Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chocolat steve

The End of Pax Europa?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Coss said:

 but with the proviso that we have a good social welfare net, for those who are in genuine need. 

The problem with a good social welfare net is there will always be people who take the piss out of the system, welfare for those in need only exists in utopian beliefs and unfortunately not in reality. 

The UK Government Squander Billions if not Trillions of £££ on the welfare state, and myself as a conscience hard working individual objected to a government body taking 40% plus of my income and wasting it on losers hence the reason I got out for “Personal Responsability and Freedom” to quote Stick. 

Unfortunately if everyone chose this route we would face anarchy so maybe I am an anarchist  in my own little way, or as Stick mentioned in his column a couple of weeks ago “Outside the System” 

The System asks that one “ticks the boxes” and as long as one does such and keeps ones head down and nose clean we are pretty much left to our own devices. Taking hold of ones responsibilities such as income, pensions, health care plans, housing (and even taxes where due) etc, gives you freedom and you can pretty much exist “under the radar” 

immanuel Kant summed it up rather well, he defined 4 types of governance 

1 Law and Freedom without Force (Anarchy)

2 Law and Force without Fredom (Despotism)

3 Force without Freedom and Law (Barbarism)

4 Force with Freedom and Law (Republicism)

From that you could ascertain that a pure anarchist is very much like a person living under Republicism but are wise and mature enough not to need force to know right from wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"is there will always be people who take the piss out of the system"

Yes and sometimes the cost of those people is worth bearing, for the good of the whole.

A year and some months ago, I had a stroke. Because we have an efficient Ambulance system, I got not one, but two rides to two different hospitals in very quick time, straight into the operating room and they pulled the clot. Kept me in over night, I reckon I'm 98~99% back to normal. Slightly better than normal as I've taken up Kayak fishing as a health kick and I eat a lot of primo fish and I am fitter as a result.

All of this without regard to my financial circumstances or whether or not I am taking the piss...

I am alive and grateful.  Looking after yer peasants is not always a bad thing, indeed if you don't look after yer peasants, you'll be lynched eventually.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coss

How many decades did you pay your taxes which support the NZ healthcare system?

You paid in to it and hence, you are not taking the piss of it, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coss

Seems to slight confusion on how we both define "Social Welfare"  but I will give you my definition based on the UK model which I happen to be au fait with.

Whilst Health, Education, Pensions and Defense etc come from UK Central Government Expenditure they are not what are defined as "Social Welfare" or "Benefits.

These include, but are not limited to, Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, Child Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, Job Seekers Allowance, Council Tax Benefit, Unemployment Benefit and so on, there are approximately over 60 different benefits which can be claimed, and the benefits scroungers know them the best.

There are people in the UK who have never done a days work in their life, never paid into the system yet are taking from it. Millions of Immigrants flocking to the UK being given Social Housing and many of the 60 odd benefits I have mentioned, Like WTF is all that about, and you wonder why I got pissed with my, the Tax Payers. money being squandered by successive governments , hence the reason why I packed my bags and fucked off.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHS, Council Estates and other things Brits would not define as 'Social Welfare' is considered 'Social Welfare' in America. So, there is no one definition it seems, it's subjective. We tried no social net in America over 150 years ago. Thousands of children, some orphans roaming the streets of NYC, forming gangs for protection and for profit, many abused in every way imaginable because the vices and such today (pedophilia, rape, etc,) are not new but as old as any civilization. Women from very conservative backgrounds where you were a virgin when you got married and didn't meet a boy without a chaperone were selling themselves on street corners or their family would starve because their husband couldn't find work or in despair took to the bottle. Muggings were the norm.

Even the most hard core right winger wouldn't go back to those days. Neither do we want a society that removes any incentive to work. There is a balance and countries have been trying to find that balance since time eternal. The Romans gave bread to the poor so even in that brutal society they found a necessity for government charity. 

What you will usually find in nonsensical programs and such are that the people in charge, who we elect, fuck things up. And they are almost always not around for the consequences of their actions. Every country is unique. In America, I believe the rich and powerful have way too much influence over the politicians. 

For parts of Europe they created a social system for themselves (no cost or low cost university tuition, cradle to grave health care, generous (compared to America) pension and holiday privileges, etc. because post WW2 they were rebuilding, very little immigration, plenty of work to go around. Americans to buy their Volvos, Cadbury chocolates, etc (net a very positive trade), as well as to each other, no need to spend much money on defense (NATO, which is mainly American), the inevitable economic downturn or two, meant they needed more benefits to bridge the gap and maintain lifestyles till the economy bounced back but they stayed in place even when the economy came back. 

The DDD (dirty, dangerous, dirty) jobs which were once plentiful in the rebuilding after the war were no longer wanted. Children of bricklayers could become doctors which was almost impossible pre WW2. 

The first wave to come in to do these jobs were the people who were once colonized (Indians, Pakistanis, Africans, the Irish , Asians and such depending on the country). If you didn't have colonies you let in others (Turks, etc) and since the fall of the USSR eastern Europeans. 

Those old safety nets plus some new ones for the new immigrants who were always going to find it harder to integrate because European countries by and large are homogeneous (compared to America). 

Families didn't need to have 5, 6 or 7 children to ensure someone would take care of them in their old age, the state would. Therefore the birthrate dropped considerably as married couples only wanted 1 or 2 children to dote on. Women could enter the workforce and do the jobs that only men did in their grandparents day such as engineers, architects, etc. and they didn't need to get married for security as their grandmother had to. 

Fast forward today and the wars, terrorism, and such and its a huge, bloody mess. That is only going to get worse because the central banks of the G8 and other nations have been employing accounting and financial methods that no government can be run well on forever. 

Europe is getting weaker as a collective not stronger. I don't say that as some arrogant American (I want Europe strong, all countries, the developing ones even moreso) but from observation. America is no different and in some cases worse off. There is a reason why Putin, Le Pen and other far right ideologues decry the end of 'Western Civilization' (codespeak for White if we are honest but honestly non white longtime westerners feel the same for the most part)

The next economic change will usher in massive changes to the 'West'. There will be global repercussions but the so called West will see a massive shift. China will likely emerge as the de facto world leader. Much the same way America did after WW2. Not that China doesn't have economic issues themselves. They are sitting on the world's largest housing bubble in history but they know it and are preparing for it as best they can. America knows they are sitting on a bubble (a few actually) as well but aren't preparing for it and that will be the defining difference. Whomever emerges first from the collapse "wins" and this will clearly be China's century...if it isn't already. 

Logically, it would seem Germany will emerge first and stronger than others in terms of Europe after all is said and done. They have the biggest economy, are the most fiscally disciplined an culturally, that Prussian efficiency about them. 

But the EU will be tested as it has never been tested before. We can debate to what extent (I won't debate it much I believe it to my core). I don't think the EU as we know it will survive. That's my guess. I hope I'm wrong. To what extent is anyone's guess. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling Mohammed a Pedophile Not Covered by Free Speech, European Court Rules

According to Islamic texts, the 7th century Arabian who founded Islam was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine

Europe’s top human rights court has ruled that comments about Mohammed having pedophilic tendencies are not covered by the right to freedom of expression, agreeing with the assessment of courts in Austria that the remarks constituted “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace.”

A seven-judge European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) panel in Strasbourg concluded that the Austrian courts had “carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.”...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/calling-mohammed-pedophile-not-covered-free-speech-european-court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say, it's according to texts, stories made up by unknowns, hearsay and conjecture, might be right but then again...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could say it America and not have an issue. This move in Austria is more about the fear of reprisals than anything else. Given where they are, its a legitimate concern but you are basically giving up a freedom for security and long term, it rarely works. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paedophilia was only recognized in 1896 by Richard von Krafft-Ebing who ironically was Austrian.

Nothing to do with Beliefs or Religion more to do with law, i.e. when was it recognized and then made illegal.I used to drive a car without a safety belt but wearing of one became compulsory, was there retrospective prosecution, was there hell like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is saying that Muhammad was not the Prophet of Allah also not covered by free speech? Where does one draw the line when it comes to "the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected ?  Can no religions be criticised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×