EU could go down Yugoslavia road

[KoTeMoRe]

lol, yes and it is a great success.../sarcasm

like i said, purist form of freedom is anarchy....yes or no?...we both no this answer (yes). So moving on...

at any point you start adding more government it becomes restrictive...the more government you add the more restrictive it becomes. IT IS INHERENT.

Freedom is a social concept. When you are alone you are not free by essence, you're just alone.
Anarchy is not complete freedom. It is a lack of (supreme) control, overarching rules. But that does not mean there is complete freedom. As one man's complete freedom renders the others' obsolete.

Given your lot sells the Progressive Size of Entities as a success (Free Unified markets) I guess it indeed is a great success.

Not at all, "adding government", is not only a verbal abuse, but also some pretty dumb description of centralization. You can have a very lean centralized structure and a very heavy local structure. Most Federalist states have a double mass of public servants as most of the time the duality of the power levels produces administrative excesses.

[tokengator]

Not at all, "adding government", is not only a verbal abuse, but also some pretty dumb description of centralization. You can have a very lean centralized structure and a very heavy local structure. Most Federalist states have a double mass of public servants as most of the time the duality of the power levels produces administrative excesses.

aaaaaasaaaand you lost context. No **** you can have a lean centralized government, but lets get back to proper context. In this discussion it is not about lean centralization. It is about expansion and centralization...EU is not getting "lean". There are very few, if any, lean centralized governments. Particularly of those with a population to speak of.

Australia MIGHT be an example, maybe...but an argument can be made that it is not so much lean as it is just more streamlined than many western counterparts

Freedom is a social concept. When you are alone you are not free by essence, you're just alone.
Anarchy is not complete freedom. It is a lack of (supreme) control, overarching rules. But that does not mean there is complete freedom. As one man's complete freedom renders the others' obsolete.

just a bunch of psycho babble. Freedom is a social construct with no real definition, one mans freedom is not another mans freedom...yadda yadda yadda. If you want to play this game then we have nothing to discuss. Freedom is moving target with no definition. You are also contradicting yourself when you play this game because you can't define freedom so you cannot say centralization brings more or less freedoms.

or you can be an adult and discuss freedom in the general form/definition of the word.

let me know

and let me help you out. Stick to freedom at the individual level, not the "group" level. Social engineering by group is another failed and restrictive policy but for another thread.

[KoTeMoRe]

aaaaaasaaaand you lost context. No **** you can have a lean centralized government, but lets get back to proper context. In this discussion it is not about lean centralization. It is about expansion and centralization...EU is not getting "lean". There are very few, if any, lean centralized governments. Particularly of those with a population to speak of.

Australia MIGHT be an example, maybe...but an argument can be made that it is not so much lean as it is just more streamlined than many western counterparts

What context? The context is this. The EU has no centralization yet. It is largely a group of nations walting as a confederation. So by and large, you don't make any sense.

Second point this is about lean centralization. In a still largely national environment like Europe, having a central Jurisdiction, a central executive power and a real confederation with its attributes allows for every one within the EU to enjoy the same rights and legal guarantees. That is in most cases more freedom (of movement notably).

Now how do you know that the EU is not getting "lean" what are your sources apart the usual American exceptionalist approach on fact checking?

just a bunch of psycho babble. Freedom is a social construct with no real definition, one mans freedom is not another mans freedom...yadda yadda yadda. If you want to play this game then we have nothing to discuss. Freedom is moving target with no definition. You are also contradicting yourself when you play this game because you can't define freedom so you cannot say centralization brings more or less freedoms.

or you can be an adult and discuss freedom in the general form/definition of the word.

let me know

But what is the general definition of the word. You were telling me Anarchy is the Ultimate form of freedom. Well I am telling you it is not. Freedom has to be within a social environment therefore a social action. Anarchy excludes limitations which guarantee parallel/mutual existence of freedom. In anarchy the lack of Constitution and Arbitration is inconsistent with freedom as a social action.

[tokengator]

What context? The context is this. The EU has no centralization yet. It is largely a group of nations walting as a confederation. So by and large, you don't make any sense.

the context of the person I quoted? Instead of storming in and making an ass of yourself you REALLY need to learn reading comprehension and/or context. Seriously. This is several times we've debated and it is ongoing problem with you. Maybe it is a language barrier thing, I don't know (is English not your first language?)

Second point this is about lean centralization. In a still largely national environment like Europe, having a central Jurisdiction, a central executive power and a real confederation with its attributes allows for every one within the EU to enjoy the same rights and legal guarantees. That is in most cases more freedom (of movement notably).

utopia. If it just stayed like that...which it NEVER does. EVER. Not a single example in history where a government did not ultimately demand more and more from its citizens and thereby destroying freedoms. The more power the people are willing to give up the more power a government will take. If the people don't care the government will take the power from under their nose, we are seeing that right now in the USA. You are right that another layer of bureaucracy on top of the EU nations likely won't have any immediate impact on individual freedoms, their own governments are doing enough damage in that regard right now. Assuming the next layer doesn't become something more, eventually. Likely the level will want more power from the lower (country) level, it is just a snowball rolling down a hill.

But what is the general definition of the word. You were telling me Anarchy is the Ultimate form of freedom. Well I am telling you it is not. Freedom has to be within a social environment therefore a social action. Anarchy excludes limitations which guarantee parallel/mutual existence of freedom. In anarchy the lack of Constitution and Arbitration is inconsistent with freedom as a social action.

pick one:

exemption from external control, interference, regulation,etc.

3.the power to determine action without restraint.

4.political or national independence.

5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slavewho bought his freedom.

I wonder what word this definition belongs to?

society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

[muck]

An article in Washington Post compares how EU is not all that different from Yugoslavia. Both were meant to prevent war from ever happening again, both relied on debt for economic growth, both were confederations of people who don't really want to be or even belong together. When the bills came knocking, nationalism started to rise in both cases. We know how it ended for Yugoslavia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...TxU_story.html

The ignorance that led to this article is mind-boggling.

[tokengator]

kotemore, i will give you an example or microcosm. It is not exact parallels but close enough to make the point.

The united states federal government was initially set up to control trade, freedom of movement, much of the stuff you mentioned for the EU...but also national defense.

The states = EU countries.

eventually the the federal government wrestled more and more power from the states....it eventually became the huge monstrosity that it is today. In the process it TOOK freedoms from individuals, freedoms often established by the citizens of a state and tailored to those in that particular state...the federal government now oversees massive programs that intrude on the personal freedoms of citizens across every state, city, town, etc. Programs that, for the most part, cater to the lowest common dominator...uniqueness be damned.

it's just a process of things. The more a government can control the more they will control. A large centralized government can have the best intentions but it inherently will disrupt the freedoms of its citizens. It is unavoidable...those best intentioned governments try to please everyone and in the process end up hurting some or everyone.

[KoTeMoRe]

The Eta has how many members again ? Südtirol has a minorty that likes to split from Italy, is that going to cause an onslaught ? Is there a civil-war to happen in Belgium ? Its all bull****, unrealistic crap. Sorry to use such strong words but the Balkans in the 1990's are not comparable to the political climate in the European Union, not in any Way.

Listen you obviously have issues with your own definition. And reading mine. There are enough hot spots in Western Europe that might get active if the crap goes downhill. Balkanization is a reality, irredentists are a reality, regionalists are a reality. My position is however that the article is bullcrap, but not because there is no Balkanization, but because Europe has been dealing with irredentists in cash.

What beat ETA and the rest was a coherent economical soaring that made all irredentists think twice. A political goal that aimed at reducing poverty nationally, allowing for more local managment etc.

[Hoverhind]

Listen you obviously have issues with your own definition. And reading mine. There are enough hot spots in Western Europe that might get active if the crap goes downhill. Balkanization is a reality, irredentists are a reality, regionalists are a reality. My position is however that the article is bullcrap, but not because there is no Balkanization, but because Europe has been dealing with irredentists in cash.

What beat ETA and the rest was a coherent economical soaring that made all irredentists think twice. A political goal that aimed at reducing poverty nationally, allowing for more local managment etc.

And now the cash is running out. And the money running out was a major cause that contributed to the dissolution of Yugoslavia. That's the point of the article.

[KoTeMoRe]

kotemore, i will give you an example or microcosm. It is not exact parallels but close enough to make the point.

The united states federal government was initially set up to control trade, freedom of movement, much of the stuff you mentioned for the EU...but also national defense.

The states = EU countries.

eventually the the federal government wrestled more and more power from the states....it eventually became the huge monstrosity that it is today. In the process it TOOK freedoms from individuals, freedoms often established by the citizens of a state and tailored to those in that particular state...the federal government now oversees massive programs that intrude on the personal freedoms of citizens across every state, city, town, etc. Programs that, for the most part, cater to the lowest common dominator...uniqueness be damned.

it's just a process of things. The more a government can control the more they will control. A large centralized government can have the best intentions but it inherently will disrupt the freedoms of its citizens. It is unavoidable...those best intentioned governments try to please everyone and in the process end up hurting some or everyone.

... You obviously got me there. I am baffled that I did not think further than the US example.


















Really are you some kind of one trick poney or simply google handicaped to check out the basis of the EU?
In which aspect does the EU aim to replace the Nation States?

In what aspect does the absolute indivisibility of the US compare to the right to step out of the Union as stated in the Rome Treaty and Lisbon Treaty (article 50) ?

I mean I could school you on the absolute bollocks you just spewed and how little they compare to the strict normative boundaries set up to protect, what ultimately will prevail in the EU, National Sovereignty. But I will not.

Because in the thick of life you chose to pick up the wrong fight, on the wrong subject, with arguably, the less patient of people.

I know you have no clue about the EU process, but at least you could have tried.

[KoTeMoRe]

the context of the person I quoted? Instead of storming in and making an ass of yourself you REALLY need to learn reading comprehension and/or context. Seriously. This is several times we've debated and it is ongoing problem with you. Maybe it is a language barrier thing, I don't know (is English not your first language?)

The issue is that you do not grasp what the EU is anw it does work. You asked about context. You derided Kal without the simplest clue on EU centralization and its outlines.

utopia. If it just stayed like that...which it NEVER does. EVER. Not a single example in history where a government did not ultimately demand more and more from its citizens and thereby destroying freedoms. The more power the people are willing to give up the more power a government will take. If the people don't care the government will take the power from under their nose, we are seeing that right now in the USA. You are right that another layer of bureaucracy on top of the EU nations likely won't have any immediate impact on individual freedoms, their own governments are doing enough damage in that regard right now. Assuming the next layer doesn't become something more, eventually. Likely the level will want more power from the lower (country) level, it is just a snowball rolling down a hill.

Let's start here...there is no EU government right now. Nor will it ever be one that would ultimately override the National one. I know you speak out of your bum. And it is no language barrier, it is a knowledge barrier. As demonstrated in the WP opinion piece. Americans in general can't look at the EU without oversimplifying.

pick one:




I wonder what word this definition belongs to?

Well how do those definitions relate to reciprocity...which is the basis of Freeduhm. IE if you have unrestricted course of action, the guy next to you fatally has not.

Complete freedom? How would you define it?

[tokengator]

It is not exact parallels but close enough to make the point.

reading comprehension, again?

should I define every word in that sentence for you, maybe help further along the understanding?

I am not, nor did I EVER, say the EU would be the same as the Federal government of the united states. It was a companion example to a point i made in the post above it. I will quote a portion to maybe give you an idea, but I suspect this is all an exercise in futility

Assuming the next layer doesn't become something more, eventually. Likely the level will want more power from the lower (country) level, it is just a snowball rolling down a hill.

Nothing happens over night, if you think I am even insinuating that then you are arguing a straw man. As long as the EU exists, which may not be long anyway, it will fight for more power and control. THEY ALWAYS DO, every government and/or bureaucracy to EVER exist did so...and little by little the lower/ or other levels capitulate. IT IS INHERENT.The united states example was simply that, an example of higher government entity wanting more and slowly but surely getting it. It doesn't have to be absolute power.It could be more control over trade, more control over anything. Jesus christ dude.

You either
1) Do not read
2) Do not properly comprehend what you read
3) intentionally misrepresent discussions/positions so you can "win" an internet battle, as opposed to having an actual discussion.



My guess is #3, but feel free to correct me.

[tokengator]

Well how do those definitions relate to reciprocity...which is the basis of Freeduhm. IE if you have unrestricted course of action, the guy next to you fatally has not.

Complete freedom? How would you define it?

so we are back to this again

just a bunch of psycho babble. Freedom is a social construct with no real definition, one mans freedom is not another mans freedom...yadda yadda yadda. If you want to play this game then we have nothing to discuss. Freedom is moving target with no definition. You are also contradicting yourself when you play this game because you can't define freedom so you cannot say centralization brings more or less freedoms.

or you can be an adult and discuss freedom in the general form/definition of the word.

I provided you the definition of freedom from Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word in the context that I used it...and you go back to your phsyco babble, no meaning/no definition.....thanks for playing. Have a nice day/night.

[Mein Teil]

the context of the person I quoted? Instead of storming in and making an ass of yourself you REALLY need to learn reading comprehension and/or context. Seriously. This is several times we've debated and it is ongoing problem with you. Maybe it is a language barrier thing, I don't know (is English not your first language?)

You'll find out he's a lot like trying to grab a shaved wild pig
smothered in warm butter.

BTW, he knows exactly what he's doing...he'll have the last word too, even if it doesn't make sense.

[KoTeMoRe]

But there are no parallels...that is the issue.

THERE ARE NO PARALLELS. Why are you so stubborn. There are no parallels and there is no legal basis for a Federalist union like the USA. The whole "but that is the historical trend" card does not work.

There cannot be a direct EU government. The ECB will never be the FED and nation states are too jealous of their prerogatives to even attempt a serious super-state.

Using the US as a companion does not even match...I mean how will the EU grab , by itself more prerogatives?

These are basic questions. The fact people set up the EU in that fashion was to have an overall lean EU structure. mainly a consolidation of the national steps, rather than Big Brother.

[KoTeMoRe]

so we are back to this again




I provided you the definition of freedom from Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word in the context that I used it...and you go back to your phsyco babble, no meaning/no definition.....thanks for playing. Have a nice day/night.

Again you provided me with a definition out of a dictionnary. I am asking you a definition that might fit in Legislation. Unless you missed the point. I am pretty much an adult, and I am asking you valid questions.

What is complete freedom? How do you measure the completion rate of freedom? What was that context?