Leave or stay in the EU?

[Murmillus_Prime]

Saying that his view is faulty because of his country of residence or birth is a logical fallacy though. Ad hominem.
Absolutely everyone has biases and that doesn't break an otherwise valid argument.
It only shows that you don't like it.

Well I haven't made the conclusion that his view is faulty based on his country of resistence but only that it's influenced.(If your post is in response to mine.) After re-reading some of Kafeins posts there are some elements of his argument I agree with. A single unified world government if successful could solve some of humanities problems. However at the current level of human development I doubt the world is ready for such an entity, both in the developed and developing world. An attempt to introduce such a system both covertly (which I suspect is already underway) or overtly is likely to cause more problems than solutions.

If the EU was a model of mass governance worth replicating it would be a good start, in its current and likely future state it's not. It's a system under strain from its own members interests and the interests of its global partners, mainly the U.S and under strain from its own failed policies and failue to turn them around.

[Kafein]

Just to be clear, you're using FIFA as an example of how you think things should be settled on an international level? That is amusing. So, an oligarchy where even the pretense of representing the people that put you in power is absent in favour of a paternalistic contempt for the poor dumb inferior brutes who just can't see the bigger picture, and must have their choices made for them by a morally enlightened pseudo-nobility. Ignoring of course the ridiculous inneficiency, lack of checks and balances and corruption that comes from such a system.

Yet I wasn't talking about the inner workings of FIFA, but rather that it wields de-facto global authority over its very limited array of competences.

In any case, as a "belgian", a "country" where a national sense of identity has always been either non-existant or completely artificial and supported by no discernable native group, I understand why you think nations are irrelevant. The destruction of an identity that never existed in the first place (not in the critical theory sense, where that is true for every single collective identity, but literally never existed) is not exactly a challenge, and given your "country"'s role as the geographical embodiment of the EU it's not surprising it was accomplished so quickly.

Your ability to drift virtually any conversation towards your favorite yet eternally irrelevant talking point used to be surprising. That said, I am pleased with your return to this forum.

[Xant]

In the seventeenth century, the Muslim chronicler Abu’l Ghazi wrote: “Under the reign of Genghis Khan, all the country between Iran and the land of the Turks enjoyed such a peace that a man might have journeyed from sunrise to sunset with a golden platter on his head without suffering the least violence from anyone.”

The world needs a new Genghis.

[Rhekimos]

Well I haven't made the conclusion that his view is faulty based on his country of resistence but only that it's influenced.(If your post is in response to mine.) After re-reading some of Kafeins posts there are some elements of his argument I agree with. A single unified world government if successful could solve some of humanities problems. However at the current level of human development I doubt the world is ready for such an entity, both in the developed and developing world. An attempt to introduce such a system both covertly (which I suspect is already underway) or overtly is likely to cause more problems than solutions.

If the EU was a model of mass governance worth replicating it would be a good start, in its current and likely future state it's not. It's a system under strain from its own members interests and the interests of its global partners, mainly the U.S and under strain from its own failed policies and failue to turn them around.

... state that also happens to be the apple of the EU's eye may have an imbalanced/biased influence on someones political view of the European Union, a view which would lead that person coming to differing conclusions about the EU and global geopolitics.

It was for the general benefit. I didn't think it contained points worth contesting.
But it does apply even in that case. The existence of bias or influence does not disprove his words.

"Of course Dan would say that calcium is good for our bones, he works for the milk industry!"
- An example of bad reasoning.

He grew up formed by his environment. You grew up formed by your environment. Does mentioning this change the truth value of what he was saying? Does mentioning it change the truth value of what you've said? Logically, it has zero effect on the argument itself.

Bonus points for the hint that most people aren't biased/influenced like him since most people aren't from "the apple of EU's eye", leaving him one of the few people with such strange different thoughts. This would be an argument from popularity by the way.

Did he argue for a one world government? I'll gladly leave it up to him to defend that position should he have done so.

In the seventeenth century, the Muslim chronicler Abu’l Ghazi wrote: “Under the reign of Genghis Khan, all the country between Iran and the land of the Turks enjoyed such a peace that a man might have journeyed from sunrise to sunset with a golden platter on his head without suffering the least violence from anyone.”

The world needs a new Genghis.

Ah, golden head-platter theft. One of the bigger failures of EU.

[Rhekimos]

I thought writing 'Is it time for round three already?' as presenting a scenario where that could happen.
Yes, I've always found the pre-war optimism a lesson to take to mind, which is why I didn't just wave off the possibility entirely. My point was and still is that it's far less likely today than then, for a number of reasons.

I guess it's understandable if you read what was posted after me before replying yourself and given the eurocentric context of the thread. Still, world war as a term doesn't mean that it has to begin and end in Europe.
Though I do agree that an external military threat is more likely for Europe than an internal one.

Should that happen though, would we be better off dealing with it individually or as a combined front?

A fractured Europe would not be in a good position to diplomatically defuse external threats before they are actualized either. And with Trump just winning five states and entertaining notions of America letting go of NATO influence.. the world stage could quickly evolve into one far less stable than the current one.

Of course not, I wrote 'some degree'. There's been a good deal of science done in these areas in psychology and sociology, that too much diversity (especially of the non-benign type such as with a greater degree of cultural clashes or fundamentalist religion in a secular society) brings a decline in social capital. Look at social development at large among western nations, the generally happiest, safest, least corrupt places are the smaller, homogenous nation states. That doesn't mean there isn't any new ideas from the outside or no foreigners, there is no reason to think any of us here deal in absolutist terms.

Those are some interesting studies, though I must cast some doubt on how well they argue for your current points. How bad is a drop in social capital? How good is the proposed fix? Or is this like saying that because it causes a voltage drop in the battery, do not ever start your car. There's also other research. And more.
I've also read that a degree of diversity in a population causes some mistrust, but that mistrust results in more critical thinking as people don't take every silly idea at face value anymore, eventually leading to better choices from the individual to institutions and upwards. An upwards spiral of intelligence.
That effect of course is lost, just like any social capital, if the population is too busy beheading believers in the wrong thing or other sectarian strife. That kind of diversity would be very non-benign.

Maybe we should all form small, homogeneous nations then. Except then someone marries a non-homogeneous person. Are they ruining Small Homogeneous State? Is homogeneity and social capital worth more than a personal freedom to form a non-homogeneous family with someone you love? Would it be a double betrayal to start adhering to the significant other's culture and/or religion?
How would the ideal state actually work?
Also the newly formed Big Non-Homogeneous State would really like all of your oil.

It's not quite scientific to allude that their happiness is the result of their smallness and homogeneity, if the examples are places with quite happy circumstances like the economically blessed Switzerland. If you have good research about it though, I'd like to see them too.

I've never said they did. What I'm referring to is a social contract which is included in some form in most western constitutions. To surrender some freedoms in exchange for protection of some rights.

The social contract is not something the state is law-bound to, in any meaning of the word. A constitution is a concrete list of restrictions on state power. And some things the state must do.
If the social contract is breached, we return to the war of all against all. The state of nature. At least according to Hobbles.
The social contract gives rise to the state, the sovereign and its laws.

Populism isn't all demagoguery, often it is also the will of the people being heard and can lead to positive changes. I don't see how it is shortsighted if it actually leads to laws being passed dealing with some of the issues clearly at people's minds.

The people always know best? Everyone wants a million, so print it out already. The real consequences for households as hyperinflation takes place are not worth losing sleep over.
Voting populists into power over single issues even if they are clearly at people's minds means you ignore a lot of the other stuff.

Non-integrating immigrants, ghettofication, areas like Molenbeek and the related social trouble I recognize as problems. It'd be folly to think they are the only ones in the world however.

[Kafein]

Amusing to hear about Molenbeek when in fact there are much, *much* worse places in other cities such as Paris. For starters it isn't even a no-go area.

[Angantyr]

This turned much more circular than I expected, especially when talking to more than one person at the same time. I don't have time to go into all of it so I'll just make two quick points.

@Rhekimos,
Concerning social contract and constitutions I simply brought them up to make the point that governments exist, ideally, to protect the liberties of the people. The social contract, the people giving up some freedom to gain some rights, the specification of the duties and rights of each party, is the foundation government is built on, and most constitutions in the western tradition derive (to some degree) from the constitutions (and their later amendments) inspired by the French and American revolutions, themselves based on Enlightenment ideas, where the first duty of government is protection and liberty of the people, the 'liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression' from the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen' (including universal human rights which since have clashed with the rights of the citizens, nonetheless). A nation of free individuals protected equally by law.

What I'm trying to convey is that within the laws passed in a nation state are inherently some degree of fellow citizen favoritism. The government of your nation state doesn't exist first and foremost to protect the rights and liberties of people in Africa, for example, at least not for putting them above its own citizens.

@Kafein,
I understand the nation state in a much broader sense than government. And as Oberyn also points out, I think we have to calculate our different national backgrounds into our conversations on these topics more. Which should hopefully widen the conversation not diminish it.

[Golem]

I don't have time to read this shit, can someone like Rhekimos or Xant write a summary?

edit: I'll pay with gold!

[Angantyr]

I've always been in favour of unions such as Paul describes btw., and I know many EU sceptics agree. Something like a Northwestern European Union, or a Nordic Union, or a more integrated Commonwealth all seem like rational conglomerates made up of somewhat similarly-minded nations with somewhat similar interests. Mixing Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe seems like a bad idea from the get-go (but of course we should have strong military and trade relations). And including Turkey is just preposterous and should be another nail in the coffin for Merkel and the most radical eurocrats, effectively landing the European border in the ME, the most unstable region on the planet, with new neighbours like Syria, Iraq and Iran.

[Molly]

Seems like you're more looking at the culture background when it's actually only about trade and profit, really.

[Oberyn]

No, the entire basis of the European Union was cultural as well as economic. That's how it was sold to the native population for decades, at least. Of course today the EU might as well be called the Eurasian Union since that is the logical endgoal of the current cultural policy. The native cultures of Europe must be mixed, but not just among themselves of course, that would be racist. There is no such thing as native french or german ethnicity, that is only a description of a human being that has a passport of that country.

[Angantyr]

I'm also looking at economics, and not just for the small percentages benefitting from the EU in its current state. There are pretty serious wealth discrepancies between poor Southern and Eastern and rich Northwestern Europe, just look at the dire situation on the Greek and Spanish labour markets after adopting the Euro currency. Or the flow of Eastern European workers destabilizing the low-income job market in the west for the native work forces.

[Molly]

I'm also looking at economics. There are pretty serious wealth discrepancies between poor Southern and Eastern and rich Northwestern Europe, just look at the dire situation on the Greek and Spanish labour markets after adopting the Euro currency. Or the flow of Eastern European workers destabilizing the low-income job market in the west for the native work forces.

German companies only profit from the Eastern extension.
About the low-income job market: most unemployed Germans (long time I have to add) are not willing to work in it anyway.

[Oberyn]

Main trade partners of Germany are the US, Austria, France and United Arab Emirates.

[Molly]

Main trade partners of Germany are the US, Austria, France and United Arab Emirates.

And again you show your inability to read and understand the words.
Good job.