http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

What do you think?

Edited 6/4/2016 22:36:33

So let's see what socialism and a lack of respect for property rights gets us.

The government deciding what is moral and what is not moral, and enforcing their morality on others forcefully.

The government controlling mass media and directing what they say.

The government enforcing collectivism on people, and keeping them divided by culture, preventing individuals from doing what they want and excelling.

And a European version of the FBI/SS/Stasi/KGB, that will operate throughout the EU, and will be most likely corrupt, and blackmail, extort and threaten people.

the caliphate of europistan is coming........

It's already here.

http://cografyaharita.com/haritalarim/3g-avrupa-siyasi-haritas2i.png

Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Sırbistan, Macaristan...not boding well.

Edited 6/4/2016 02:37:08

Islam doesn't give a fuck about coexistence.

*Governments don't give a fuck about coexistence

Anyways, last time I checked, it was the US that had a massive spying program on it's citizens, not Europe. Go check your facts ppl, Europe is just fine, alarmism is the one thing that create problems.

http://m.dw.com/en/german-government-to-use-trojan-spyware-to-monitor-citizens/a-19066629

Just did check my facts.

Also it's alarmism causing the problem, when it's the government causing the problem in the first place.

Edited 6/4/2016 06:55:41

Never said gvt wasn't alarmist either... Gvts reflects it's citizens fear, if ppl are affraid of muslims, gvts will start to kick them out. They're ofc a part of the problem, but the source of it is on the citizens and the public opinion, that accepts to trade liberty for safety.

The governments of the world don't reflect the citizen's fears in most cases. If they did, 9/10 times, wars wouldn't happen.

Also, since the government is the one doing the taking of liberty for "extra" safety, shouldn't they be the ones held accountable and not a large mass of folk without a single hive mind?

Edited 6/4/2016 07:06:06

Well, powerful men can create fear. War comes from fear, fear is needed for a population to support the fighting.

- 1870's franco-prussian war was fueled out of fear for a second French agressive empire
- The hole cold war effort was on fear of a superpower attack
- The invasion of afghanistan was to prevent further terrorist attacks in the US


And it keeps going... War can be justified to the citizens if you convince them that it's in their interest, and most times it comes as a way to "keep them safe".


Also, I don't believe that's a problem caused by gvt alone. Gvt isn't a machine, it's the people that run it. And as long as there's powerful men with no scrupules, there will be conflicts and manipulation of the weaker. That's not inherent to gvts, but to human nature.

Also, I don't believe that's a problem caused by gvt alone. Gvt isn't a machine, it's the people that run it. And as long as there's powerful men with no scrupules, there will be conflicts and manipulation of the weaker. That's not inherent to gvts, but to human nature.

+1, though I disagree with your examples.

- 1870's franco-prussian war was fueled out of fear for a second French agressive empire

Not really. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Franco-Prussian_War)

- The whole cold war effort was on fear of a superpower attack

More for world domination than anything else.

The invasion of afghanistan was to prevent further terrorist attacks in the US

As Bush said (accidentally, but truest words he ever said): "Our [American] foes are innovative and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our folk. And neither do we.".

Best quote ever said by an American president, ever.

Edited 6/4/2016 08:18:24

- 1870's franco-prussian war was fueled out of fear for a second French agressive empire

The Prussian government created a problem, and angered the French government into attacking.

- The hole cold war effort was on fear of a superpower attack

America was in love with the USSR, if the American government hadn't started the propaganda against them, no fear would exist.

- The invasion of afghanistan was to prevent further terrorist attacks in the US

The invasion of Afghanistan was a situation started completely by the America government.

All you're proving is that governments will lie and scare folk into killing millions. This is probably one of the better anti-government arguments a statist has made in a while.

I'm not saying those were the causes for war lol, it's too simplistic if I did that, I was just saying that the use of fear was inherent to these wars to have public support. Every war has a need of fear of the ennemy to stimulate soldiers and the population into fighting with all their forces.


And the fact that I acknowlage that gvts did kill a lot, I don't put that in the system but in the people that run it, there's a difference there. Read what I said; Gvts aren't a machine, they're run by people in flesh and bones, those are the ones that lie.

There's two different things, government as an entity and government as the rulers. The rulers are bad, the sistem is made up by them, so ofc it wouldn't be good. When it comes to government, you mix the system and the rulers, I don't. Governments with good rulers can work well and for the people, rather than against it.

Edited 6/4/2016 08:46:37

We've had governments since the dawn of time, and few to none of the rulers have been good. This is made worse by the fact that giving bad folk power makes it easy to consolidate the power, because of the nature of power. See the Republican/Democrat party, Chinese Folk's Party, Putin and Russian Communist Party. Instead of counting on the rulers to be good, and raising a fit whenever they aren't (and continuously doing so until your "good ruler" is elected or put in, and turns out to be bad anyway), why not do away with rulers?

Did you ever ask yourself why governments formed in the first time? You should read Hobbes, he explains that very well.


I'll try to synthesize it:

Before governments, mankind lived in the state of nature. Where everyone had total freedom to do everything. Now we know for a fact from Darwinist theories, that the strongest species survive and pass their progeniture, you can adapt that to individuals.

In a state of nature, the strongest individuals control others and may force people, with their strengh, into submission. In a state of nature, you can murder, rape or steal from someone just because you are able to do so. We have then individuals that lose their freedom, a liberty to not be murdered, raped or robbed, and that happens when individuals have the means to make violence.

Therefore a "pact" is signed. Individuals agree to lose their right to do violence, and transfer the monopole of violence to a third party, the leviathan (=state). The pact works in a simple way, I therefore accept not to make justice with my own hands, and let a third entity do so, as long as you also agree to do so.

That way by losing some of your freedom, society as a hole gains liberty. Because in a world with total freedom, only a few individuals actually manage to archieve it, and most will have a even smaller liberty than they would in a government.


That's how states are formed in the first place, to protect the citizens that agree to give away their right to use force in order to gain freedom. You can then argue how this isn't followed at the letter and how gvts evolved to represent a lot more than that. But that's the most important aspect of a government, more than offering education, healthcare or food, government must prevent it's citizens from killing each other.


Now, rulers are needed to keep the decision level simple and keep the leviathan running, they're especially needed if the population isn't intelectually able to make decisions for itself due to a lack of knowlage or will to solve the problems.

A direct democracy would be the best thing possible, but even then not everyone can be a cop, a judge or a soldier, and you can think of those as some kind of rulers too in a smaller scale...

Did you ever ask yourself why governments formed in the first time? You should read Hobbes, he explains that very well.

We haven't abandoned the savagery of tribalism.

Before governments, mankind lived in the state of nature. Where everyone had total freedom to do everything. Now we know for a fact from Darwinist theories, that the strongest species survive and pass their progeniture, you can adapt that to individuals.

Mankind was organized mostly through tribal governments. These were still governments, and they were kept on from the dumb days of biting something to death.

In a state of nature, the strongest individuals control others and may force people, with their strengh, into submission. In a state of nature, you can murder, rape or steal from someone just because you are able to do so. We have then individuals that lose their freedom, a liberty to not be murdered, raped or robbed, and that happens when individuals have the means to make violence.

We still have this "state of nature". The strongest individuals (the rulers) take what they want, kill who they want, and deny liberty to who they want.

The rest of your talk is newspeak stupidity, about how freedom is slavery or some nonsense.

A direct democracy would be the best thing possible, but even then not everyone can be a cop, a judge or a soldier, and you can think of those as some kind of rulers too in a smaller scale...

Well if you want to be technical, in anarchy everyone would be their own ruler.

I never said that Hobbes concept was fully adopted, the state of nature still resides in our society to some extent, nor even that his theories are perfect, they're far from that, but I do believe that having an organized state is better than having no state at all.

The rest of your talk is newspeak stupidity, about how freedom is slavery or some nonsense.

Please, quote the part where I say that freedom is slavery, I'm really interesting to see how did you pull that lol... (Seriously, I find it amuzing that you invented that out of nowhere)

I'm fairly sure Germany already didn't have free speech, given it's illegal to support the Nazis in any way in Germany.

That way by losing some of your freedom, society as a whole gains liberty

It's implying that somehow, that giving up freedom gives you more freedom.