite a few, yet none of them were as conservative as another person I met from old liberal Hamburg city. Hell, people voted in Ole von Beust there.

Now, lets look at that. Switzerland has the least taxes of any of those countries and I'm pretty sure the least regulations on corporations.
Does it? It's virtually impossible to tell, because the Swiss pay taxes to so many different levels of government.
At any rate, Ireland may well have lower taxes, and most certainly has less regulations.

Which of those countries would you, as the economist, say are more capitalist/free market than Switzerland?
Ireland definitely. Luxembourg as well. And if you can believe the heritage foundation, add the UK, Iceland, Estonia, Denmark and Finland.

Err..right liberal, just not leftist, right?

Forgive me bro, for I am a ethnocentric dumb American. :p
No, definitely not leftist.

And, you are forgiven this time. ;) :p

No...why would I have to go to Switzerland to know about their LAWS?

I'm willing to be atleast half of these experts on America that roam NS have never even set foot on our soil.

What does it matter, I'm not seeing your point.

Don't worry about it. Just confirming something in my own head. Carry on.

[QUOTE=Europa Maxima]Even so, it is a lot more socially liberal than it once was. Xenophobia and economic freedom are its main "conservative" traits[QUOTE]

Right, I know it has...liberalized recently, socially. But it is still a conservative country (by American standards) atleast in comparsion to other Euro countries. Its "xenophobia" and economic freedom are what I love about it. :p

[QUOTE=Europa Maxima]Keep in mind that map lumps countries together in categories. It is not specific enough.[QUOTE]

I understand...that was what I found on Wiki though...I'd be willing to look at anything you or Neu Leonstein can find on the subject though. :)

Or anyone else for that matter.

Same in France...
Paradoxically so.


Much like the US, I presume?
Switzerland was the last nation in the West to do so, but I suppose the US wasn't too much earlier.

Ireland definitely. Luxembourg as well. And if you can believe the heritage foundation, add the UK, Iceland, Estonia, Denmark and Finland.
I question the UK. The rest sound about right though.

Same in France...


Much like the US, I presume?


As I said, the SVP does not represent conservatism any more than the BNP does.
Have you ever spoken to a Swiss person? I've met quite a few, yet none of them were as conservative as another person I met from old liberal Hamburg city. Hell, people voted in Ole von Beust there.


Does it? It's virtually impossible to tell, because the Swiss pay taxes to so many different levels of government.
At any rate, Ireland may well have lower taxes, and most certainly has less regulations.


Ireland definitely. Luxembourg as well. And if you can believe the heritage foundation, add the UK, Iceland, Estonia, Denmark and Finland.

Can I see some links?

Its not that I think your lying...you usually are right..I just want to read up and see if I agree.:)

Paradoxically so.

Yes but France is still more of a leftist country, even if this government isnt. Look at their labor laws.

Switzerland was the last nation in the West to do so, but I suppose the US wasn't too much earlier.

Well we gave it to em in the 1920s....I'm not sure how that compares to the rest of Europe, I too just know that Switzerland was the last.

I question the UK. The rest sound about right though.

Even Denmark? I always thought Denmark and Scandanavia to be much more socialized.

Right, I know it has...liberalized recently, socially. But it is still a conservative country (by American standards) atleast in comparsion to other Euro countries. Its "xenophobia" and economic freedom are what I love about it. :p
Yeah I like Switzerland a lot too.

I understand...that was what I found on Wiki though...I'd be willing to look at anything you or Neu Leonstein can find on the subject though. :)

Or anyone else for that matter.
You will have to depend on Neu Leonstein for that tonight. I usually get most of my sources from the Economist. Check its website.

I'd be willing to look at anything you or Neu Leonstein can find on the subject though. :)
Just in case it wasn't clear:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Hong Kong 1 [1.28]
Singapore 2 [1.56]
Ireland 3 [1.58]
Luxembourg 4 [1.60]
United Kingdom 5 [1.74]
Iceland 5 [1.74]
Estonia 7 [1.75]
Denmark 8 [1.78]
United States 9 [1.84]
Australia 9 [1.84]
New Zealand 9 [1.84]
Canada 12 [1.85]
Finland 12 [1.85]
Chile 14 [1.88]
Switzerland 15 [1.89]
Cyprus 16 [1.90]
Netherlands 16 [1.90]
Austria 18 [1.95]
Sweden 19 [1.96]
Germany 19 [1.96]

Yes but France is still more of a leftist country, even if this government isnt. Look at their labor laws.
Those are a recent development. France and its government are a disaster.

Well we gave it to em in the 1920s....I'm not sure how that compares to the rest of Europe, I too just know that Switzerland was the last.
It's the last, definitely. The UK is slightly ahead the US on that one though.

Even Denmark? I always thought Denmark and Scandanavia to be much more socialized.
No, their markets are very free. Where the state does intervene, it is highly efficient. Their economies are very powerful. They tend to be more socially liberal than most EU nations as well.

No, their markets are very free. Where the state does intervene, it is highly efficient. Their economies are very powerful. They tend to be more socially liberal than most EU nations as well.

But are they not the epitome of welfare states?

By the way...go online

The USA has the largest German population outside of Germany

so I'll say Germany of course(I believe there's 40 something million Germans in the USA, the largest minority group...unless you add up ALL the people of British Isle decent, English + Irish + Scottish + Welsh = around 60 million)

Germany has the most billionaires in Europe, has a large economy, is technologically advanced, and is awesome, and also the birthplace of ME lol. Germany is probably also the most Conservative nation(after Switzerland) in Europe. The Social Democrats are more right-wing than the Conservative Party of Canada!

Just in case it wasn't clear:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Hong Kong 1 [1.28]
Singapore 2 [1.56]
Ireland 3 [1.58]
Luxembourg 4 [1.60]
United Kingdom 5 [1.74]
Iceland 5 [1.74]
Estonia 7 [1.75]
Denmark 8 [1.78]
United States 9 [1.84]
Australia 9 [1.84]
New Zealand 9 [1.84]
Canada 12 [1.85]
Finland 12 [1.85]
Chile 14 [1.88]
Switzerland 15 [1.89]
Cyprus 16 [1.90]
Netherlands 16 [1.90]
Austria 18 [1.95]
Sweden 19 [1.96]
Germany 19 [1.96]

Hmm...But Switzerlands economy is much more powerful than those other European countries ahead of it, excluding England, right?

OMG...I never new Belarus was THAT bad!

Whats its deal?

But are they not the epitome of welfare states?

By the way...go online
Their welfare systems are excellent because they are investing in the future, but that doesn't mean they are socialist, by any leap of logic. They are essentially capitalist.

My AIM isn't working...I'll try in a while again.

Hmm...But Switzerlands economy is much more powerful than those other European countries ahead of it, excluding England, right?
They've been taking a bit of a relative dive in recent years. At any rate, economic freedom and economic strength are not the same thing -> see China.

Whats its deal?
Communist Dictatorship.

Their welfare systems are excellent because they are investing in the future, but that doesn't mean they are socialist, by any leap of logic. They are essentially capitalist.

My AIM isn't working...I'll try in a while again.

I dont understand how they can be welfare states an NOT be socialist. Or are they capitalists welfare states?

:confused: :confused:

They've been taking a bit of a relative dive in recent years. At any rate, economic freedom and economic strength are not the same thing -> see China.
China is becoming freer though as time progresses.


Communist Dictatorship.
Precisely. The country is extremely oppressed.

I dont understand how they can be welfare states an NOT be socialist. Or are they capitalists welfare states?

:confused: :confused:
Welfare capitalism.

I dont understand how they can be welfare states an NOT be socialist. Or are they capitalists welfare states?

:confused: :confused:
Just read the info about them. I don't trust the Heritage Foundation with much, but they really do care about economic freedom, and so their study of that is generally accurate and trustworthy.

England.


Not just because they speak English. Their "liberal" party is right of the international center, just like ours. They have a national leader almost as stupid as ours (although Blair isn't quite as funny. He may occasionally go crazy, but it's funnier to see Bush trying to open a fake door). They also share many cultural traits (seeing as how the founding population of the US was mostly from England, that shouldn't be a suprise), and their conservative "revolution" occured just a couple years before the Reagan "revolution".

Besides which... They were a world power for a long time much like us, and they managed their coloni- I mean "Liberated States" almost as ineptly as we appear to.

France, because everyone hates both of us.

Just read the info about them. I don't trust the Heritage Foundation with much, but they really do care about economic freedom, and so their study of that is generally accurate and trustworthy.
Indeed. It should explain better how they merge welfare states with Capitalism.

They've been taking a bit of a relative dive in recent years. At any rate, economic freedom and economic strength are not the same thing -> see China.

Could it that be because of the pressure that has been put on Switzerland to integrate its economy more in line with the Euro Union standard?

Communist Dictatorship.

That'll do it.

England.


Not just because they speak English. Their "liberal" party is right of the international center, just like ours. They have a national leader almost as stupid as ours (although Blair isn't quite as funny. He may occasionally go crazy, but it's funnier to see Bush trying to open a fake door). They also share many cultural traits (seeing as how the founding population of the US was mostly from England, that shouldn't be a suprise), and their conservative "revolution" occured just a couple years before the Reagan "revolution".

Besides which... They were a world power for a long time much like us, and they managed their coloni- I mean "Liberated States" almost as ineptly as we appear to.

Lol...fair enough.

Good reasoning by the way.:)

Could it that be because of the pressure that has been put on Switzerland to integrate its economy more in line with the Euro Union standard?

Why would it even care? It's not in the EU.

Why would it even care? It's not in the EU.

It's generally a bad idea to piss off your trading partners, especially if they totally surround you. On top of that, Switzerland has opted-in on certain EU treaties.

Why would it even care? It's not in the EU.

"In recent years, the Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with those of the European Union, in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, but this has not produced strong growth. Full EU membership is a long-term objective of the Swiss government, but there is considerable popular sentiment against this."

Oh also, regarding what we were talking about before.

"Switzerland is a prosperous and stable modern market economy, with a per capita GDP that is higher than those of the big western European economies. For much of the 20th century, Switzerland was the wealthiest country in Europe by a considerable margin. However, since the early 1990s it has suffered from slow growth and, as of 2005, fell to fourth among European states with populations above one million in terms of Gross Domestic Product per capita at purchasing power parity, behind Ireland, Denmark and Norway (see list). Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association."

As always, da link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy)

Could it that be because of the pressure that has been put on Switzerland to integrate its economy more in line with the Euro Union standard?
No.

I don't know why you are under the impression that Switzerland was always like this...yes, their finance sectors were obviously free, but it's a very regulated economy, quite similar to the German one. They've been facing the same issues as Germany - overregulation, healthcare and pension crises, business moving into countries with cheaper labour and so on.

USA. Here or nowhere.

If Hillary is elected in 08 I'm moving to England, the mother nation.

Blah, if she's elected, there would be a civil war between liberals and centrists/conservatives. Not only is she socialist, but she also shares some views of communism: "It takes a village to raise a child"... etc. etc.

It's generally a bad idea to piss off your trading partners, especially if they totally surround you. On top of that, Switzerland has opted-in on certain EU treaties.
Yes, but this isn't pressure. Switzerland opted for all of this.

No.

I don't know why you are under the impression that Switzerland was always like this...yes, their finance sectors were obviously free, but it's a very regulated economy, quite similar to the German one. They've been facing the same issues as Germany - overregulation, healthcare and pension crises, business moving into countries with cheaper labour and so on.
The image the media portrays usually claims that Switzerland is more economically liberal than the USA, without giving sources/reasons as to why. This could be the reason.

What I like about the country is its governmental model. It could be good for the EU.

Whats the obsession with Switzerland all of a sudden?

England has socialised health care so it can't be England by any stretch of the imagination...

I've always thought Brazil was a poor man's USA, but this is about Europe I think I'll go with Italy. Both nations managed to elected wealthy idiots. Bush and Berlusconi.

America would be great if more like Germany. Police don't take crap from anyone.

Control the population before the economy!:eek:

Blah, if she's elected, there would be a civil war between liberals and centrists/conservatives. Not only is she socialist, but she also shares some views of communism: "It takes a village to raise a child"... etc. etc.
I assume you completely misunderstood her. Conservatives also appreciate the community's role in bringing up a child with family values and so on.

No.

I don't know why you are under the impression that Switzerland was always like this...yes, their finance sectors were obviously free, but it's a very regulated economy, quite similar to the German one. They've been facing the same issues as Germany - overregulation, healthcare and pension crises, business moving into countries with cheaper labour and so on.

Well, look at the quotes taken in my post 66...thats basically what I'm going off of.

I'd laugh if someone had to leave their country because of neo-Mcarthyism and because they don't understand spoken english.

Well, look at the quotes taken in my post 66...thats basically what I'm going off of.
Yep, and it's perfectly in line with what I was saying.

In recent years, the Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with those of the European Union, in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, but this has not produced strong growth.
The economic practices of the EU are largely liberalisation of the domestic economy, fiscal stabilisation and of course dropping all restrictions on trade withing the union.

For much of the 20th century, Switzerland was the wealthiest country in Europe by a considerable margin. However, since the early 1990s it has suffered from slow growth...
As I said, globalisation has been a problem for them, as it has been for all the other social market economies in all their various guises.

"In recent years, the Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with those of the European Union, in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, but this has not produced strong growth. Full EU membership is a long-term objective of the Swiss government, but there is considerable popular sentiment against this."
Not so much pressure then as desire on part of Switzerland itself. If joining the EU weakens Switzerland considerably in the long run, I'd opt out of it.

Oh also, regarding what we were talking about before.

As always, da link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy)
Hmm sounds correct, although Wikipedia is unreliable. Switzerland is definitely a powerful economy though.

As I said, globalisation has been a problem for them, as it has been for all the other social market economies in all their various guises.
Do you think they'll be able to cope with it?

Do you think they'll be able to cope with it?
Sure. Except for France, I think every country can and is on its way.

Sure. Except for France, I think every country can and is on its way.
France is unable to cope with the real world. Hopefully it will adjust and come out a powerful nation once more.

I would have to say England. It seems to be the most conservative and neo-liberal minded ofa ll the European countries.

Yep, and it's perfectly in line with what I was saying.

Ok

The economic practices of the EU are largely liberalisation of the domestic economy, fiscal stabilisation and of course dropping all restrictions on trade withing the union.[/QUOTE]

Yet, for some reason this is all NOT helping the Swiss economy, why?

As I said, globalisation has been a problem for them, as it has been for all the other social market economies in all their various guises.

Understandable...globalisation seems to be the problem to all free market economies.

Not so much pressure then as desire on part of Switzerland itself. If joining the EU weakens Switzerland considerably in the long run, I'd opt out of it.

I agree with that.

Sure. Except for France, I think every country can and is on its way.

And what do you think will happen to France?

Yet, for some reason this is all NOT helping the Swiss economy, why?
It has to adjust to the EU way of doing things. This can damage the economy temporarily.

Understandable...globalisation seems to be the problem to all free market economies.

Not free market economies. Social market economies.

Yet, for some reason this is all NOT helping the Swiss economy, why?
For the same reason that it isn't immediately helping the German economy - things don't change overnight.

Understandable...globalisation seems to be the problem to all free market economies.
Well, the degree to which it really is a problem is determined by how protectionist you want to be.

And what do you think will happen to France?
I don't know. But things won't go on like this.

Things seem a little bit like the world in Atlas Shrugged. Things get worse and worse, but the one thing which might save them is rejected out of principle.

I think things will continue to go down the drain, until one day a radical reformer, a "neo-liberal" will get elected. France just needs a Thatcher.

France just needs a Thatcher.
*shudders*

I don't know. But things won't go on like this.

Things seem a little bit like the world in Atlas Shrugged. Things get worse and worse, but the one thing which might save them is rejected out of principle.

I think things will continue to go down the drain, until one day a radical reformer, a "neo-liberal" will get elected. France just needs a Thatcher.
Or a Merkel (time will tell). I wonder if Sarkozy will fill that role. Somehow, I am doubtful.

*shudders*
Hey, I hate her guts.

But remember how things were before she came in. Everything was nationalised, the economy had stagnated, unemployment was high and as a result of all that, everyone was mentally affected. Everyone was unhappy.

The transition hurt, but for all the problems today, at least the British can now buy in shops without empty shelves again.

Hey, I hate her guts.

But remember how things were before she came in. Everything was nationalised, the economy had stagnated, unemployment was high and as a result of all that, everyone was mentally affected. Everyone was unhappy.

The transition hurt, but for all the problems today, at least the British can now buy in shops without empty shelves again.
Precisely. She caused a lot of pain and grief, but she helped return Britain back to being one of the world's leading economies.

For the same reason that it isn't immediately helping the German economy - things don't change overnight.

Ok, but do you think Switzerland will benefit in the long run by staying isolated from the EU, or conforming its economic policies to that of the EU's?

Well, the degree to which it really is a problem is determined by how protectionist you want to be.

Understand.

Ok, but do you think Switzerland will benefit in the long run by staying isolated from the EU, or conforming its economic policies to that of the EU's?
It will probably be much to its benefit to join the EU, but the transition will be rough and slightly bumpy.

Hey, I hate her guts.

But remember how things were before she came in. Everything was nationalised, the economy had stagnated, unemployment was high and as a result of all that, everyone was mentally affected. Everyone was unhappy.

The transition hurt, but for all the problems today, at least the British can now buy in shops without empty shelves again.

If you understand that good that came out of her Conservatism, why do you hate her guts?

It will probably be much to its benefit to join the EU, but the transition will be rough and slightly bumpy.

I guess well just have to wait and see.

If you understand that good that came out of her Conservatism, why do you hate her guts?
Sometimes liking a person and liking what they do diverge and are two different things. She is that way; you either love her or you hate her.

If you understand that good that came out of her Conservatism, why do you hate her guts?
I don't acknowledge anything that came out of her conservatism. I acknowledge some things that her economic liberalism brought about.

You have to realise that to me, conservatism and the free market don't belong together. There is no rational reason, it's simply a feat of cognitive dissonance that many conservatives manage somehow.
Conservatism is about irrationality, about emotions, about "feeling" what is right and what is wrong, about dictating other people's choices based on your own irrationality.

Liberalism is about rationality. About respecting every person's judgement to live the best way they can.

As for Thatcher...I also don't like her character, he rhetoric, and the war on unions and the unemployed, which was ultimately of little effect. It was the privatisation and the mental change it brought about that was good.
Plus, she went to war to make herself more popular.

Liberalism is about rationality. About respecting every person's judgement to live the best way they can.
Hence European liberals can be, and often are, right wing.

As for Thatcher...I also don't like her character, he rhetoric, and the war on unions and the unemployed, which was ultimately of little effect. It was the privatisation and the mental change it brought about that was good.
Plus, she went to war to make herself more popular.
She failed to realise trade unions are a natural part of the capitalist free market. Given too much power, they are a danger. Otherwise, no.

I don't acknowledge anything that came out of her conservatism. I acknowledge some things that her economic liberalism brought about.

You have to realise that to me, conservatism and the free market don't belong together. There is no rational reason, it's simply a feat of cognitive dissonance that many conservatives manage somehow.
Conservatism is about irrationality, about emotions, about "feeling" what is right and what is wrong, about dictating other people's choices based on your own irrationality.

Liberalism is about rationality. About respecting every person's judgement to live the best way they can.

Yes but by blending economic liberalism and social conservatism...you get a nice free market society where people can buy and sell as they please, yet you also get a moral, orderly soceity based on good values.

And thats what American Conservatism is all about.

And when I said her conservatism...I meant her economic liberalness.

I keep getting those mixed up.

Yes but by blending economic liberalism and social conservatism...you get a nice free market society where people can buy and sell as they please, yet you also get a moral, orderly soceity based on good values.
No, you get a pseudo-free market, a sham in which one might be theoretically capable of using one's ability to achieve, and to create the life that one wants, but in which doing so is frowned upon.

Yes but by blending economic liberalism and social conservatism...you get a nice free market society where people can buy and sell as they please, yet you also get a moral, orderly soceity based on good values.

Can people freely buy and sell gay porn?

No, you get a pseudo-free market, a sham in which one might be theoretically capable of using one's ability to achieve, and to create the life that one wants, but in which doing so is frowned upon.

But thats what we have in America and no one is frowned upon for using their ability to achieve personal gain.

In fact, its totally part of the basis of our society.

But thats what we have in America and no one is frowned upon for using their ability to achieve personal gain.

In fact, its totally part of the basis of our society.
Yet America isn't that Conservative. Neither are you really. A society can be moral without meaning the government should enforce its views, as well as economically liberal. Right-wing does not always mean Conservative.

Yet America isn't that Conservative. Neither are you really.

Really?

What makes you say that?

Honest question.

Really?

What makes you say that?

Honest question.
You are right-wing economically, with some more conservative social views, but not to the extent of most Conservatives, which is good.

You are right-wing economically, with some more conservative social views, but not to the extent of most Conservatives, which is good.

and America?

and America?
America is too many states really for me to just generalise, but on the whole it is economically right-wing, whilst socially moderate with Conservative tendencies. For now.

America is too many states really for me to just generalise, but on the whole it is economically right-wing, whilst socially moderate with Conservative tendencies. For now.

So sorta like how you defined me.

Yeah I guess...we have just enough liberal states to keep us righties in check...but just enough conservative states to out number the liberals and tilt the country to the right.

I like it.

So sorta like how you defined me.

Yeah I guess...we have just enough liberal states to keep us righties in check...but just enough conservative states to out number the liberals and tilt the country to the right.

I like it.
Yep, more or less. :p

I was surprised that England got first, even though I voted for them because the British Pound is high in value, but Sweden has a good gov. system, even thoug they are socialist. I dont know about the other governments.

and America?
America is cognitive dissonance.

And that, you can put in your sig. :D

So sorta like how you defined me.
You know, I have a feeling that you'll be an objectivist libertarian before too long. You're that sort of candidate - you just don't know it yet. :p

America is cognitive dissonance.

SOYLENT GREEN IS... PEOPLE!

Or a Merkel (time will tell). I wonder if Sarkozy will fill that role. Somehow, I am doubtful.
Sarkozy is an idiot. The French centre-right is doomed in the next election.

Firstly, you should have put 'UK' rather than 'England'


In historical terms the answer is France; both countries were founded following a revolution, upon an ideal (exceptionalism) and each remains convinced of their unique place in the World. This is why they hate each other, because essentially they are so alike.


In modern, practical terms it's the UK.

yeah im probably the only francophile in texas but vive la france.

And PLEASE people, dont just pick England...
There's other reasons to choose the United Kingdom, but all in all I've seen another of academic writings that have convinced me that France and the United States are all too much alike on a number of levels.

After that, the United Kingdom would be the closest I suppose. Something to do with laws, being close partners, culture, and so forth.

England, because they seem to be the most willing to go along with George Bushs illegal wars of oil and conquest

AKA wars of liberation from oppressive dictators. Show me how we're benefitting from Iraq's oil.

I voted for England... someone else said it, and i'll reiterate:

So many of our traditions/culture have England as their root.

my ancestors are from r england and lindle, austria. I choose austria

America is cognitive dissonance.

And that, you can put in your sig. :D

Lol, I would rather get my finger nails torn out of my flailing fingers by pinko chinamen, than sig that. :D

You know, I have a feeling that you'll be an objectivist libertarian before too long. You're that sort of candidate - you just don't know it yet. :p

Eh, I'm not that sure...I think I'm too socially conservative for that.

I'm more in line with this sort of thinking...not 100% but its close.

"The SVP is the right-most of the four co-governing political parties in Switzerland. It is best known for opposing Swiss membership in international organisations such as the EU and UN, and for its campaigning against perceived flaws in the immigration, asylum and penal laws. The party is socially and fiscally conservative (although secular in outlook). It is in favour of traditional family values, tough penal laws, strict immigration limits, deregulation and reduced government spending (except for the areas of domestic security, the military and agricultural support). The SVP supports the Swiss traditions of private gun ownership, armed neutrality and the national militia army and opposes most forms of international security cooperation"

There's other reasons to choose the United Kingdom, but all in all I've seen another of academic writings that have convinced me that France and the United States are all too much alike on a number of levels.

After that, the United Kingdom would be the closest I suppose. Something to do with laws, being close partners, culture, and so forth.

I understand that totally, I just didnt want a bunch of noobs picking England simply because we share their language, thats all.

I understand that totally, I just didnt want a bunch of noobs picking England simply because we share their language, thats all.
I thought that, "That didn't seem to help all that much," would have been spammage.
True that. I must admit that I wasn't going to post what I posted. Any relations seen between the quote and my post are by sheer coincidence. :)

I thought that, "That didn't seem to help all that much," would have been spammage.
True that. I must admit that I wasn't going to post what I posted. Any relations seen between the quote and my post are by sheer coincidence. :)

I'll let you off with a warning....this time.

:p

Firstly, you should have put 'UK' rather than 'England'


In historical terms the answer is France; both countries were founded following a revolution, upon an ideal (exceptionalism) and each remains convinced of their unique place in the World. This is why they hate each other, because essentially they are so alike.


In modern, practical terms it's the UK.

Thats a very good point.

I had never thought of that.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
But remember how things were before she came in. Everything was nationalised, the economy had stagnated, unemployment was high and as a result of all that, everyone was mentally affected. Everyone was unhappy.

The transition hurt, but for all the problems today, at least the British can now buy in shops without empty shelves again.

I have only just found this thread but while perusing the replies I found this extraordinary statement and could not ignore it.

Firstly, yes a lot of things were nationalised back then. Now we have massively subsidised private industries. The privatised rail companies get the kind of government subsidies state owned British Rail could only dream about. As someone recently said, "if the public purse is paying for it then the public should own it".

Secondly, the economy may have been a bit stagnant but that was nothing compared to what the Thatcher years would do to it. The funniest thing about it (if the social damage can be called funny) was the fact that the Tory government did not even understand what was going wrong. None of what happened during those dark days of the early eighties was predicted by their economic models. Thatcher herself admitted as much as her government took the foot off the monetarist pedal in the mid-eighties. It was only then that the UK economy started to improve and begin to make lost ground on European economies.

Thirdly, we thought unemployment was high before Thatcher. In actual fact unemployment was less than 1 million. By the early to mid-eighties it had exploded to about 4 million. Even now it is still about 2 million. Thatcher's legacy on the unemployment situation was to get us to think of high unemployment as the norm. Nothing to be proud of.

Fourthly, the shelves in British shops were full before Thatcher arrived. The idea that left wing Britain lived in soviet like penury is a false picture put about by neo-con apologists trying to put a halo around Thatchers head. It is simply untrue. As far as shops are concerned, the Thatcher legacy is the desertification of British town centres as out of town, boxlike mega-marts destroy the competition. In a way, Thatcherism has emptied the shop shelves.

Anyway, thats my little rant over.

I voted for England (I assumed you were not refering to Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland). Simply because the Thatcher 'revolution' aligned the British economy with the American model and the current foreign policies of both countries are practically interchangable. Also, the attitudes and aspirations of the population in the South East of England especially (which is the region that the UK government looks to please as much as possible - it effectively decides who governs the country after all) are almost identical to those of the USA (in a stereotypical way).

I have only just found this thread but while perusing the replies I found this extraordinary statement and could not ignore it...
Well, I can't tell you anything besides the economic data which seems to indicate that something Thatcher did must have been right. Also, you should make sure that you look at Thatcherism and its effects on one hand, and the effects of globalisation on the local economy on the other, and keep the two seperate.

Personally, I would prefer a world in which megamalls out-compete little cornerstores to a world where the government tells me what I can and can't do when I want to do business, in which red tape rules all and in which everyone else's happiness somehow matters, but you working for your own are branded selfish and fought against.

As I said, I don't like Thatcher and the way she acts particularly. But something had to be done, because Britain was stagnating, and it was reaching the point where step-by-step reforms weren't going to do it anymore. Which is why I brought her up in the first place, because that's where France is going right now.

Which is why I brought her up in the first place, because that's where France is going right now.

So what do you think can/will be done to improve France?

So what do you think can/will be done to improve France?
Well, same as in Britain: Massive, and forced privatisation, a huge war against the unions and just general liberalisation of the markets.

But only after many more years of nothing much happening except everyone blaming capitalism for the fact that no one can get a job and the poor keep getting poorer.

I wish you could read German...http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich?page=1

Knowing that Europe is very different from America, but also knowing that you HAD to choose, what European country would you say is the most similar to America in terms of anything from domestic policy, conservativness, foriegn policy, economics, people, culture...ect. ANYTHING...EXCEPT LANGUAGE.

I know America and Europe are very different...I just want to see which one America is the LEAST different from.

And PLEASE people, dont just pick England because they speak English. :headbang:

Theres obviously no right or wrong answer...and its probably gonna be hard to choose as all these countries are different from America, but PLEASE post the reason why you picked that country as the most similar.

England is NOT a country, it is one of the three realms constituting the Kingdom of Great Britain. What you mean is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Why has no one thought of Switzerland?

It seems to me they are the most conservative country in Europe...socially and economically.

They sorta have more of an American style healthcare system, atleast more so than other Euro countries.

They are very capitalist.

Very free market.

Very low taxes.

Anybody?

I thought of Switzerland, but not in comparison to America, but rather what I wish America was more like. Of all the countries in the world I respect the most (and incidentally wish we would model ourselves after), Switzerland and Israel are the top two, and probably in that order.

I have only just found this thread but while perusing the replies I found this extraordinary statement and could not ignore it.

Firstly, yes a lot of things were nationalised back then. Now we have massively subsidised private industries. The privatised rail companies get the kind of government subsidies state owned British Rail could only dream about. As someone recently said, "if the public purse is paying for it then the public should own it".

Secondly, the economy may have been a bit stagnant but that was nothing compared to what the Thatcher years would do to it. The funniest thing about it (if the social damage can be called funny) was the fact that the Tory government did not even understand what was going wrong. None of what happened during those dark days of the early eighties was predicted by their economic models. Thatcher herself admitted as much as her government took the foot off the monetarist pedal in the mid-eighties. It was only then that the UK economy started to improve and begin to make lost ground on European economies.

Thirdly, we thought unemployment was high before Thatcher. In actual fact unemployment was less than 1 million. By the early to mid-eighties it had exploded to about 4 million. Even now it is still about 2 million. Thatcher's legacy on the unemployment situation was to get us to think of high unemployment as the norm. Nothing to be proud of.

Fourthly, the shelves in British shops were full before Thatcher arrived. The idea that left wing Britain lived in soviet like penury is a false picture put about by neo-con apologists trying to put a halo around Thatchers head. It is simply untrue. As far as shops are concerned, the Thatcher legacy is the desertification of British town centres as out of town, boxlike mega-marts destroy the competition. In a way, Thatcherism has emptied the shop shelves.

Anyway, thats my little rant over.

I voted for England (I assumed you were not refering to Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland). Simply because the Thatcher 'revolution' aligned the British economy with the American model and the current foreign policies of both countries are practically interchangable. Also, the attitudes and aspirations of the population in the South East of England especially (which is the region that the UK government looks to please as much as possible - it effectively decides who governs the country after all) are almost identical to those of the USA (in a stereotypical way).

Baroness Thatcher was the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Tory Party was replaced over a century before. After all, Liberal Democrats aren't addressed as Whigs, are they?

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Well, same as in Britain: Massive, and forced privatisation, a huge war against the unions and just general liberalisation of the markets.

But only after many more years of nothing much happening except everyone blaming capitalism for the fact that no one can get a job and the poor keep getting poorer.


This is a typical knee jerk monetarist response. You are still labouring under the misapprehension that the Thatcher revolution of the eighties was in some way a positive thing. It was only positive if you managed to make some money out of it. Britain, as a result of it, has endemic high unemployment (economically viable jobs are very thin on the ground), corporate welfare on an obscene level (so much for forced privatisation), a highly stressed and overworked population (with weak unions what would you expect) and an ever burgeoning mass of poor and disadvantaged people. There are far more poor people in Britain now than there was before the neo-con revolution. Recently, a report stated over 25% of all the poor in the EU (pre enlargement) were in the UK. This is not a ringing endorsement of the laissez-faire economic model. It was only when the Tories gave up 'red in tooth and claw' monetarist policies in the mid-eighties and returned to the more consensual social politics of the pre-Thatcher years that complete economic meltdown was averted. Obviously, though, Britain has still not fully recovered given what I have already stated. Too many people have the mind set you seem to display which still puts the bottom line before people and make a virtue out of it.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Personally, I would prefer a world in which megamalls out-compete little cornerstores to a world where the government tells me what I can and can't do when I want to do business, in which red tape rules all and in which everyone else's happiness somehow matters, but you working for your own are branded selfish and fought against.


Firstly, governments have always, and will always, dictate how business is done in any state. Whether it is a neo-con paradise or a tin-pot dictatorship. Unfortunately these two scenarios are mutually conducive to each other. The pre Thatcher British government was no more riddled with red tape than her own. She just made sure people who were 'one of us' got a leg up. Those who saught a different path soon found all sorts of things getting in their way. It was her way or no way.

Secondly, what is the point of a country that is not working together for everyones happiness. It is an ideal that can never be fully realised but that does not make working towards it worthwhile. Personal happiness is extremely important but it has to be tempered with a realisation that it cannot be at the expense of the rest of the population.

The French people have recently forced the government (hear that ... the people forced the government ... try doing that in a neo-con state) to abandon a law which would have stripped a whole raft of basic human rights from people under 26. Good! It was a ridiculous neo-con law which perversely stated that in order to employ young people you had to make it easy to sack them. Which you would have been able to do without giving any reason at all. They could have been sacked for supporting PSG football club or for just having blonde hair. It would also have made gaining employment for those over 26 harder simply because they had more basic human rights. It was a monstrous law and abandoning it put principle before the bottom line. Again, good! To put the 'bottom line' before people is a slippery slope into a new dark age.

France and Germany are most likely going through an economic cycle. You cannot always be at the top of one. The social democratic politics of the post war years served both these countries well. People were happy and the economy boomed. The introduction of neo-con policies by the US/UK governments in the eighties has undermined that achievement. If it was for the good of all that would be fine, but it is not. It only benefits the wealthy and the corporations. That is a world I would rather not have to live in

Do you seriously believe that the wars in iraq and afghanistan are for conquest. The only baseless claim that you could possible make is that the wars were primarily for boosting U.S. influence in the region. But again, these are just baseless claims made on emotion and ignorance. From experience, we invaded afghanistan to break the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan. That has largely been a success. I can't tell you from experience our inital reason for invading iraq but our reason for staying is a genuine one.

Our main objectives are as follows:

1. Provide security for the process of building a democracy and the building of basic services

2. Kill or capture any members of al-qaeda in iraq

3. Assist the process of training iraqi military/police forces in any way possible.

I fail to see how any of those objectives line up with your beliefs.

1. It is estimated that, if left alone, Saddam Hussein would have introduced a new Constitution, a Bill of Rights and free and open elections for Iraq by now. Security wouldn't have been needed at all if Iraq had been left alone. The lack of utilities in Iraq was due to the damage caused from the first Gulf War and because of subsequent trade sanctions there was very little money to repair these. What facilities there were in Iraq were for the most part destroyed when invading armies started bombing the hell out of place.

2. Ah yes, our dear friend Al-Qaeda. I'll be blunt, there is no such thing! Organised world terrorism indeed. There is practically no evidence for such a large body's existence and what there is (dubious anyway) has been "sexed-up" for the benefit of corrupt, immoral and self-satisfying politicians.

3. Do you realise that Iraq now holds approximately 400,000 security personnel? This is much, much more than under Saddam Hussein, who's regime America described as "grossly overmilitarised"!

It is estimated that over 100million barrels of oil have been smuggled out of Iraq to date. And don't dare to play the "removal of evil dictator" card. One: it's not a legal motivation; and two: why hasn't Zimbabwe been invaded? And North Korea? Answer: Zimbabwe ain't got no oil and North Korea has nuclear capabilities as well as having no oil.

But thats what we have in America and no one is frowned upon for using their ability to achieve personal gain.

In fact, its totally part of the basis of our society.

America's markets are not all free. For example, only American aviation firms are permitted to transport passengers between different airports in America. Not exactly very free.

Baroness Thatcher was the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Tory Party was replaced over a century before. After all, Liberal Democrats aren't addressed as Whigs, are they?

Technically correct but it is a nick name which everyone in the UK, including the Conservative party, recognises and is in no way derogatory. The Liberal Democrats are often refered to as Lib Dems and the SNP as the 'Nats' after all. ;)

There's other reasons to choose the United Kingdom, but all in all I've seen another of academic writings that have convinced me that France and the United States are all too much alike on a number of levels.

After that, the United Kingdom would be the closest I suppose. Something to do with laws, being close partners, culture, and so forth.

1. Terror laws, very similar. However, Britain's Executive, Legislature and Judicial System have a number of glaring differences to America's.

2. "close partners" my foot, we're both in it for what we can get! America wants Britain because no one else wants anything much to do with it and they're both in a spot of doo-doo.

3. Culture, eh. Give me an example please.

4. What "so forth"?

Technically correct but it is a nick name which everyone in the UK, including the Conservative party, recognises and is in no way derogatory. The Liberal Democrats are often refered to as Lib Dems and the SNP as the 'Nats' after all. ;)

I live in the United Kingdom and despise people who use the term "Tory". They are not interchangeable. It's lax and a public disgrace. The same for fools (particularly Americans I have noticed) who call the United Kingdom England.

Baroness Thatcher was the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Tory Party was replaced over a century before. After all, Liberal Democrats aren't addressed as Whigs, are they?

God, you're more anal than Fass.

God, you're more anal than Fass.

Please elaborate.

I live in the United Kingdom and despise people who use the term. They are not interchangeable. It's lax and a public disgrace. The same for fools (particularly Americans I have noticed) who call the United Kingdom England.


The irony in this post is delicious.

I live in the United Kingdom and despise people who use the term. They are not interchangeable. It's lax and a public disgrace. The same for fools (particularly Americans I have noticed) who call the United Kingdom England.

Why despise people for something so trivial. As I said even the Conservatives use it to describe themselves as often as not. You need to lighten up mate.

By the way, I also live in the UK.

The irony in this post is delicious.

I was replying to another post, which was in turn replying to one of mine. However, I shall correct the ambiguity.

Why despise people for something so trivial. As I said even the Conservatives use it to describe themselves as often as not. You need to lighten up mate.

By the way, I also live in the UK.

Let me put it this way, I strongly support accuracy, for example the use of the apostrophe.

if i had to choose a european country to relocate to, i'd choose one that was LEAST like the u.s. or at least least like what i don't like about living here.

that would include 'conservative' politics, automobile 'worship', and christianity. since virtualy all of europe pays lip service to the latter there isn't much i could do about that one. but europe IS way better about trains and other forms of public transportation and also, usualy saner politics, so really pretty much almost anyplace that would welcome me.

i wouldn't mind a job washing dishes in a hotel in zermat. the car free summer winter resort town in switzerland, that as i understand it is where middle income local europeans go for winter fun as opposed to san moritz and the better known places that attract the well healed international hoi paloi.

i love meter gauge trolly trains. i've never spoken anythng other then american english so that could be at first something of a problem. but then again that total emresion would likely help me learn.

netherlands, north rhine westphalia, sweeden, all have a certain attraction for me. even scotland and wales.

=^^=
.../\...

if i had to choose a european country to relocate to, i'd choose one that was LEAST like the u.s. or at least least like what i don't like about living here.

that would include 'conservative' politics, automobile 'worship', and christianity. since virtualy all of europe pays lip service to the latter there isn't much i could do about that one. but europe IS way better about trains and other forms of public transportation and also, usualy saner politics, so really pretty much almost anyplace that would welcome me.

i wouldn't mind a job washing dishes in a hotel in zermat. the car free summer winter resort town in switzerland, that as i understand it is where middle income local europeans go for winter fun as opposed to san moritz and the better known places that attract the well healed international hoi paloi.

i love meter gauge trolly trains. i've never spoken anythng other then american english so that could be at first something of a problem. but then again that total emresion would likely help me learn.

netherlands, north rhine westphalia, sweeden, all have a certain attraction for me. even scotland and wales.

=^^=
.../\...

British politics is somewhat hectic in its nature as quite often the winner is whoever shouts the loudest!

Let me put it this way, I strongly support accuracy, for example the use of the apostrophe.

Ooookay. Good luck with that.

British politics is somewhat hectic in its nature as quite often the winner is whoever shouts the loudest!

ah but at least you have fun with it. over here everybody wants to kill everybody that's on the other side of the isle.

ok everybody is a bit of an exageration. i've seen some of those shout down sessions in your parliment and i think they're way cooler and more honest then the pretencious crap that goes on over here.

=^^=
.../\...

Ooookay. Good luck with that.

I congratulate you as the first person that I have met who is capable of spelling 'okay' correctly! That has made my day! Thank you.

I chose Germany, but my vote might be skewed because my entire family's from Germany, so I grew up in a very German-flavoured America o_o;.

Terror laws, very similar. However, Britain's Executive, Legislature and Judicial System have a number of glaring differences to America's.
Pretty much every other democratic country has opted for something along the lines of the British model. Considering how much Montesquieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu#Political_views) influenced America and the number of revolutions France has had I'm sure that the governments are much more similiar than we let on to be. However, this is mere postulation, as I'm feeling far too sloth at the moment to do any reasearch.
America wants Britain because no one else wants anything much to do with it and they're both in a spot of doo-doo.
Most certainly not. You forgot Australia. They will follow America to the bloody end!
Culture, eh. Give me an example please.
American culture has an immigrant British foundation. Need I say more?
What "so forth"?
Would you rather I continue listing synonyms until you lose muscle control in your neck and you smash your head into your keyboard while falling into a deep sleep?
Would you have been more satisfied with my "so forth" had I said "et cetera" in its place?
...The same for fools (particularly Americans I have noticed) who call the United Kingdom England.
Håll käften. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9833203&postcount=1)

Despite the overwhelming results of this poll I still think its folly to say that England is the European nation that is most similar to the USA. England has effective socialised health care. Period. I won't even get into the differences in their democratic system tradition and culture etc.

For internal corruption alone Italy is by far the most American of all European nations. Meanwhile in South America, Brazil is the poor man's America.

Pretty much every other democratic country has opted for something along the lines of the British model. Considering how much Montesquieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu#Political_views) influenced America and the number of revolutions France has had I'm sure that the governments are much more similiar than we let on to be. However, this is mere postulation, as I'm feeling far too sloth at the moment to do any reasearch.

Most certainly not. You forgot Australia. They will follow America to the bloody end!

American culture has an immigrant British foundation. Need I say more?

Would you rather I continue listing synonyms until you lose muscle control in your neck and you smash your head into your keyboard while falling into a deep sleep?
Would you have been more satisfied with my "so forth" had I said "et cetera" in its place?

Håll käften. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9833203&postcount=1)

1. One glaring difference in the Legislature is that Britain is an Hereditary Monarchy, with the monarch holding power over the Statute.

2. "Australia", you say. "Queen Elizabeth", I reply. Need I say more?

3. I asked for an example not a treatise on migration patterns.

4. I was asking for other similarities, not synonyms.

I asked for an example not a treatise on migration patterns.
In general, both populations practice some form of Protestantism.
I was asking for other similarities, not synonyms.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/

In general, both populations practice some form of Protestantism.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/

Protestantism! Very loose term and, in this context, utter tosh. I'm sure that there are one or two Protestants in Hong Kong at the moment practicing some form of Protestantism but that doesn't mean that the people of China are similar to Americans.

However, thank you for the examples.

I'm not sure if you can compare any European Country to the US, it's probably better to compare the US to the EU and European Countries to an individual State in the US. Size does make a difference.

My preference is England, but not because it's similiar. There are a number of significant differences between the US and England especially in the way the government is organized. But in general I like England. The politics seem exceptionally cordial compared to the US, but they are not afraid to tackle the important matters of state and ask the tough questions.

I'm not sure if you can compare any European Country to the US, it's probably better to compare the US to the EU and European Countries to an individual State in the US. Size does make a difference.

My preference is England, but not because it's similiar. There are a number of significant differences between the US and England especially in the way the government is organized. But in general I like England. The politics seem exceptionally cordial compared to the US, but they are not afraid to tackle the important matters of state and ask the tough questions.

1. United Kingdom, please.

2. Our esteemed Executive is getting pretty good at throwing mud now. It won't be long before we have a Ministry of Propaganda.

Protestantism! Very loose term and, in this context, utter tosh.
Yes, yes of course it is. Got any counter examples other than that in the UK people drive on the left side of the road?
1. United Kingdom, please.
"When people say England, they sometimes mean Great Britain, sometimes the United Kingdom, sometimes the British Isles-but never England." - George Mikes

Our main objectives are as follows:

1. Provide security for the process of building a democracy and the building of basic services

2. Kill or capture any members of al-qaeda in iraq

3. Assist the process of training iraqi military/police forces in any way possible.

I fail to see how any of those objectives line up with your beliefs.

4. Create a government that uses our prefferred system of rule

5. Bring about a situation stable enough to sell us oil

6. To provide another location for the launching of military offensives in the Middle East.

Despite the overwhelming results of this poll I still think its folly to say that England is the European nation that is most similar to the USA. England has effective socialised health care. Period. I won't even get into the differences in their democratic system tradition and culture etc.

For internal corruption alone Italy is by far the most American of all European nations. Meanwhile in South America, Brazil is the poor man's America.

And what makes you think America has alot of internal corruption?

Of all the countries in the world I respect the most (and incidentally wish we would model ourselves after), Switzerland and Israel are the top two, and probably in that order.

I'm glad I don't live in your America if you idealise an Israeli style state. A nation which kills foreigners while refusing to assist investigations into wrongfully brought about deaths, has built modern equivilent of the Berlin wall and has more violations of UN resoloutions that Iraq did under Saddam.

Not to say that current 'State of The Union' is any good.

Anyway for me Italy wins on similarity or at least it did under Berlusconi, with any luck Prodi will increase the differences.

Similarities:

Uber corruption- Richest man in the country runs it...

Suspicious electoral process, also the similarity between the '06 Italy and '00 results. Although as they have PR in Italy that makes Berlusconi the looooser.

And of course -Jesusland!

I was replying to another post, which was in turn replying to one of mine. However, I shall correct the ambiguity.

You haven't realised yet have you?

Being snotty about people calling it the 'wrong' name, then calling people 'American'.

Pray tell, do you mean Mexicans, Canadians or merely those from the United States? Being accurate and all....

And what makes you think America has alot of internal corruption?

Whatshisface.... Jack Abramoff.

You haven't realised yet have you?

Being snotty about people calling it the 'wrong' name, then calling people 'American'.

Pray tell, do you mean Mexicans, Canadians or merely those from the United States? Being accurate and all....

Sigh, Americans are the word used to describe people that live in the United States of America.

No right minded Venezulian appreactiates being called an American. :rolleyes: He can be a South American, but not just an American.

Whatshisface.... Jack Abramoff.

So one guy has a scandal and now the whole of America is riddled with corruption? :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

You haven't realised yet have you?

Being snotty about people calling it the 'wrong' name, then calling people 'American'.

Pray tell, do you mean Mexicans, Canadians or merely those from the United States? Being accurate and all....

Am I to say "United States of America-ians"?

And how dare you call be "snotty".

Am I to say "United States of America-ians"?
While looking up Frank Lloyd Wright just now, I found a word for Americans that I acutally like: "Usonians".

Yes, yes of course it is. Got any counter examples other than that in the UK people drive on the left side of the road?

"When people say England, they sometimes mean Great Britain, sometimes the United Kingdom, sometimes the British Isles-but never England." - George Mikes

The British social system is divided, roughly, into nine sections, each with its own place in life. In America, people feed upon the ridiculous notion that they are equal.

The terms England, Great Britain, the British Isles and the United Kingdom are not interchangeable. People should realise this and remember the differences.

While looking up Frank Lloyd Wright just now, I found a word for Americans that I acutally like: "Usonians".

Aha! Now then, by that do you mean Mexicans, Canadians or United States of America-ians?

i'm an American who goes to school in Scotland, at the University of St Andrews. it's a very international university, with hundreds of english, scottish, irish, germans, and scandinavians, not to mention a decent representation globally. so, i've got some small perspective on different countries (and i've traveled a bit too). now, england doesn't seem at first glance TOO different from the States, but from my interactions with Scottish and English, the Scottish are more similar to Americans. and yet, the Irish are more similar still. their humor, their personality, their general outlook on life, and even their looks are more American than any other culture from the British Isles. also, from time in Poland, it's not all that similar; Germany, however, felt more familiar than England (excepting the language...) though not Ireland. past that, haven't spent hardly any time in other countries. go Ireland though...guinness is great.

i'm an American who goes to school in Scotland, at the University of St Andrews. it's a very international university, with hundreds of english, scottish, irish, germans, and scandinavians, not to mention a decent representation globally. so, i've got some small perspective on different countries (and i've traveled a bit too). now, england doesn't seem at first glance TOO different from the States, but from my interactions with Scottish and English, the Scottish are more similar to Americans. and yet, the Irish are more similar still. their humor, their personality, their general outlook on life, and even their looks are more American than any other culture from the British Isles. also, from time in Poland, it's not all that similar; Germany, however, felt more familiar than England (excepting the language...) though not Ireland. past that, haven't spent hardly any time in other countries. go Ireland though...guinness is great.

That would be, for a large part, due to the Clearances and the Great Hunger. By the way, what are you reading?

Meh, Guinness has nothing on real beer. It's good stuff, but there is better.

I said England. I know language was ruled out by the OP, but it does influence the culture, and there are similarities there. The legal systems, as I believe the American system also has a basis in common law, unlike the European system (I can say that as Napoleon replaced the legal code across much of Europe with a form of the Code Napoleon). The political culture - First Past the Post elections, two main parties. The fact the "neo-liberal"/"free-market" Thatcherism/Reaganomics have taken root as part of the national consensus in both countries, so much so that Labour had to accept it to be elected over here.
Their wariness of organisations over-arching national boundaries; the UK with the EU, and the US with, for example, the International Criminal Court.
The fact that both countries in general have a problem with France ;)
So much that is America sprang from British roots, in British and American soil. So much that is Britain now, came back the other way. I don't see how, honestly, any other nation can seem closer.
Oh, and there is a confusion of UK/England/Britain, but there's no need to get arsey about it. It's usually quite clear from context which one is meant, and if not, you can always ask.

Meh, Guinness has nothing on real beer. It's good stuff, but there is better.

I said England. I know language was ruled out by the OP, but it does influence the culture, and there are similarities there. The legal systems, as I believe the American system also has a basis in common law, unlike the European system (I can say that as Napoleon replaced the legal code across much of Europe with a form of the Code Napoleon). The political culture - First Past the Post elections, two main parties. The fact the "neo-liberal"/"free-market" Thatcherism/Reaganomics have taken root as part of the national consensus in both countries, so much so that Labour had to accept it to be elected over here.
Their wariness of organisations over-arching national boundaries; the UK with the EU, and the US with, for example, the International Criminal Court.
The fact that both countries in general have a problem with France ;)
So much that is America sprang from British roots, in British and American soil. So much that is Britain now, came back the other way. I don't see how, honestly, any other nation can seem closer.
Oh, and there is a confusion of UK/England/Britain, but there's no need to get arsey about it. It's usually quite clear from context which one is meant, and if not, you can always ask.

Elections in England are held on a First Past The Post basis, but everywhere else in Great Britain they are based upon Proportional Representation.

The terms England, Great Britain, the British Isles and the United Kingdom are not freely interchangeable. Please use the correct one and no one need ask at all.

I was under the distinct impression that
Elections to the European Parliament are on a PR list system. Everywhere.
Elections to the devolved assemblies are on a variety of systems. In N. Ireland, when the assembly operates, STV, which is NOT PR. In Scotland isn't it Alternative Vote, with some constituency members, and some "top-up" MPs on a proportional system, thus an FPTP/PR hybrid, and in Wales, I neither know nor particularly care.
In English council elections, it is an FPTP system.
In elections to the Westminster Parliament, which as you might recall is elected by the WHOLE UK, not just England - we use FPTP. So all parts of the UK use FPTP for the most significant election. Some parts of the UK use some form of it for more local elections. No part of the UK uses it for everything.
Happy now?

Also, England is self explanatory, Great Britain is England Wales and Scotland (excepting the Orkneys, Shetlands and Hebrides), the British Isles is the whole caboodle, and the UK is Great Britain (as previously defined) Northern Ireland, and some other associated territories (such as the Hebrides, Orkneys and Shetlands, as mentioned above). I know the difference, I just don't feel the need to be a pedant about it, when it's often perfectly clear which is intended from context.

I was under the distinct impression that
Elections to the European Parliament are on a PR list system. Everywhere.
Elections to the devolved assemblies are on a variety of systems. In N. Ireland, when the assembly operates, STV, which is NOT PR. In Scotland isn't it Alternative Vote, with some constituency members, and some "top-up" MPs on a proportional system, thus an FPTP/PR hybrid, and in Wales, I neither know nor particularly care.
In English council elections, it is an FPTP system.
In elections to the Westminster Parliament, which as you might recall is elected by the WHOLE UK, not just England - we use FPTP. So all parts of the UK use FPTP for the most significant election. Some parts of the UK use some form of it for more local elections. No part of the UK uses it for everything.
Happy now?

Also, England is self explanatory, Great Britain is England Wales and Scotland (excepting the Orkneys, Shetlands and Hebrides), the British Isles is the whole caboodle, and the UK is Great Britain (as previously defined) Northern Ireland, and some other associated territories (such as the Hebrides, Orkneys and Shetlands, as mentioned above). I know the difference, I just don't feel the need to be a pedant about it, when it's often perfectly clear which is intended from context.

Thank goodness for a voice of sanity! I was aware of the varied, to say the least, electoral systems of the United Kingdom. Now I don't have to do all the trawling. When I referred to First Past The Post in England I meant in elections to Parliament, whereas all the others are different for some reason.

Now then, to elaborate on your point, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom either. The former is in the Duchy of Normandy and the latter is another Crown Dependency. Berwick-Upon-Tweed is counted as a part of England and made peace with Russia after the Crimean with everyone else.

You may not feel that using each term in its correct context is important, but I do. The erroneous use of England is confusing and just as bad as poor grammar and spelling.

Meh, I go on a rant, kind of at you (for getting picky over England/GB and then saying English elections are FPTP) and you call me a voice of sanity :confused:
:D :D
I'm obviously far too nice for my own good.

Not at all. That is one of the foundations of learned debate through which Man "may rise above the mundane and so closer to God."

No, Google doesn't help. What's that quote from?

In elections to the Westminster Parliament, which as you might recall is elected by the WHOLE UK, not just England - we use FPTP. So all parts of the UK use FPTP for the most significant election.

Nope, in Northern Ireland we use proportional representation in the General election - just to complicate matters...


EDIT: or not. One of those 'engage brain before typing moments'.

Y'do? My bad. I thought all elections to Westminster were on the same system.

USA and Russia. Compare and Contrast.

While looking up Frank Lloyd Wright just now, I found a word for Americans that I acutally like: "Usonians".
Ah, so should we also call the Chinese "Peoprebublicans" since their country is actually called the People's Republic of China and maybe we ought to call the people of Kenya, "Republicans" after all they are the Republic of Kenya, or Brazilian's "Fedrebulicans" since their country is called the Federal Rebulic of Brazil, and so on and so on. Makes as much sense as calling people from the United States of America, "Usonians." I've never understood the whole "its arrogant to say 'American' when meaning people from the USA, there are other people in the Americas," yes there are, but do any of them have American in their national name? No? Thats what I thought and thats why the term American is used for people from the USA and the term "North American" and "South American" when refering to the continents. I just know I'm going to get flamed for this.

Dude uses his first post to set an essay title. Lol.
Well, the USA is a capitalist democracy with libertarian tendencies, a low tax burden, and a traditional aversion to an overly strong executive (not the word traditional).
Russia has an authoritarian ruler, has never really adopted capitalism except for the oligarchs (and I'm not sure they count), very authoritarian and socially controlling tendencies, traditionally a very high tax burden, and a strong preference for a strong executive.

Apart from that they're exactly the same :rolleyes:

Y'do? My bad. I thought all elections to Westminster were on the same system.

Sorry: brainfart there - elections to Westminster in Northern Ireland are FPTP, but all other elections here are PR.

The denizens of the USA seem to want the name "Americans", the rest of the Americas (apart from a few fringe nutjobs) appear not to want it. So let the Americans keep it. Better than calling 'em all damnyankees, cos that annoys the southerners, amongst others.

Is Single Transferrable Vote PR? I tend to think of it more as a hybrid, because it runs multi-member constituencies, doesn't it? (I did study this...some time ago. I may have forgotten a lot.)

The denizens of the USA seem to want the name "Americans", the rest of the Americas (apart from a few fringe nutjobs) appear not to want it. So let the Americans keep it. Better than calling 'em all damnyankees, cos that annoys the southerners, amongst others.
We have no problem with them callling us "Usonians" or what not so long as they than go on to refer to every other nation by the descriptor part of their national name, themselves included This would kind of screw Mexico since they are officialy called the United Mexican States and the dozens of Republics of whatever, but hey if they really want to start redoing the naming conventiones thats their fault.

Is Single Transferrable Vote PR? I tend to think of it more as a hybrid, because it runs multi-member constituencies, doesn't it? (I did study this...some time ago. I may have forgotten a lot.)

It is more commonly associated with Proportional Representation, but you are right: it is a pick-and-mix.

No, Google doesn't help. What's that quote from?

Mr. Elton's and Mr. Curtis' acclaimed comedy.

A Blackadder quote? Wow-ee that had me fooled. I thought it was going to be St. Augustine or something. My brain makes me too pretentious sometimes, especially when overcome with tiredness.

There are far more poor people in Britain now than there was before the neo-con revolution.
Maybe. But there are also more rich people.

Recently, a report stated over 25% of all the poor in the EU (pre enlargement) were in the UK.
Show me the link, because quite honestly, that's ridiculous. There is East Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and so on.

Too many people have the mind set you seem to display which still puts the bottom line before people and make a virtue out of it.
So using one's mind to succeed, to built up one's wealth, to make one's life easier...that is a vice, is it?

Secondly, what is the point of a country that is not working together for everyones happiness.
Freedom?

It is an ideal that can never be fully realised but that does not make working towards it worthwhile.
I am not you. You are not your neighbour. Why in hell's name is it an ideal for me to work for him, but not an ideal for me to work for myself?

Personal happiness is extremely important but it has to be tempered with a realisation that it cannot be at the expense of the rest of the population.
In a truly free economy (and this is all philosophical, disregarding Thatcher or the thing which you erroneously call Neoconservatism) no one can get rich at the expense of anyone else.
One can only become rich by using one's own ability, and exchanging the best one can do with the best someone else can do.

The French people have recently forced the government to abandon a law which would have stripped a whole raft of basic human rights from people under 26. Good!
Look at the Declaration of Human Rights. I think the right to hold your boss to ransom is not in there.

(hear that ... the people forced the government ... try doing that in a neo-con state)
France is under a right-wing government.

It was a ridiculous neo-con law which perversely stated that in order to employ young people you had to make it easy to sack them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

That out of the way, try following this line of thought. Don't consider the outcome, only consider the individual questions.
Any individual makes any decision by weighing up alternatives and the likelihoods of various factors occuring, whether consciously or not. Correct?
Deciding whether or not to employ someone is a decision to be made rationally, as defined above. Correct?
This is even moreso the case when you have a young worker, who just left school and has not yet had a chance to prove himself or herself in the job market. Correct?
Not being able to fire someone if they do a bad job increases the bad effects of a bad decision. Correct?
This means that the risk involved in the decision is greater. Correct?
And that means that in any given sample of employers, there is going to be a greater percentage who decide against employing a new young worker. Correct?

Which you would have been able to do without giving any reason at all. They could have been sacked for supporting PSG football club or for just having blonde hair.
But no one would do that. You see, workers are worth something. They gain experience, they get better at a job. They may also form a social network in the firm.
Without a reason, an employer would not fire an employee.

To put the 'bottom line' before people is a slippery slope into a new dark age.
You mean the Dark Age in which the good of your lord, or your church - representatives of your fellow man and the public good - came before yours?
Or the Dark Age in which all the things which make our life even possible were invented and first produced, just because of selfish individuals who wanted to make their own life easier?

France and Germany are most likely going through an economic cycle. You cannot always be at the top of one. The social democratic politics of the post war years served both these countries well.
Have a look at the details. I can't talk for France, but in Germany it was ordoliberals like Ludwig Erhard, inspired by all-out libertarians like Wilhelm Röpke who set up the economy that became so successful - by destroying barriers which were considered necessary for the public good.
http://countrystudies.us/germany/137.htm

The introduction of neo-con policies by the US/UK governments in the eighties has undermined that achievement.
Aha! There we go.

You wish social market economies and semi-socialist states could still exist, and therefore you wish that systems which outperform it don't. That's impossible. Free Trade and free competition will see to that.
People want to do the best they can, and get rewarded for it. And they will ultimately go wherever they can do so. And unless you start building walls (be they material like in Berlin or simply legal constructs), you can't stop them.
Freedom and Accomodation, or Limitation and Coercion. Those are your choices.

If it was for the good of all that would be fine, but it is not. It only benefits the wealthy and the corporations. That is a world I would rather not have to live in
Why? Why don't you trust in your own ability?

It should be quite obvious to everyone, though many refuse to see this, that a combination of free market economics and more left-wing social policies are required for a healthy society.
Where to strike the balance is a choice every society must make (and remake) for itself. But the fact that you need to allow the free market to generate wealth, and you need to spend some of that accumulated wealth for the good of all, should be self-evident.

It should be quite obvious to everyone, though many refuse to see this, that a combination of free market economics and more left-wing social policies are required for a healthy society.
Where to strike the balance is a choice every society must make (and remake) for itself. But the fact that you need to allow the free market to generate wealth, and you need to spend some of that accumulated wealth for the good of all, should be self-evident.

I hate it when people think sensibly

:D I'm too moderate for me own good most of the time.

Maybe. But there are also more rich people.


Show me the link, because quite honestly, that's ridiculous. There is East Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and so on.


So using one's mind to succeed, to built up one's wealth, to make one's life easier...that is a vice, is it?


Freedom?


I am not you. You are not your neighbour. Why in hell's name is it an ideal for me to work for him, but not an ideal for me to work for myself?


In a truly free economy (and this is all philosophical, disregarding Thatcher or the thing which you erroneously call Neoconservatism) no one can get rich at the expense of anyone else.
One can only become rich by using one's own ability, and exchanging the best one can do with the best someone else can do.


Look at the Declaration of Human Rights. I think the right to hold your boss to ransom is not in there.


France is under a right-wing government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

That out of the way, try following this line of thought. Don't consider the outcome, only consider the individual questions.
Any individual makes any decision by weighing up alternatives and the likelihoods of various factors occuring, whether consciously or not. Correct?
Deciding whether or not to employ someone is a decision to be made rationally, as defined above. Correct?
This is even moreso the case when you have a young worker, who just left school and has not yet had a chance to prove himself or herself in the job market. Correct?
Not being able to fire someone if they do a bad job increases the bad effects of a bad decision. Correct?
This means that the risk involved in the decision is greater. Correct?
And that means that in any given sample of employers, there is going to be a greater percentage who decide against employing a new young worker. Correct?


But no one would do that. You see, workers are worth something. They gain experience, they get better at a job. They may also form a social network in the firm.
Without a reason, an employer would not fire an employee.


You mean the Dark Age in which the good of your lord, or your church - representatives of your fellow man and the public good - came before yours?
Or the Dark Age in which all the things which make our life even possible were invented and first produced, just because of selfish individuals who wanted to make their own life easier?


Have a look at the details. I can't talk for France, but in Germany it was ordoliberals like Ludwig Erhard, inspired by all-out libertarians like Wilhelm Röpke who set up the economy that became so successful - by destroying barriers which were considered necessary for the public good.
http://countrystudies.us/germany/137.htm


Aha! There we go.

You wish social market economies and semi-socialist states could still exist, and therefore you wish that systems which outperform it don't. That's impossible. Free Trade and free competition will see to that.
People want to do the best they can, and get rewarded for it. And they will ultimately go wherever they can do so. And unless you start building walls (be they material like in Berlin or simply legal constructs), you can't stop them.
Freedom and Accomodation, or Limitation and Coercion. Those are your choices.


Why? Why don't you trust in your own ability?

Hear that? Thats the sound of agreement.

I dont think I've ever seen a post of yours, or a post at all that I have agreed with more. Are you sure no one hacked onto your account? Because to me, that post sounded alot like the thinking that runs through my family. The thinking of an American Conservative.


Or, since it is economics, a European liberal....;)

The thinking of an American Conservative.
Or, since it is economics, a European liberal....;)
I'll make it my project to teach you the absolutely fundamental differences between the two.
And once you learn those, you will no longer be a conservative, because there can be no human mind which truly understands both, yet decides against liberalism.

I'll make it my project to teach you the absolutely fundamental differences between the two.
And once you learn those, you will no longer be a conservative, because there can be no human mind which truly understands both, yet decides against liberalism.

I would, of course, be happy to learn from you but just hear me out.

What you said is exactly how my family thinks in regards to life, America, corporation, government...ect.

Self motivation.....all that.

You may not like American conservatives for whatever reason.

But all I'm saying is, and lets forget the whole socially conservative aspect of it, economically, you spoke like an American conservative would speak.

But all I'm saying is, and lets forget the whole socially conservative aspect of it, economically, you spoke like an American conservative would speak.
Yes, economically, the two sound the same. I don't think they really think the same, I don't think they operate from the same base, but the effect can be very similar.

Yes, economically, the two sound the same. I don't think they really think the same, I don't think they operate from the same base, but the effect can be very similar.

Well what do you think the main differences between economic libertarianism (Euro-Liberalism) and American economic Conservatism are?

Also, whats your beef with American Conservatism, is it the socially Conservative part?

Do you not like social Conservatives?

Well what do you think the main differences between economic libertarianism (Euro-Liberalism) and American economic Conservatism are?
American conservatives support economic liberalism because that is what they expect each other to do. It's the "American" thing.
They'll pay lip service to some of the arguments, without ever delving into the sort of fundamental premises that support them. They don't take that sort of intellectual journey that gets them there. They make the decision first, then think about it to justify.

Real libertarians, moreso still Anarcho-Capitalists, are generally people who have come from other political camps (and if I didn't know any better, you're seeing one such move right here, right now) but who were actually convinced by strength of argument alone. Who had convictions, but ultimately gave them up because something else made more sense.

And part of that journey and that acceptance is to ultimately reduce everything down to the supremacy of the rational individual.
No one who claims to believe in that supremacy can be a social conservative, and no one who is a social conservative can believe in that supremacy.

Also, whats your beef with American Conservatism, is it the socially Conservative part?
Mostly, yes. But economically, there are also issues of practical policies. American conservatives don't practice as they preach. Corporate Welfare, racial segregation, economic patriotism and so on creep in there - exposing the hipocrisy of preaching a position without ever having taken it.

Do you not like social Conservatives?
No. I dislike them even more than I dislike for example communists.
Communists just want to control me when I work. Social Conservatives want to control me in everything I do.
Not only that, communists still trust in my rationality, in the power of my brain. They try to convince me with reason. Their entire ideology is built on reason, as faulty as their reasoning might be.
Social Conservatives don't believe in reason. They don't believe in my ability to think. Have you ever heard a socially conservative argument being made by means of rational argument? No, they talk about "proper behaviour", usually about "religion", about "tradition".

And since humans need their brains, their thinking, their reason to survive (we don't have teeth, or claws, we only have brains) - they deny the very thing humans need to survive.

American conservatives support economic liberalism because that is what they expect each other to do. It's the "American" thing.
They'll pay lip service to some of the arguments, without ever delving into the sort of fundamental premises that support them. They don't take that sort of intellectual journey that gets them there. They make the decision first, then think about it to justify.

Yes, but the reasoning behind this because these people, and I'm among them, tend to view this as tradition. The dont see a reason to take an intellectual journey to arrive at a point, because they are already there. Our founding fathers took that trip fore us. Its simply viewed as an American tradition. I guess thats where it ties into social conservatism, tradition. No change.

Real libertarians, moreso still Anarcho-Capitalists, are generally people who have come from other political camps (and if I didn't know any better, you're seeing one such move right here, right now) but who were actually convinced by strength of argument alone. Who had convictions, but ultimately gave them up because something else made more sense.

And part of that journey and that acceptance is to ultimately reduce everything down to the supremacy of the rational individual.
No one who claims to believe in that supremacy can be a social conservative, and no one who is a social conservative can believe in that supremacy.

But American Conservatism is all about the individual. Its just that when the individual crosses into tradition, that American conservatives flicker to life. They/we dont want change. We tend to view what we had and what we have now as perfect. Conservatives have no problem with the individual, as long as he doesnt promote change. Its sorta of a weak arguement, I admit:p , but I really cant think of another way of putting it.

Mostly, yes. But economically, there are also issues of practical policies. American conservatives don't practice as they preach. Corporate Welfare, racial segregation, economic patriotism and so on creep in there - exposing the hipocrisy of preaching a position without ever having taken it.

I admit that it has its hipocrisies and faults, but then again, it would be false to think it wouldnt. Although I honestly dont know what your talking about when you say racial segregation.

No. I dislike them even more than I dislike for example communists.
Communists just want to control me when I work. Social Conservatives want to control me in everything I do.
Not only that, communists still trust in my rationality, in the power of my brain. They try to convince me with reason. Their entire ideology is built on reason, as faulty as their reasoning might be.
Social Conservatives don't believe in reason. They don't believe in my ability to think. Have you ever heard a socially conservative argument being made by means of rational argument? No, they talk about "proper behaviour", usually about "religion", about "tradition".

And since humans need their brains, their thinking, their reason to survive (we don't have teeth, or claws, we only have brains) - they deny the very thing humans need to survive.

But see, thats where I think your wrong. Consevatives dont want to control you, they just want to control society as a whole. They dont care what you do as an individual, they just tend to view change in a society as a bad thing. Conservatives tend to always talk about tradition, religion, and proper behaviour because to us, its just natural. To us, change is the unnatural thing.

I tend to side with the Conservatives over the Liberals, socially, because I tend to think the Conservatives views are just...more natural.
I could never, not in a 1000 years tell you why I think Gay marriage is wrong. But I can tell you, even before I was into politics, I looked upon it as unnatural and just weird. To me, thats whats important. Your natural beleifs, before politics has affected them. Before change. Just what you naturally beleive.

Looking back over this arguement I realize its weak but these kind of concepts tend to be hard to argue because they have to do more with faith and "naturalness"....

But, you know what, you do have some very good points and I may move closer to your idealogy, who knows, I'm just a kid...I only got into politics about a year ago.

BTW...I love when me and you can talk back and forth, your probably the smartest and most interesting person to talk to on here...save Fiddles.:D

I feel like I can really learn alot from you.

I think siding with something because it "feels more natural" is, well, a natural thing to do. And it's a reasonable way to make a snap decision. In the long term you should decide on intellectual grounds where your politics lie - your heart will follow your head.
I know, I took a long journey from almost Thatcherite instincts to a whole sort of general mish-mash, which is largely centrist, because I have "left-wing" views on allowing people to be themselves in social terms, "right-wing" views on allowing people to make their own path in economic terms, and too much practicality to be a total libertarian, so I have some areas I think are better run by the State.
Like I say, mish-mash.

Knowing that Europe is very different from America, but also knowing that you HAD to choose, what European country would you say is the most similar to America in terms of anything from domestic policy, conservativness, foriegn policy, economics, people, culture...ect. ANYTHING...EXCEPT LANGUAGE.

I know America and Europe are very different...I just want to see which one America is the LEAST different from.

And PLEASE people, dont just pick England because they speak English. :headbang:

Theres obviously no right or wrong answer...and its probably gonna be hard to choose as all these countries are different from America, but PLEASE post the reason why you picked that country as the most similar.

Corrupt politicians, can't get elected unless you are rich or big friends with the rich, outwardly pious but lots of shagging going on behind closed doors, big problems with organised crime - come on, it's Italy!

England.
Just to piss you off, sorry.
Seriously though, who voted Switzerland? They are as different as possible... and I'm half Swiss.
So I'll take those months of mandatory Army training form Switzerland, and :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: them.

I voted Russia because it has a large mix of cultures trying to live together and is a large land mass like the U.S. In the thinking of a people size does make a difference. Many U.S. states are the size of a European country. The U.S. is more like the European Union.

I voted Russia because it has a large mix of cultures trying to live together and is a large land mass like the U.S. In the thinking of a people size does make a difference. Many U.S. states are the size of a European country. The U.S. is more like the European Union.

I voted Russia because it has a large mix of cultures trying to live together and is a large land mass like the U.S. In the thinking of a people size does make a difference. Many U.S. states are the size of a European country. The U.S. is more like the European Union.

Many towns in the United Kingdom are larger in size than some European countries so that is hardly anything very impressive.

Many towns in the United Kingdom are larger in size than some European countries so that is hardly anything very impressive.
That's a terrible. Many towns in the United States are bigger than those same European countries.
Are you referring to Malto, Leichenstein, Luxumberg, Andorra, and the Vatican?
Those are all I can think of that are self-standing states.

I had come back online to apologise to Neu Leonstein for having been a liitle more confrontational than I intended in my last couple of posts replying to him. I may not agree with his Thatcherite views but many have been seduced by her myth and we are all entitled to our own opinions. However his reply to me recquires some clearing up.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
Maybe. But there are also more rich people.
There will always be rich people. The trick is to reduce poverty in society and therefore create a more content society with people able to afford the goods the "wealth creators" produce. They then have more opportunities to get wealthy.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
Show me the link, because quite honestly, that's ridiculous. There is East Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and so on.
I cannot show you the link as it was a story widely covered by the UK media a few years ago. I did mention it was prior to the most recent enlargements. The countries you mention (East Germany no longer exists) may have fewer rich people but they also have fewer in poverty. Only Portugal had a higher percentage of its population in poverty. Greece had a lower percentage of its population in poverty than the UK.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
So using one's mind to succeed, to built up one's wealth, to make one's life easier...that is a vice, is it?
Never ever said that. I have no problem whatsoever with people trying to improve their lot.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
Freedom?
Surely you see their is more to freedom than just the ability to accumulate wealth? Freedom of speech, opportunity and from false imprisonment are just as important to name but three. Seriously, do you think it is a right to comdemn people to poverty? Come on!

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
In a truly free economy (and this is all philosophical, disregarding Thatcher or the thing which you erroneously call Neoconservatism) no one can get rich at the expense of anyone else.
One can only become rich by using one's own ability, and exchanging the best one can do with the best someone else can do.
There is no such thing as a truly free economy. People do get rich at the expense of others unless you believe there is an infinite amount of wealth out there. Those with the money and, therefore the power, will never deal comletely fairly with those without the power unless there is a mechanism in place which forces them to. That is where the saying "money goes to money" comes from. It is naive to believe that it is always a fair exchange.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
Look at the Declaration of Human Rights. I think the right to hold your boss to ransom is not in there.
No bosses were being held to ransom in that issue. It was between the government and the people.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
France is under a right-wing government.
As you know yourself though, it is not completely signed up to the neo con agenda.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
But no one would do that. You see, workers are worth something. They gain experience, they get better at a job. They may also form a social network in the firm.
Without a reason, an employer would not fire an employee.
Be serious. In the UK, an employer can hire young people at a fraction of the wage (by law) of an older employee and sack them for no reason in the first two years. And believe me, there are plenty of employers who exploit that. They have a tremendous turnover in young staff. Unless a youngster is exceptional, they stand no chance of making it past two years. Again, it's putting the bottom line before people. All the French people wanted was that the employer had to give a valid reason for sacking someone. Incompetence would be one of those reasons. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
You mean the Dark Age in which the good of your lord, or your church - representatives of your fellow man and the public good - came before yours?
Or the Dark Age in which all the things which make our life even possible were invented and first produced, just because of selfish individuals who wanted to make their own life easier?
I don't recognise any of those definitions of the dak ages. The public good was lacking in those times and that was what made them dark. Fellow men were not actually represented which also made them dark. Replace those two erroneus examples with big business and the corporations and you have a possible new dark age. Very little was invented in the dark ages that we still use today. It was the renaissance that started the modern world, when wealth began to be spread between more and more people increasing their opportunities leading to more talent being recognised and therefore more wealth creation. It is when wealth is concentrated among a few very rich people that society stagnates.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
You wish social market economies and semi-socialist states could still exist, and therefore you wish that systems which outperform it don't.
Any system can exist if the conditions permit it. It was a stroke of the pen which ushered in the neo con revolution when governments allowed the free trafficking of currency across national boundaries. Prior to that neo conservatism could not exist. A stroke of the pen could make it redundant. Such has been the situation for all time. I would also take issue with "out performs". It may outperform other systems financially (for a few) but for society as a whole it lags well behind. A change in emphasis could also render it redundant.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Why? Why don't you trust in your own ability?
Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. Society would collapse if everyone set up there own business. In reality, there will always be an overwhelming majority who will be employees. Their rights should be protected and it should be society's goal to alleviate as much poverty as possible. The opportunity to become wealthy should always be there but it should be remembered that not everyone can achieve it and they should not be consigned to poverty as a result if it can be avoided.

Originally posted by Terror Incognitia
It should be quite obvious to everyone, though many refuse to see this, that a combination of free market economics and more left-wing social policies are required for a healthy society.
Where to strike the balance is a choice every society must make (and remake) for itself. But the fact that you need to allow the free market to generate wealth, and you need to spend some of that accumulated wealth for the good of all, should be self-evident
Everything I have been getting at but more succinctly. Well done.

It's clearly England. Not only they are related the closest to the US because the majority of American settlers were originally from the UK, but also they have the strongest ties to the US nowadays, from all European countries, and often try to imitate US behaviour.

That's a terrible. Many towns in the United States are bigger than those same European countries.
Are you referring to Malto, Leichenstein, Luxumberg, Andorra, and the Vatican?
Those are all I can think of that are self-standing states.

What has size to do with the issue anyway? Russia may possess the largest territory in the world, but that does not mean that it is similar to America. By that reasoning, Moonland has a huge landmass and, as a result, is also very like America. The United Kingdom is also a diverse salad bowl of nationalities from around the Empire and the Commonwealth.

By the way, I assume that you are referring to Malta.

It's clearly England. Not only they are related the closest to the US because the majority of American settlers were originally from the UK, but also they have the strongest ties to the US nowadays, from all European countries, and often try to imitate US behaviour.

Many people of my acquaintance despise America and many of its values and ideals. The imitation is foremost amongst these.

Ooohhh. A compliment. Thanks :) Have a cookie. Succintness is something I aim for.
Think you're a bit left of me, but like it matters, I'll call you a moderate anyway.

What has size to do with the issue anyway?
It has nothing to do with anything, so I called you out on the pissing contest.
By the way, I assume that you are referring to Malta.
I was. What were you referring to when saying that British towns were larger than entire countries?
Towns are rather small in my understanding, both in population and area. You must have been referring to "cities" or "metropolises" earlier in the thread.

It has nothing to do with anything, so I called you out on the pissing contest.

I was. What were you referring to when saying that British towns were larger than entire countries?
Towns are rather small in my understanding, both in population and area. You must have been referring to "cities" or "metropolises" earlier in the thread.

Don't quite follow.

I did mean towns, such as Northampton. Such settlements can be, and are, larger in size than some countries. In any case, take a look at the city of Dunblane. Big, no?

Actually, to be fair, if we're counting the Vatican, and probably San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein...
then you can find administrative areas, centred on towns, not counties or above, in the UK and elsewhere, larger in population and in physical area.
Is the Vatican not a population of 30,000 and 1.6 square km? Or do I remember that wrong?

Actually, to be fair, if we're counting the Vatican, and probably San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein...
then you can find administrative areas, centred on towns, not counties or above, in the UK and elsewhere, larger in population and in physical area.
Is the Vatican not a population of 30,000 and 1.6 square km? Or do I remember that wrong?

That was my point.

But 30,000 people? No more than 1,000 (roughly).
0.17 square miles (roughly 0.44 sqkm).

Don't quite follow.

I did mean towns, such as Northampton. Such settlements can, and are, larger in size than some countries. In any case, take a look at the city of Dunblane. Big, no?
Arg...I'll do the number thingy...

1. North American expression. Not neccessarily understod by all. Something about arguing for no good reason.

2. Eh, didn't know town were that big.
then you can find administrative areas, centred on towns, ... in the UK and elsewhere, larger in population and in physical area.
It was me not being acquainted with what a town is in the rest of the world.
They're all so small, but I wasn't referring to a "township".

Eh, now it's you losing me. :D
Township?
Unless you mean the S. African shanty-town "townships"?

Hmmm...mindless ideas of grandure, stubbornness, refusal to acknowledge that other social models could hold a grain of truth...

France it is.
Tee hee hee :)

Township?
Yes, township. Not the S. African flavor either. I grew up in a township in Michigan. There was the township and the village ( or town ). I wasn't referring to the enitre administrative area, but the village ( or town ) itself, as there are borders seperating the two. Little signs that read, "Welcome to -teh what-cha-call-it- Village" and "Leaving -teh what-cha-call-it- Village". It would be worth noting that this is just my understanding of it, but now you know where I'm comming from.

Oh, ok. Traditionally over here (UK) it was always counties, but then the level below that was town/district councils, roughly corresponding to town/country, but with town councils sometimes controlling substantial (comparatively) areas beyond the town itself. So sort of more the township than the town.
We agree, but using confusingly different terminology :D

We agree, but using confusingly different terminology
I have no idea what you mean! :D
Anyhow, here's how it goes in Michigan:
State --> county --> charming mix of absolute chaos and total anarchy
OmniWiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan#Law_and_government) attempts to explain it, but I think I do it better.

Oh, and since the article gets into Blue and Reds, I come from the only remaining Blue outpost on the West Side! *does gang symbol with hands*

Oh, ok. Traditionally over here (UK) it was always counties, but then the level below that was town/district councils, roughly corresponding to town/country, but with town councils sometimes controlling substantial (comparatively) areas beyond the town itself. So sort of more the township than the town.
We agree, but using confusingly different terminology :D

And then we fall into the nightmare that is Parish Councils.

Lol. Anyone going "Wesss Siiide" over here is doing an Ali G impression. There might be people somewhere in London or Birmingham who do it seriously, but they're a definite minority. :D
Remind me, Blue is Democrat and Red is Republican, right? Or not...?

Lol. Anyone going "Wesss Siiide" over here is doing an Ali G impression.
Mmm...we do it because the letter 'w' flipped upside down is a 'm' and we're from West Michigan.
Remind me, Blue is Democrat and Red is Republican, right? Or not...?
Yes. In general its the other way around in Europe thanks to Marx, right? Not with Dems and Republicans but with the whole "let" and "right" thing.

Left red, right blue. And then we have the Liberal Democratic Party.

We do? What on earth are they? What do they stand for? ;)

Left red, right blue. And then we have the Liberal Democratic Party.

The Liberal Democratic Party stand for... um.... not very much actually

Let's put it this way, they had a party leader for a number of years who liked a drop on the side. When he 'fessed up and promised to quit they got rid of him and replaced him with Sir Menzies (pronounced 'Ming') Campbell.

And the first leader of the party in it's current form was colloquially known as Paddy Pantsdown. Lol.

I think siding with something because it "feels more natural" is, well, a natural thing to do. And it's a reasonable way to make a snap decision. In the long term you should decide on intellectual grounds where your politics lie - your heart will follow your head.
I know, I took a long journey from almost Thatcherite instincts to a whole sort of general mish-mash, which is largely centrist, because I have "left-wing" views on allowing people to be themselves in social terms, "right-wing" views on allowing people to make their own path in economic terms, and too much practicality to be a total libertarian, so I have some areas I think are better run by the State.
Like I say, mish-mash.

Thank you. Exactly, if I feel a way because its natural than I feel it is truley the right way to feel.

Any way when I look at how far you have come (poltically) I think that is exactly what Neu Leonstein is trying to teach me....well see what comes of it.:)

But American Conservatism is all about the individual. Its just that when the individual crosses into tradition, that American conservatives flicker to life.
Those two sentences refute each other, you know.

Its sorta of a weak arguement, I admit:p , but I really cant think of another way of putting it.
It is a weak argument. It is also a wrong argument. In fact, since you're not really using reason or logic, it might not even be an argument at all.

At any rate...think of early man. A tribe walking about in the Middle East. They had their traditions, their religion. They were also starving, being eaten by animals and dying when they were 25.
And then some individual came along, and upset the system. He or she began to domesticise animals, to sow seeds. Conservatism would not allow this. Conservatism would punish that individual.

But see, thats where I think your wrong. Consevatives dont want to control you, they just want to control society as a whole.
And what is society but all individuals put together?

To us, change is the unnatural thing.
You know what doesn't change? A rock.
You know what does? What needs to change to exist? All animals, and most of all - humans.

I could never, not in a 1000 years tell you why I think Gay marriage is wrong. But I can tell you, even before I was into politics, I looked upon it as unnatural and just weird. To me, thats whats important. Your natural beleifs, before politics has affected them. Before change. Just what you naturally beleive.
Looking back over this arguement I realize its weak but these kind of concepts tend to be hard to argue because they have to do more with faith and "naturalness"....
Will feeling heal you when you're hurt? Will believing get something on your plate? Will wishing create shelter for you?

It won't. The only thing that can do that for you is your brain. Rationally thinking about the world, what you need and what you can do to get it. That is natural.
Individuals using their brains before all else to survive is natural.
Nothing else is.

If whether or not something is natural is your criterion, then why don't you follow that path to the end?

There will always be rich people. The trick is to reduce poverty in society...
There will always be rich people. Why?

...and therefore create a more content society with people able to afford the goods the "wealth creators" produce. They then have more opportunities to get wealthy.
So if it is in the interest of the rich to help out the poor, why wouldn't you leave that choice to them?
Better still, why don't you make it easier for poor people to become rich themselves, rather than set up a system that punishes the rich for being rich, to reward the poor for being poor (to use an extreme formulation).

I cannot show you the link as it was a story widely covered by the UK media a few years ago. I did mention it was prior to the most recent enlargements. The countries you mention (East Germany no longer exists) may have fewer rich people but they also have fewer in poverty. Only Portugal had a higher percentage of its population in poverty. Greece had a lower percentage of its population in poverty than the UK.
Have you ever been to Spain or Portugal?
If what you say is true, I can only contribute it to different poverty thresholds in those countries.

Never ever said that. I have no problem whatsoever with people trying to improve their lot.
So it is good to work for yourself...but it is good to work for others without getting a return?
The two things are mutually exclusive. How does this work?

Surely you see their is more to freedom than just the ability to accumulate wealth? Freedom of speech, opportunity and from false imprisonment are just as important to name but three.
All these things are important. But why would you grant people freedom in every one of these aspects, but put barriers on accumulating material wealth?
How is material wealth different from all these other things?

Seriously, do you think it is a right to comdemn people to poverty? Come on!
I never condemned anyone to poverty. I never will.
The fact that millions of rich people exist, many of whom are self-made men and women tells me that either some people are more talented at earning money, or some people aren't trying as hard as they should.

Whatever the case may be - I am not responsible for it. I didn't make anyone poor. I didn't make anyone "untalented" (for lack of a better word) or less able.
All I can do in my entire life is deal with others fairly. I will give the best that I can do, and exchange it against the best someone else can do, at a rate that we both can agree on.

There is no such thing as a truly free economy.
But there could be.

People do get rich at the expense of others unless you believe there is an infinite amount of wealth out there.
Well, considering how much the pie has grown since the stone age, even if it isn't infinite, there seems to be a lot of potential there.

Those with the money and, therefore the power, will never deal comletely fairly with those without the power unless there is a mechanism in place which forces them to. That is where the saying "money goes to money" comes from. It is naive to believe that it is always a fair exchange.
That depends on how you define "fair". Will both sides always get equal value from a transaction? No, that will never happen.
Will both sides voluntarily agree to a transaction? Unless we're talking about the tax man, or a French employer and a street kid - yes. That is what a free economy is - when no one is forced to do anything they don't agree to do.

Be serious. In the UK, an employer can hire young people at a fraction of the wage (by law) of an older employee and sack them for no reason in the first two years. And believe me, there are plenty of employers who exploit that. They have a tremendous turnover in young staff.
I suppose the question is why those young people can't manage to make themselves valuable? How about starting a proper apprenticeship and be really good at what you do? How about doing extra education and making the switch into skilled labour?
How about forming a union?

Unless a youngster is exceptional, they stand no chance of making it past two years.
Which is of course a bad thing? Should non-exceptional workers get the same as the exceptional ones?

Again, it's putting the bottom line before people. All the French people wanted was that the employer had to give a valid reason for sacking someone. Incompetence would be one of those reasons. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Was that the law? Was that what they wanted? I don't think so.
If incompetence was a valid reason to fire an employee in France right now, no one would have bothered to draw up this law. Incompetence is nothing that can be proven - it is solely a matter of the employer's perception.

The public good was lacking in those times and that was what made them dark.
What made them dark was a lack of technology and a lack of rational thinking.
Instead what they had was faith on one hand, and feudal lords representing whatever was defined as the "public good" at the time.

Fellow men were not actually represented which also made them dark.
And why? Because they were to submit their own brains and ideas to the leadership of those who knew better than them.

It was the renaissance that started the modern world, when wealth began to be spread between more and more people increasing their opportunities leading to more talent being recognised and therefore more wealth creation. It is when wealth is concentrated among a few very rich people that society stagnates.
I don't think you want to know what the sort of inequalities were like in the Rennaissance.
At any rate, the Rennaissance was an age when people rediscovered that everyone is to think for themselves, to do what is best for themselves. Whether it be merchants, artists or inventors - these were selfish individuals who realised that the public good was their bad, and decided against it.
Today we celebrate both them and those who would have destroyed them.

Any system can exist if the conditions permit it.
And what if the human condition doesn't?

It was a stroke of the pen which ushered in the neo con revolution when governments allowed the free trafficking of currency across national boundaries. Prior to that neo conservatism could not exist.
Why do you keep calling it that? It's liberalism.
Neoconservatism is a big-government type corporatist movement with a focus on democratisation in foreign policy. It's got nothing to do with Thatcher, or French labour laws.

A stroke of the pen could make it redundant. Such has been the situation for all time.
Yes. The powerful representatives of the public good could hold a gun to people's heads and make them comply. Whether that is desirable is another thing.

I would also take issue with "out performs". It may outperform other systems financially (for a few) but for society as a whole it lags well behind. A change in emphasis could also render it redundant.
You mean a change in emphasis from that which makes humans survive to something that doesn't?

Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. Society would collapse if everyone set up there own business. In reality, there will always be an overwhelming majority who will be employees.
And why can't you be an employee, yet still look at yourself as you would at an entrepreneur or business?
You're trading what you have to offer on a market with others. You try to get the best price, you try to become better and grow, so that you can get an even better price.
It's the same thing, employer or employee.

Their rights should be protected and it should be society's goal to alleviate as much poverty as possible. The opportunity to become wealthy should always be there but it should be remembered that not everyone can achieve it and they should not be consigned to poverty as a result if it can be avoided.
Just because someone doesn't manage to be rich doesn't mean that they have to be poor. There are billions of people in what we consider "middle class". Neither rich, nor poor, but usually quite happy.
As for society's goals...who decides those? Those who are the most successful, those who are the least successful, or maybe a third party?

Neu Leonstein, you begin to sound almost Ayn Rand esque, unless I very much misread what you are saying.

Your philosophy is very practical, on first sight. It has a very hardnosed approach to economic, and indeed social affairs, and in many respects that is admirable.

Unless there is something I am missing, and if there is, please do explain, there are important things it does NOT do.
It does not explain, allow for, or even permit, in the scope of the philosophy, altruism, common decency or the capacity to dream. It has no time for humanity's wonderfully irrational side.
In essence your philosophy is coldly rational, and you are proud of that. In planning a rational course of action that is admirable. In dealing with human beings, humanely, it is quite inadequate.
Any society run according to your principles (as I understand them, at least) would be utterly miserable.

In response to your post responding to Llanarc:

He is making some mistakes, in my view, especiallly over the CPE, and his use of the word neo-conservatism.
You are making rather more grave mistakes, in neglecting the balance of interests between unrivalled individualism and not allowing the individual to succeed; and between individual success and what used to be called the common weal.

We have a moral duty to nurture society; those left behind by policies such as you would put in place would become detrimental to society. Essentially there have to be limits on the free market, because some by virtue of their strong position in the market and their lack of scruple (not always unrelated) would otherwise exploit the weak, giving them no opportunity.

Government, acting for a society, has a duty to ensure by whatever legal means necessary equality of opportunity for all it's citizens. It should not legislate for equality of outcome. A truly free market is as far from equal opportunity as it is possible to get, as by the time you reached an age to be employed the richest would have had years of expensive, carefully tailored education and grooming for the top spots, and the poorest would have had years of hand-to-mouth existence working in menial, dead end jobs to sustain themselves and their families. That is not freeing the individual.

Neu Leonstein, you begin to sound almost Ayn Rand esque, unless I very much misread what you are saying.
;)

It does not explain, allow for, or even permit, in the scope of the philosophy, altruism, common decency or the capacity to dream. It has no time for humanity's wonderfully irrational side.
Why? People can do and feel all those things. But they shouldn't distract from the fact that if you want something to happen in the real world, you have to deal with it using your head, not your heart.
I can't follow someone else's feelings or dreams. But I can follow someone else's argument.

In essence your philosophy is coldly rational, and you are proud of that. In planning a rational course of action that is admirable. In dealing with human beings, humanely, it is quite inadequate.
Well, I'm only too aware that most people aren't always trying to be as rational as possible. Neither am I, quite often.
But no matter how you package it, if you have a transaction to make, you have to rely on people's rationality.
So in other words: If I want something from someone else, I'll be rational, not emotional. If I don't, I can be as emotional as I feel like.

Although love is a whole different ball game again. Usually rationality doesn't enter into it. :p
And I don't agree with Rand at all when it comes to love, sex or other human relationships. Just as we have brains to make material things happen, our bodies have emotions, feelings and processes that are difficult to rationalise or explain. The trick is to know what fits where.

Any society run according to your principles (as I understand them, at least) would be utterly miserable.
It's not exactly practical, let's say it like that. But it is a wonderful personal philosophy to have. It's a very good motivator, and if you're truly convinced, that means that you will never in your life give something up which you want.

I have to agree with Terror Incognitia on this one. A world run under the sort of conditions Neu Leonstein would find agree-able would be an extremely unhappy one. At least for the great majority of the people.

Most of his arguments do not stand up to much in the way of scrutiny but he is entitled to those views. In the real world, a world he seems oblivious to, his ideals would see such freedom of expression severley curtailed as the cowed masses sought to annoy their economic masters as little as possible.

To get back tothe real reason for the thread, still going with England/UK ;)

What is CPE? Not familiar with the acronym.

It's not exactly practical, let's say it like that. But it is a wonderful personal philosophy to have. It's a very good motivator, and if you're truly convinced, that means that you will never in your life give something up which you want.

But thats what I dont understant....You have these great ideas, but yet you say they are not practical. What the point then? I'm asking honestly.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Have you ever been to Spain or Portugal?
If what you say is true, I can only contribute it to different poverty thresholds in those countries.
They were EU wide definitions of poverty therefore the same criteria were applied in all cases. You may be unwilling to accept it but the sad fact is that the "liberalisation" brought into the UK by the neo cons led to widespread poverty in the country. You may have no problem with that but I, and many others who have to live here, do.

And yes, I have been to Spain. I have not seen the kind of poverty prevalent in the UK there or in Greece. As far as Portugal is concerned, I did say it was the only country to have a higher percentage of its population in poverty than the UK.

how come there are no eastern euopean contries on here? Like Latvia?
o well since thats not an option i choose Ireland

If whether or not something is natural is your criterion, then why don't you follow that path to the end?

After reading your counter arguement, and reviewing mine...I'd like to apologize for what I said and take it back.

It was about 2 something late last night and most of the stuff I said didnt make sense when I just read it.

Most of his arguments do not stand up to much in the way of scrutiny but he is entitled to those views.
So far I don't think anyone but Terror Incognita has tried any real scrutiny at all. :(

In the real world, a world he seems oblivious to, his ideals would see such freedom of expression severley curtailed as the cowed masses sought to annoy their economic masters as little as possible.
Why? Why do you assume that I would want to take anyone's freedoms, when all I have been talking about is giving everyone the freedom to act voluntarily and as they choose?

You may be unwilling to accept it but the sad fact is that the "liberalisation" brought into the UK by the neo cons led to widespread poverty in the country.
Sorry, but I really do have to ask for some sort of link on this. I can't take your word for it...GDP per capita, even accounting for income inequality, really doesn't allow for your assertion to be true.

Spain GDP: $25,200
Spain Gini Coefficient: 32.5
% of Spain's economy owned by the lowest 10%: 2.8%
UK GDP: $30,900
UK Gini Coefficient: 36.8
% of the UK's economy owned by the lowest 10%: 2.1%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

But thats what I dont understant....You have these great ideas, but yet you say they are not practical. What the point then? I'm asking honestly.
It's a system of personal morality, and as such a system that guides how I act towards my fellow man.

Unfortunately libertarian parties aren't winning elections yet, and so I am confined to voting tactically, choosing between candidates.

But most importantly, my argument is a defence against those who would take my freedom, my life, away to serve someone else. At the moment, it's a negative argument.

France and the US - identical twins.

1. A perhaps excessive belief in its own moral rightness.
2. A perhaps excessive belief that it should be accepted as the center of the political universe.
3. An utter inability to comprehend other languages.
4. Both being overly influenced by the presence of a large body of immigrants who are not really citizens, and dont really wish to be citizens as their political allegiance lies elsewhere.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
So far I don't think anyone but Terror Incognita has tried any real scrutiny at all.
Scrutiny does not have to be put down in a post. People are capable of viewing arguments and forming opinions based on what they see. But lets give your model a problem. How does your laissez-faire liberalised system cater for those incapable of making economic deals. Such as the sick, infirm, psychological problems etc and those who have to care for them. Are they to be exposed on hillsides to die as being economically unviable? Or will you accept that some form of taxation will be necessary to assist them and laws formed to stop them being discriminated against in the workplace?

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Why? Why do you assume that I would want to take anyone's freedoms, when all I have been talking about is giving everyone the freedom to act voluntarily and as they choose?
I am a great advocate of freedom. I want as many people to have as many freedoms as they can possibly have. But in your system many of those freedoms would just wither on the vine. They would still technically be on the statute book (or whatever) but in reality they would not be available to the great mass of the people. It is not as if your system is a brand new concept. Pre-WW2 was as close to your dream as the world has been (not exactly but it will never be exactly as any of us want). One mine owner in Lothian (S. Scotland) used to threaten entire families with redundancy if one member either failed to seek employment in his mine or tried to transfer to another job. In what manner were these people "free"? I do not want to return to those dark days. But this is the kind of thing your system would bring.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Sorry, but I really do have to ask for some sort of link on this. I can't take your word for it...GDP per capita, even accounting for income inequality, really doesn't allow for your assertion to be true.

Spain GDP: $25,200
Spain Gini Coefficient: 32.5
% of Spain's economy owned by the lowest 10%: 2.8%
UK GDP: $30,900
UK Gini Coefficient: 36.8
% of the UK's economy owned by the lowest 10%: 2.1%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Unfortunately you are still looking at financial statistics rather than people. As you know, GDP per head of population is a poor indication of people's personal income. It just tells you how much money is sloshing around in the economy. If there is a population of four with one earning £5m while the other three only make £5000, you get an average of about £1.25m per capita. It is a very misleading measure.

As far as a link is concerned, I've already told you it was a media story a few years ago. Obviously, not being psychic, I did not know I would be having this debate so did not save it. All I can tell you is it was an official EU stat using the same criterion for every country. At that time, 25% of all those living in poverty in the EU (prior to the most recent enlargements) lived in the UK. I'm sorry you cannot accept that but I'm not lying. You should maybe visit the UK and see the vast areas of deprivation that blight many of our towns and cities

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
But most importantly, my argument is a defence against those who would take my freedom, my life, away to serve someone else. At the moment, it's a negative argument.
For goodness sake man, get a grip. No one is taking your freedom away, forcing you to work in a gulag and no one is threatening your life. I have already said I want people to have all the freedoms they can including the freedom to accumulate wealth. All I am saying is that systems and mechanisms should be in place to ensure as many people as possible have access to those freedoms and no one is disadvantaged unfairly. Try to have a social conscience instead of thinking solely of your bank account. No man is an island after all.

SNIP

For goodness sake man, get a grip. No one is taking your freedom away, forcing you to work in a gulag and no one is threatening your life. I have already said I want people to have all the freedoms they can including the freedom to accumulate wealth. All I am saying is that systems and mechanisms should be in place to ensure as many people as possible have access to those freedoms and no one is disadvantaged unfairly. Try to have a social conscience instead of thinking solely of your bank account. No man is an island after all.

You have no more right to impose upon me a social conscience than you have the right to impose upon me a love of your sister.
The systems and mechanisms you would impose upon me to ensure my participation in your social system are the social equivalent of a shotgun wedding.

Originally osted by BogMarsh
You have no more right to impose upon me a social conscience than you have the right to impose upon me a love of your sister.
The systems and mechanisms you would impose upon me to ensure my participation in your social system are the social equivalent of a shotgun wedding.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. But I have my own views on what would constitute a healthy society.

By your reasoning, any law, regulation or such brought in by a government of any hue would be an unwelcome imposition. Whether it is socialist, libertarian or Monster Raving Loony. Does this make you an anarchist? :)

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. But I have my own views on what would constitute a healthy society.

By your reasoning, any law, regulation or such brought in by a government of any hue would be an unwelcome imposition. Whether it is socialist, libertarian or Monster Raving Loony. Does this make you an anarchist? :)

*shrug* Try this for size. Laws should have the purpose of maintaining England as a green and pleasant land.

I rather see Her Majesty's Government busy protecting our Environment than seeing Her Majesty's Government busy keeping chavs and hoodies on the streets.

Does that make me an anarchist?

How does your laissez-faire liberalised system cater for those incapable of making economic deals. Such as the sick, infirm, psychological problems etc and those who have to care for them. Are they to be exposed on hillsides to die as being economically unviable?
Well, two ways to deal with that:
a) What would happen to them if we were still living in the stone ages? What would be the natural thing to happen to them?
b) As you said, the people who cared for them and would want them to survive would take care of them.
If that does hurt their ability to achieve their own goals, then that is a personal tragedy, and I wouldn't dispute that. I just question your assertion that this tragedy is therefore to be shifted to me.

But some taxes are obviously necessary, I wouldn't want angry mobs running up and down the streets and looting the place. And I wouldn't want everyone to get the plague either. And I think that everyone should be able to get an education.

I'm just not sure how anyone can possibly justify income redistribution.

One mine owner in Lothian (S. Scotland) used to threaten entire families with redundancy if one member either failed to seek employment in his mine or tried to transfer to another job. In what manner were these people "free"? I do not want to return to those dark days. But this is the kind of thing your system would bring.
Or so you say.
I can't say that I agree with the actions of this mine owner. It's not good business.
But then...if no threat of physical force was involved, I don't really see where the problem lies. The family could make up its mind and move together, into different jobs. The modern world can easily offer that sort of flexibility. The 19th century probably couldn't.
It's also a matter of education and the general social climate (here's a hint for AI re: conservatism) that held these people in poverty. I think our social climate has changed enough, and I feel that education needs to be available to all. A little more on that below.

Unfortunately you are still looking at financial statistics rather than people.
I can't tell you about people because I don't know them. And I'd dare say that you don't know them either.
I know a few people, and I can make my judgements based on that. Other than that, I only have economic statistics.

As you know, GDP per head of population is a poor indication of people's personal income. It just tells you how much money is sloshing around in the economy. If there is a population of four with one earning £5m while the other three only make £5000, you get an average of about £1.25m per capita. It is a very misleading measure.
Which is why I included both the Gini Coefficient and the percentage of the economy owned by the poorest 10% of people.

And just for the record, I'll add those of France as well.
GDP per cap: $30,000
Gini: 32.7
Poorest 10%: 2.8%

I'm sorry you cannot accept that but I'm not lying.
I'm not making judgements. The problem is just that I have been on NS too long to just accept people's word for things.
And it's also quite possible that you just remember things incorrectly.

For goodness sake man, get a grip. No one is taking your freedom away, forcing you to work in a gulag and no one is threatening your life.
At the moment, if I am an unskilled slob, putting together trucks for a living, I pay maybe 20% tax.
If I do the best I can, and I contribute to humanity, and I design the trucks and run the plant, I pay 50%.
Why? And what happens if I don't pay?

I have already said I want people to have all the freedoms they can including the freedom to accumulate wealth. All I am saying is that systems and mechanisms should be in place to ensure as many people as possible have access to those freedoms and no one is disadvantaged unfairly.
Exactly. And that means a level playing field for all. If there was a marathon, and we all started on the same line, and you were a better runner than me and pull away - would you expect someone to come and hold you back so that poor disadvantaged me can catch up?

But it's true that we need to start from the same line. And the mind is our weapon for survival. Education is the way to make it powerful.
So once everyone gets a decent education (and you can't make a horse drink...), that is it. After that, you are on your own.
I'm not paying for someone else's mistake, just as I don't expect them to pay for mine.

Try to have a social conscience...
My social conscience is fine, I think.

...instead of thinking solely of your bank account.
This is not about money. It's about being free to achieve my goals in life.

I want a Lamborghini.
It's that simple. I want to work for and buy a Lamborghini. That has nothing to do with money, and everything with my personal wishes.

If my personal wish was to get married to a man and adopt a baby, you wouldn't mind, I assume.
If my personal wish was to start a political party and get elected Prime Minister, you wouldn't mind, I assume.
You'd let me be, and not try to make it harder for me than it already is. And you wouldn't expect me to get other people married first, or get other people to move into politics first.

So why do you make it harder for me to buy my Lamborghini? And why do you insist that before I get to buy my Lamborghini, someone else gets to buy a pair of shoes?

No man is an island after all.
No.
But every man is himself. As I said before, I am not you. There is a distinction between people, and that is their brains.
That is a fact of nature that no one can escape. Unless you deny that fact, individualism is the logical conclusion of human existence.

Originally posted by BogMarsh
*shrug* Try this for size. Laws should have the purpose of maintaining England as a green and pleasant land.

I rather see Her Majesty's Government busy protecting our Environment than seeing Her Majesty's Government busy keeping chavs and hoodies on the streets.

Does that make me an anarchist?
No, but it makes you an environmentalist. So if I wasn't, any law you passed would be an unwelcome imposition on me.

However, I believe in Democracy so would abide by laws which had been passed by the legislative body and seek to change/repeal any I didn't like. But even this system is an imposition on those who dislike Democracy. All human interaction is series of compromises and accomodations. ;)

No, but it makes you an environmentalist. So if I wasn't, any law you passed would be an unwelcome imposition on me.

However, I believe in Democracy so would abide by laws which had been passed by the legislative body and seek to change/repeal any I didn't like. But even this system is an imposition on those who dislike Democracy. All human interaction is series of compromises and accomodations. ;)

*gallic shrug*
I've always considered democracy an imposition.
However, a necessary one.

To get a bit back on track - we all put up with impositions, but you have no right to insist that these necesary impositions don't breach our rights.
They do, and we accept it out of (global) necessity.

I'm English and was just wondering what people thought about living in the US. For us here it looks dreadful but then Blair has probably made the UK look dreadful...and in some ways he has made it suck, as you guys would say ( do the math etc ok nuff of that).

I don't like getting information from the media and I have never been to the US so would appriciate some feedback, as you all seem to be americans...I think...
thanks