NationStates Jolt Archive

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


I think you need to start a seperate topic...

Originally posted by BogMarsh
*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 think you'll find the right to freedom of speech gives me that right. Also, I never said compromises wouldn't have to be made (breaches is far too dramatic). When a society consists of more than one person then compromises on what each member of that society can do is inevitable if fisticuffs are to be avoided.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
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.
That is a far harsher answer than I was expecting . To be honest it's shamefull

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
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.
You just have by suggesting everyone should get free/affordable health and education. Those two areas account for the lions share of social spending in many countries.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Or so you say.
I can't say that I agree with the actions of this mine owner. It's not good business.
I heard the story on an historical documentary depicting life in Scotland's coal mines pre WW2 which aired in the UK in the 1990s. It had Iain Cuthbertson playing the mine owner during the dramatic episodes which historical documentaries tend to have these days. You can look it up if you can but you cannot continue to accuse me of lying just because you don't like the implications for your economic model.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
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.
Just how miserable would life be in your ideal world. You have the naive hope that all wealthy people will behave in fair and decent manner when dealing with those with less power than them. The real world would beg to differ. I am not implying that all wealthy people are unscrupulous but there will be those who are and there has to be mechanisms in place (in my opinion) that protects people from those individuals.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
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%
Meaningless statistics. They tell us nothing about the numbers of poor in a country. And again, I am not lying and I am not remembering incorrectly. If you want to trawl through the gargantuam mass of EU stats over the last 10 years then bash on but I'm not doing it for the sake of a NS thread.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
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?
This is irrelevant nonsense. If you want your sports car buy your sports car. No one is making you buy a pair of shoes for some one else. Strewth.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
That is a fact of nature that no one can escape. Unless you deny that fact, individualism is the logical conclusion of human existence.
Completely wrong. The whole of human existance has centred on the group. From hunter/gatherers, to settlements, to cities, to states it has always been about the group. The individual looking out for other group members and the group looking out for the individual. It is how we came to prosper in a harsh environment. The individual is always vulnerable when it becomes detached from the group. Which is why he/she will try to form another group as soon as possible. That is also why workers formed unions and businessmen formed trade assocciations.

We are not going to convince each other here so is there any point to continuing this ping pong game?

What is CPE? Not familiar with the acronym.

Contract (sp) de Premier Embauchement.
French for first job contract. In my view it was a long-delayed small step towards making French employers willing and able to fire workers without going to an industrial tribunal about it, and thus willing to hire new workers.

Too much since I last dropped by to respond to it all specifically, as I would like. So, a few points that stuck in my mind.
Neu Leonstein: I'm glad you don't hold Rand's views on love, on family relations, and that sort of thing, and that removes some of my disagreement with you.
The fact that you also support education for all and public law enforcement removes another two.
I still think that society has a duty; to protect the weaker members of society from being exploited by the stronger members. If we were all nice people, you wouldn't have to constrain peoples' freedom to prevent that. Sadly, the choice is between on the one hand restricting the freedom of individuals and on the other hand permitting unnecessary human suffering.

It is impossible to set that balance for all time, as people change. But I, along with many others, would not wish to live in a society where might made right. After all, it is a perfectly rational choice to exploit someone, if you get the opportunity. To prevent it you need the consciences of the majority to prevent them, and to deal with the majority by legislating, and then punishing offenders. Human societies are too large, and have been for thousands of years, to rely on the bad reputation gained by acting badly to be a deterrent.

Equally, I believe that the misfortune of having a member of your family be incapacitated, or born handicapped, and thus require continual support, should not be compounded by your having to sacrifice everything just to eke out a life. Freeing those individuals to contribute to society by society bearing part of the burden is a worthwhile trade, even in economic terms, quite apart from people being happier.

I would be interested to see your response on both points.

Originally posted by Terror Incognitia
Contract (sp) de Premier Embauchement.
French for first job contract. In my view it was a long-delayed small step towards making French employers willing and able to fire workers without going to an industrial tribunal about it, and thus willing to hire new workers.
Thanks for clearing that up.

As you have probably surmised I'm not a great fan of people being sacked without a valid reason. Just so the boss could hire cheaper, younger labour would not, in my opinion, be a valid reason. Especially as by the time you're 26 there is a good chance you have responsibilities such as a partner and child to think about. Do you not think 10 years (assuming 16-26 is the age range covered by the law) is far too long to have the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head? Obviously most bosses wouldn't be sods about it (I would hope) but some would and that length of time living in fear cannot be good for some one :( . Surely just making it a bit easier to get rid of incompetent/unreliable/dishonest workers would be a better option.

Anyway, that's my opinion ;) .

For a poverty in the EU link you can look at this.

www.sozialarbeit.de/europa/newslett/Dez98/E2.htm

It doesn't bear out my assertion of 25% of the poor in the EU being in the UK though it does put the UK near the bottom of the pile with only Portugal below her and Greece on a par. You'd have to work out all the %ages of populations if you really want to work out how much of the poor reside in the UK. Obviously 23% of the UK population is much more than 9% of the Danish population (about 14,000,000 Brits to about 450,000 Danes) so I think it will be pretty safe to say the UK has a far higher %age of the EU's poor than would be expected. As with most stats however, you can turn them to most any argument you want.

In the vein of that last statement, I still maintain that the UK media widely reported that 25% of all the poor in the EU resided in the UK.

Okay, I've done the anal bit and worked out the maths. Using the table in the link and my atlas which gives population sizes, 22% of all the poor in the EU at the time the stats were collected lived in the UK. Not a kick in the pants away from what I originally asserted. happy now NL.

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

Ask me specific things and Ill reply.

I have lived in Southern California and South Florida...but travlled all over America, ask me what you wanna know.

Ask me specific things and Ill reply.

I have lived in Southern California and South Florida...but travlled all over America, ask me what you wanna know.
Have you been to Nebraska?

Ask me specific things and Ill reply.

I have lived in Southern California and South Florida...but travlled all over America, ask me what you wanna know.

Natives are usually blind to what seem to be amazingly odd things to outsiders, but this seems to affect Americans more than most

Natives are usually blind to what seem to be amazingly odd things to outsiders, but this seems to affect Americans more than most
You know I read a book once, no joke;) , that was aimed at tourists/exchange students to the US. It was really odd because a fair numer of the things they mentioned are things I've never really seen here, not not noticed, but really not seen. First example I can think of was public displays of affection, I saw a lot more of that when I visited Europe than I have ever seen here, of course that might be a regional thing.

Thanks for clearing that up.

As you have probably surmised I'm not a great fan of people being sacked without a valid reason. Just so the boss could hire cheaper, younger labour would not, in my opinion, be a valid reason. Especially as by the time you're 26 there is a good chance you have responsibilities such as a partner and child to think about. Do you not think 10 years (assuming 16-26 is the age range covered by the law) is far too long to have the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head? Obviously most bosses wouldn't be sods about it (I would hope) but some would and that length of time living in fear cannot be good for some one :( . Surely just making it a bit easier to get rid of incompetent/unreliable/dishonest workers would be a better option.

Anyway, that's my opinion ;) .

It was specifically for only your first two years in employment; so if you started a job at 16, it would be over by 18; and I believe it still required a period of notice. So essentially for two years you would have slightly more relaxd conditions than the UK at the moment, and at the end of that time it goes back to normal.

You know I read a book once, no joke;) , that was aimed at tourists/exchange students to the US. It was really odd because a fair numer of the things they mentioned are things I've never really seen here, not not noticed, but really not seen. First example I can think of was public displays of affection, I saw a lot more of that when I visited Europe than I have ever seen here, of course that might be a regional thing.

Those kinds of books are usually full of crap, you have no idea the questions I got asked about Britain (and sometimes other countries) when I lived in America. It works both ways.

Those kinds of books are usually full of crap, you have no idea the questions I got asked about Britain (and sometimes other countries) when I lived in America. It works both ways.
You get some of that between states here, my dad, who's from New York originally, has a clip from the NY Time of silly questiones directed at someone from Nebraska, it had some pretty funny bits "Do you ride a cow to work?" was probably the best though.

well, do you?

well, do you?
No.;)

Natives are usually blind to what seem to be amazingly odd things to outsiders, but this seems to affect Americans more than most

I could agree with that, but still, he asked for some Americans to answer some questions about America he has, so here I am.

Have you been to Nebraska?

No...but I heard I'm not exactly missing out.:p

I could agree with that, but still, he asked for some Americans to answer some questions about America he has, so here I am.



No...but I heard I'm not exactly missing out.:p
Not really, the weather is much beter California, we do have a real nice zoo though.

I could agree with that, but still, he asked for some Americans to answer some questions about America he has, so here I am.


Fine, but I'll be on hand to correct your pitiful lack of understanding :upyours:

Not really, the weather is much beter California, we do have a real nice zoo though.

Well, you may be right, the weather is Southern California is nice, but its not the best...I prefer the weather where I live now, South Florida...best weather in the world.

Anyway San Diego has a real nice zoo also.

And what kind of weather do you guys get up there?

Fine, but I'll be on hand to correct your pitiful lack of understanding :upyours:

Jesus, relax man.

Besides, Up Yours Devil Smileys earn you 10+ noob points.

taking things the wrong way, using the word noob and generally assigning points has really dragged you down the cool scale. muchos apologies dude

Well, you may be right, the weather is Southern California is nice, but its not the best...I prefer the weather where I live now, South Florida...best weather in the world.

Anyway San Diego has a real nice zoo also.

And what kind of weather do you guys get up there?
HeeHee, we get everything, the tempeture for example ranges from anywhere from below zero in the winter, although we've been having some pretty mild winters as of late, to 90 or higher in the summer. We pretty much tend to get hit with the shit stick in both seasons. At least we don't have hurricanes, though we do get tornados.

taking things the wrong way, using the word noob and generally assigning points has really dragged you down the cool scale. muchos apologies dude

Uh dude, you freaked out and used an up yours smiley, just relax, kid.

HeeHee, we get everything, the tempeture for example ranges from anywhere from below zero in the winter, although we've been having some pretty mild winters as of late, to 90 or higher in the summer. We pretty much tend to get hit with the shit stick in both seasons. At least we don't have hurricanes, though we do get tornados.


Nice...I dont really like the cold, lol. South Florida has perfect weather for me...hot all year round. Those hurricanes really fuck us up though, but hey, unless corrupt New Orleans, we somehow get through it.

Uh dude, you freaked out and used an up yours smiley, just relax, kid.


Don't embarass yourself further son, learning context and maybe a little humour will help you in life

Don't embarass yourself further son, learning context and maybe a little humour will help you in life

What are you talking about?

Just shows how young you are that you have to counter my "kid" by placing "son" in the middle of your post.

Pipe down.

If there's a feature whereby you can look at my other posts, you should use it and see that 'son' is a word I use regularly and once again your hasty assumption is spectacularly incorrect. happy to help.

I still think that society has a duty; to protect the weaker members of society from being exploited by the stronger members.
Well, firstly we should probably drop the word 'society'. What you're proposing is that you and me, as individuals, have that duty, since we are part of society.

And secondly, I'd probably agree with you. Except that I think our definitions of exploitation differ.

Here is my ideal vision: To be able to help those who suffer hardship of truly no fault of their own, while leaving those who are at fault for their troubles to pull themselves out by their own ability.

Sadly, the choice is between on the one hand restricting the freedom of individuals and on the other hand permitting unnecessary human suffering.
Indeed. And until not that long ago, I would have been sure to choose the second option.
But the last months have shaken my view of the world and everything it implies.

But I, along with many others, would not wish to live in a society where might made right.
There are many things to be said about this...does weakness make right?
Does ability and skill make right? Does disability and lack of skill make right?
And where does 'might' come from?

After all, it is a perfectly rational choice to exploit someone, if you get the opportunity.
Not if you truly follow an objectivist philosophy. Because that philosophy grants every human being the respect to treat him or her as a trader to exchange things with.

To prevent it you need the consciences of the majority to prevent them, and to deal with the majority by legislating, and then punishing offenders. Human societies are too large, and have been for thousands of years, to rely on the bad reputation gained by acting badly to be a deterrent.
In principle, you are right. I'm not an anarchist.
But I question some of the laws that seem to have been decided upon by the unnamed majority.

Freeing those individuals to contribute to society by society bearing part of the burden is a worthwhile trade, even in economic terms, quite apart from people being happier.
That could be possible. It doesn't have to be, but it might.
But if it is, couldn't you rely on people's voluntary contributions?

Okay, I've done the anal bit and worked out the maths. Using the table in the link and my atlas which gives population sizes, 22% of all the poor in the EU at the time the stats were collected lived in the UK. Not a kick in the pants away from what I originally asserted. happy now NL.
Well, as you said, stats can be turned into anything.

What you did, if I followed you correctly, is take the number of poor, measured by the standards of their host country, into account.

The question is, would you rather live in the UK with half the average income of British people, or in Spain, with half the average income of the Spanish people?

At any rate, I agree with you when you say that we won't find a solution.

The thing with me is that I was a lefty all my life. I started as something of a Maoist, and ended up a Social Democrat.
But the recent months have upset all that. I don't fully know what I believe in yet, there are many things I have to clear up in my head. Fact is that I was no longer happy to tolerate the inconsistencies, the forced arguments, the detachment from my own life any longer.

And to be quite honest, I don't think objectivist libertarianism can be refuted (I have tried for a year now on NS), at least as far as moral philosophy is concerned. And as far as the link with politics can be easily established, there goes that.
Too much of the left is based on emotions. Emotions don't get food on my table, emotions have no relevance at all other than their influence on what my rational mind does.

Libertarianism is a philosophy of the head, not the heart. And I don't think I can rebel against that any longer.

Libertarianism is just a really stupid philosiphy as it deals with absoloutes and seems alien to the concept of the trade-off. Besides, if you just disagree with the theory of natural rights you don't have to follow all of the crap that follows.

Libertarianism is just a really stupid philosiphy as it deals with absoloutes and seems alien to the concept of the trade-off.
If you're stuck in the desert and a lion is about you eat you, then that is an absolute. Life is full of absolutes.
A philosophy that fails to deal with those is a philosophy that fails at life, isn't it?

Besides, if you just disagree with the theory of natural rights you don't have to follow all of the crap that follows.
Disagree all you want. But don't force your disagreement on me.

If you're stuck in the desert and a lion is about you eat you, then that is an absolute. Life is full of absolutes.
A philosophy that fails to deal with those is a philosophy that fails at life, isn't it?


It'd be far better to work on not getting into that position, a little waying up of odds and practicalities etc

It'd be far better to work on not getting into that position, a little waying up of odds and practicalities etc
And you'd still be dealing in absolutes. Reality is absolute.

Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes. >_>

And you'd still be dealing in absolutes. Reality is absolute.

Is it? Or is it what we sense?

Well, firstly we should probably drop the word 'society'. What you're proposing is that you and me, as individuals, have that duty, since we are part of society.

And secondly, I'd probably agree with you. Except that I think our definitions of exploitation differ.

Here is my ideal vision: To be able to help those who suffer hardship of truly no fault of their own, while leaving those who are at fault for their troubles to pull themselves out by their own ability.

Okay, possibly "every individual within society" was what I meant. I consider exploitation to be giving a worse deal to someone because they are in less of a position to complain, not because they have any less to offer.
And I agree entirely with your vision; however it is in practice very difficult if not impossible to distinguish the two; so in the same way as I err on the side of letting the guilty walk free, rather than locking up the innocent, I err on the side of helping the undeserving, rather than leaving the deserving unaided.

Indeed. And until not that long ago, I would have been sure to choose the second option.
But the last months have shaken my view of the world and everything it implies.
Okay. I can understand that it takes time for a new coherence to appear when an old world-view has been shattered. And which way I lean on that...depends on the situation.

There are many things to be said about this...does weakness make right?
Does ability and skill make right? Does disability and lack of skill make right?
And where does 'might' come from?
To all those questions but the last - the answer is no. Peoples' moral standing is totally unconnected with ability, skill, and 'might'. That is why we join together in a society with recognised arbiters of 'right' - the courts - so that when we are weaker but in the right we may still triumph.
As to where might comes from, it can be anything that makes you more powerful than another, achieved by fair means or foul.

Not if you truly follow an objectivist philosophy. Because that philosophy grants every human being the respect to treat him or her as a trader to exchange things with.
You will forgive my not wishing to rely on my fellow man being a true follower of an objectivist philosophy. ;)

In principle, you are right. I'm not an anarchist.
But I question some of the laws that seem to have been decided upon by the unnamed majority.
You are not alone there. I question many parts of the legal system. But in principle it is necessary, and in most cases it is right; as long as we keep trying to improve it that's good enough for me.

That could be possible. It doesn't have to be, but it might.
But if it is, couldn't you rely on people's voluntary contributions?
I can't prove that's impossible but I'm highly doubtful that would provide adequate funding. However, I would be willing to see it tried, carefully and on a small scale, to test the principle.

I wont get into any big debate with you here NL. I think we've agreed to differ on our respective world views. I will defend my stat a bit and reply to your post though.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
What you did, if I followed you correctly, is take the number of poor, measured by the standards of their host country, into account.

The question is, would you rather live in the UK with half the average income of British people, or in Spain, with half the average income of the Spanish people?
No. The table I used gave the %age of a states population below half the average earnings in the entire EU. According to the stats, 23% of households in the UK earned less than half the EU average. There is a separate table which gives the stats you mention but I have not done any calculations based on that one. As for the comparison between Spain and the UK, the cost of living in the UK is far higher than in Spain. You can get a lot more for your money in Spain than you can in the UK. There is a little slogan that has been going round the tabloids in the UK for the last few years - "Rip off Britain". It is usually followed by a story whinging on about how things seem to cost a lot more in the UK than in mainland Europe. In my opinion (and you are perfectly free to disagree), this exacerbates the poverty in the UK. To go back to my assertion all those posts ago, I don't see the liberalisation of the UK economy as having been a resounding success when it has left a previously wealthy society like the UK's on a par with Greece. (In my opinion).

I'm going to leave that alone now.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
The thing with me is that I was a lefty all my life. I started as something of a Maoist, and ended up a Social Democrat.
But the recent months have upset all that. I don't fully know what I believe in yet, there are many things I have to clear up in my head. Fact is that I was no longer happy to tolerate the inconsistencies, the forced arguments, the detachment from my own life any longer.
I wasn't always centre/left myself. Back in 1979 I wanted Thatcher to win. I was young though and by 1983 I was too horrified by the destruction she had wrought in the country to ever even contemplate voting Tory. I honestly believe she was the worst thing to hit the UK since WW2. I didn't instantly go to the left but as I have gone through life and gained experience it became obvious to me that right wing politics were essentially negative and uncaring, I do not want to live in a world like that. But I also believe there needs to be a balance.

I don't know what happened in your life to unsettle you so much and I hope you get everything sorted in your head soon but In my opinion a theory that disengages you from society as a whole and reduces the consequences of your actions to "their problem not mine" is unlikely to help. As I said, my opinion, you may disagree.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
And to be quite honest, I don't think objectivist libertarianism can be refuted (I have tried for a year now on NS), at least as far as moral philosophy is concerned. And as far as the link with politics can be easily established, there goes that.
Too much of the left is based on emotions. Emotions don't get food on my table, emotions have no relevance at all other than their influence on what my rational mind does.

Libertarianism is a philosophy of the head, not the heart. And I don't think I can rebel against that any longer.
The problem with most philosophies is that they recquire an ideal world where people react in predictable ways and who are 100% behind the philosophy. That never happens. A truly libertarian society will never exist (In my opinion). For one thing the only people I have met who have claimed to be libertarian (and it is a small sample) really just wanted to do whatever they wanted to do while wanting to stop others doing things they didn't like. To me it was just selfishness. I reckon that if, for some reason, the world suddenly had libertariansim foisted on it, the whole of society would disintegrate as the vagaries of human nature took hold.

If you look at communism objectively, it works very well. Put it into practice and it all goes to pot. The same would happen with libertarianism,. Too many people with too many contradictory desires would eventually lead to pistols being drawn. It may be a philosophy of the head but then so is communism. As communism found out, philosophies of the heart will always screw them up. Which is why I see a need for a balance.

None of this is likely to give you an epiphany and get you to change your mind. That's fair enough. I just hope you get yourself focused soon. It's no fun when your heads in a fankle.