It occurred to me that I rarely, if ever on this forum, hear about the kind of duty I define in the OP or see people prescribe strong, traditional moral obligations towards leadership in a plain way. It is usually just so-and-so is evil, too extreme, too centrist, too censorious - and no one provides practical solutions, even if those solutions are just favorable tradeoffs. The principled leaders I have in mind are not perfect, but they are our best chance. — ToothyMaw

Some might not see it this way, but I find duty starting from things like being a parent and being there for your children. Or being there for your parents when you are old. Even being faithful and devoted to your spouse. And then helping people if you come to the sight of an accident, you do help total strangers.

In the OP I think many people perhaps crave for purpose, not duty. Especially in their jobs they want to have a purpose and not just some idiotic thing that they did their entire life to get money to feed themselves and their family. Purpose and duty are different. Something that has really that sense of duty and the duty issue is important is when you take an oath to do it. You usually take an oath to serve in the military. Or an oath to be a citizen (if not born to be one). When serving hamburgers in a fast-food joint you don't take an oath. But for example when becoming a doctor or a priest you might find yourself taking an oath.

One reason just why duty seems to be such an old cliché and nearly controversial is simply because we live in an ultra-individualist consumer society where nearly everything seems to be just an transaction. If not, by God, our individual rights are trampled!!!

Anyone here who served in an armed forces? Just curious. :chin: — jgill

If compulsory military service counts, then yes.

Australians know him as Timbo. Best example of a media troll who says this to get popularity (and notoriety) he is happy with. Earlier he was suggesting that people priced out of the property market should simply eat less brunch. Hence a troll. Or perhaps the guy is just irritated about how difficult it is for him to get good employees.

At least he said unemployment has to rise 40% to 50%, not meaning unemployment has to be 40% to 50%. Well, unemployment (if the stats are genuine) in Australia is something like 3,7%. An unemployment of 5,55% isn't bad, double digits unemployment is bad. But then unemployment figures are notoriously understated (with unemployed when they stop looking for a job or after some time falling from the unemployed statistics).

But here's the issue:

The unemployment - inflation argument goes a long way and is mainstream economics. Basically meaning that with high unemployment you have a recession and prices don't rise because people cannot afford higher prices and they cut spending. Then when unemployment is low, economy is roaring and guess what, with high demand those prices rise! This is quite straightforward and simple.

Yet the model doesn't take into account (of course) in any way the government and especially not the central bank. Because you can have stagflation: both high unemployment and high inflation. Hence if the government recklessly borrows or prints money to cover it's expenses, it's totally possible to have both unemployment and inflation.

Now I guess the game is to have the modest inflation that will take care of the excessive spending while not being so hot that the voter will jump out of the boiling water in the next elections.

First of all, the monarchy always bounces back because Spain is not mature enough to be a Republic. All republicans dream that Spain would be like France and Germany if we get rid of the king. Well, this has zero basis and our left (where republicans are allocated the most) tend to copy the behaviour of socialist Latin American countries rather than Western Europeans. I agree, in short, that, thanks to our monarchy, there won't be a Coup de Etat because the military structure is loyal to him. — javi2541997

It's not maturity. Spaniards that I've met are just as mature as we Finns are. It's more perhaps about poverty, weak institutions, not so great economy, class division, lack of social cohesion and a lot of political polarization. And a violent, difficult history. Also that burden of having been an Empire earlier.

The Nordic monarchies and the UK (after it's Civil War, that is) are good examples how actually modern constitutional monarchies have worked through the problems of industrialization and modernization without violence or revolutions with the monarchy surviving and adapting to a much smaller part. For example Sweden has been run for a very long time by the Social Democrats, and they are all but happy with having a king.

Spain, I think, tells another story. There is just this history of violence and vitriol. Yes, we too had a Civil War (which happened very much because of being part of Imperial Russia and since they had their socialist revolution, I guess we had to have ours too...). Yet even if many were killed in Finland in 1918, there wasn't such cruelty and loathing that you could see in the Spanish Civil War. Also, the Social Democrats, who had started the uprising in 1918, came back into power in Finland in the 1930's having been adapted to multiparty democracy (with the right accepting them). The militant Social Democrats had fled to Soviet Union and formed their Communist Party in Moscow. They were banned until the end of WW2. In Spain the whole totalitarian nature of Franco's dictatorship was there to prevent the socialists from re-emerging.

If during the Civil War Republican fighters posed with dug up skeletons of nuns or thousands of children were taken from "leftist" family to be re-educated until the 1950's, you can say there is deep division and polarization in the country. Without some unifying event, this all will still linger on even if new generations have been born with having no recollection of even Franco's time.

A time that some very old Spaniards still remember:

The Habsburg family represents the Golden era of Spain worldwide. Unification of the country, moors are kicked off from the peninsula, empire, resources from colonies, literature and art flowing around and a big presence in both European and Vatican power relationships. A pure nostalgic would feel nostalgic of this royal family. Since Charles II (the witched) dead without descents, the fall of Spain started on. His successors inherited an empire that remained largely intact, but Philip of Anjou had little sense of Spanish interests and needs. When a conflict came up between the interests of Spain and France, he usually favored France. Ferdinand VII was the worst of them: Spain lost nearly all of its American possessions. Incompetent, despotic, and short-sighted. — javi2541997

Ah! Nostalgia.

Well, the Habsburgs of Central Europe didn't have that kind of a great run in the 20th Century, although it's interesting to speculate if the dual monarchy had survived and would (or could) be a truly multiethnic empire. Let's just remember that the UK has still prevailed in one piece. And, uh, Spain too, even if both countries (UK and Spain) have had their experiences of attempted secessions in the not so distant past.

Yet it's telling that the last Habsburg, the crown prince of the last Austrian Emperor (and Hungarian king) was a staunch activist for European integration and a MEP in the EU. In his funeral, the nostalgia for the dual monarchy in Austria was very evident:

What? Why would I think that? — Vera Mont

Unlikely you don't think that way, but those that think that changing your job is the cure if your salary / working conditions suck and think it's all about the individual, do usually think so.

If you think all collectivism is socialism, then you get what you deserve.

The question, NOS4A2?

The answer?

Try to avoid them! Use more precise definitions. Remember to mention if either the present or the past is in focus and understand the differences between eras. Avoid using generalizations or universals if you don't precisely tell what you are thinking of. And never use political ideologies as adverbs if you don't exactly mean (or understand) the ideology. Just how common is it to use the term fascist in nearly everything.

They can't do that in North America. The moneyed interests have political power through campaign financing and lobbying. — Vera Mont

Anybody who doesn't believe this should see for example the movie American Factory.

That's why they're able to control governments and defeat trade unions - as well as working people and poor people; that's why they are able to take more and more and more. — Vera Mont

The first thing when talking about trade unions in the US, people usually think about Jimmy Hoffa and the mobsters. Not encouraging, actually. And people believe the mantra: "If the job sucks, then just get a new job!".

We are so divided that it is impossible for us to agree on the lyrics of the national anthem. But the division goes further in all possible areas. — javi2541997

Not to be Spain basher here, we must also remember that Spain is the example of how a fascist state then can transform itself to a democracy. Hence if Spain (and Portugal) could transform themselves, why couldn't Russia? Spain was an empire too! Spain had to endure many wars and humiliations in losing it's empire and becoming the Spain we know now.

1. Catholic culture instead of protestant. Having wannabe Vatican lovers have always been a pain in the ass. — javi2541997

I always loved Max Weber, his "Protestant ethic" argument is important.

2. The Bourbon dynasty won over Habsburg in the succession war. Some of us believe that our culture would be totally different if our kingdom had centre-European roots. — javi2541997

Interesting, a bit off the topic, but I would love to hear just why some think so.

I count that the House of Bourbon has been deposed three times from the Spanish throne in history. Yet wasn't this "Whack-a-mole" family, that has every time bounced back, actually important in the transformation after Franco's death?

Any social democrat, eg. centrist and anything to the left of that has similar ideas. It's not really marxist. — Benkei

I would think so too, to be marxist would be way off, but they surely are ideologically on the left. I think the bitter civil war and the Franco's regime still has made the divide in Spain a painful issue. Unlike Finland, Spain didn't have it's "Winter War" that would have united the people to fight a common enemy and thus create social cohesion between the left and the right. Hence I wouldn't underestimate here the impact of Spanish history.

Some large unions in Finland are indeed close to the Social Democrats, but for example the AKAVA (Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland) where for example teachers, professors, and the military officers that I gave as an example aren't leftist.

I think that if the trade unions are apolitical would be better as then their members understand that the union is simply for there for their salaries and working conditions (a thing tha Marx himself feared).

Ok, well there's a problem here. I don't think that the majority of Spaniards and of the Spanish workforce are Marxists.

Percentage of workers that are trade union members (2018):

Iceland: 90,4%
Sweden: 66,1%
Finland: 64,6 %
Spain: 13,9%

Membership in Spain is below OECD average (16,1%)

Cardboard drones likely aren't as visible in radar as the ones made out of metal or plastic.

These two are Marxist, and they refuse to recognise other classes of trade unions, such as UFPOL (a police syndicate, that it is fascist, supposedly) — javi2541997

So much for that workers solidarity!

Are these the largest trade unions and are they really Marxist?

Yes, but notice what there is said:

More widely in Africa, MTAC has identified six basic elements to Russia’s African coup playbook:

Establishing long-term influence campaigns – Russia and its messengers in Africa produce a constant drip of content that is both anti-French and pro-Russian, concentrating on polarizing issues. and driven by colonial-era grievances.

Aligning with the putschists – When a coup occurs, Russia’s messengers quickly declare support for the putschists, often through proxies, including previous instances where the voice was the now-deceased Yevgeny Prigozhin.

Seizing control of the narrative – In the days after a coup, Russian messengers align on prepositioned narratives, capitalizing on the information void. Post-coup messaging typically glorifies military and coup leaders and championing national sovereignty while denigrating France.

Amplifying affiliates – Given their long-term investments in Africa-based, pro-Russian propagandists and IO networks, Russia can call upon a range of figures, both overt and covert, to loudly amplify their messaging, thereby crowding out competing narratives and creating the impression of popular agreement.

Mobilizing supporters – Pro-coup demonstrations featuring Russian flags give the impression of widespread support for both the putsch and partnership with Russia while opposition to the coup is violently repressed, chilling dissent.

Banning dissenting media – In Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, coup leaders have quickly identified Radio France International and France 24 as critical press and then suspended them, silencing the largest French-language sources of credible news from the West.

What I think is happening is Russia quickly responding to a situation, not being behind it. And they have fine intelligence services that can easily do the above. It would go off to the tinfoil-hat territory to think Russia is behind these coups (like saying that the Ukrainian revolution of dignity was a US formed coup like Operation Ajax).

The reasons for having this "Military coup" - festival in the former French colonies are that a) successful ones have been examples for others, b) there being so many coups that France and other African countries cannot single out one country, hence c) the juntas have immediately backers in neighboring countries, the other military juntas. And finally d) anti-French sentiment is high in these countries, hence being in this way "populist", the juntas have gotten immediate support for them.

As both armed forces of Niger and Mali (and Burkina Faso) have gotten extensive support and training from France and the US and have an islamist problem, the aid coming from the West is important for them (and Russia won't come the help there), I think Russia is simply one actor trying to improve it's situation in the area with few actual resources. It's not the Soviet Union and especially now with the war in Ukraine, it hasn't got a lot of ability to take center stage in Africa. It might take the stage as it has done in the Middle East, being one actor in Syria.

In the long run this can indeed have dramatic outcomes for France in Africa. Will France have to finally leave it's colonies? That nothing has happened, the French ambassador seems to be still in the country, shows that the Nigerien junta doesn't want to pick a fight with France. And French hasn't attempted a military response ...yet. Even if the Junta is fearing that France in contemplating an intervention. Yet France has a very weak foot in the Sahel and cannot just pick a fight without allies. Hopefully sound reasoning prevails.

If there starts a media campaign on how vicious the Nigerien junta is (or something similar), then I would start to get worried. Yet there is the possibility still of some unintentional (or intentional) accident happening: French troops are situated in the Niamey airport, which is next to the capital.

The ridiculous thing is folks posting such nonsense using the internet, when the internet would never have existed due to a lack of research funding if money was only ever spent on "products and services" — LuckyR

Just like the highway system, many things have become into existence because defense matters.

Like jillionnaires with political hacks spilling out of every pocket? — Vera Mont

Those too, especially if their jillion dollars are made thanks to those contacts to politicians and influence over political decision making.

Have you actually been in the US? Or watched American movies? Or listened to NBC? — Vera Mont

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Speaking fluently Spanish and then have to speak fluently Finnish is here in Europe is the problem. You see, in the US many speak Spanish, but you usually CAN BE, let's say working in customer service, if you speak English. Even with a dialect.

On the other hand, I will be honest. I see trade unions as political lobbies. — javi2541997

They become ones when they have lots of political power, yes. But so I guess happens to any group that has a say in public matters.

However let's get something straight: it is extremely idiotic not to have trade unions.

It's simply logical and rational to unionize. It has nothing to do with a leftist ideology and that's what many Americans don't understand. Trade unions aren't equivalent to socialism or socialist ideas. For example, 98% of all active military officers in the Finnish Armed Forces are members of their trade union, the Officer's Union. 98% participation level in a trade union you seldom find anywhere. And it's hard to find a group that isn't leftist and is traditionally conservative (although by law when active cannot take part in politics or be a member of a political party). In fact, the trade union itself was established in 1918 right after the Whites had won the Civil War and beaten the Reds, so I guess these guys forming their union weren't singing the International as they had just killed or put into camps those chaps had sang the song, had waved the red flags and wanted to be a part of the socialist experiment.

Yet when you have trade union membership being very low or nonexistent, then the employers can nearly do whatever they want. Especially if your country has low social cohesion and strict class lines, it's only worse. Then the answer of "get another job" is quite hollow as the job market simply sucks.

Most of the users of TPF are citizens from Anglo-Saxon countries which their economy goes on forward and they tend to have a lot of job opportunities. So, they give for granted that if a strike fails, well just go to another job or whatever. — javi2541997

Well, the US is like the Western Europe except everybody speaks English and have nearly the same customs, culture and preferences. That's then an easy solution to move around. But going to a different country, learning a new language and getting accustomed there is a totally different and a harder thing. Hence if your country is just the size of Minnesota and only there they speak the language you know, then when that country's economy goes down the drain, people cannot just move somewhere else.

Is there a possibility for the worker to make decisions individually? This is why I started this OP. — javi2541997

Well, as an individual the worker naturally makes those choices individually. And of course, sometimes going on strike can get you a lot of improvements, especially when you (or the union) has (figuratively speaking) the balls of the employers in their hands. Or if the workers are crucial to the economy. Hence if the odds are that you and the union can be successful, then why not go on strike to try to either improve things or at least fight against "deregulation", attempts of getting rid off everything the unions have achieved earlier. Again, your "collective" decision to be with the union doesn't overrule that the welfare of you and your family is what it's about to you.

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei

Or isn't it legal to strike? Yet @Benkei's question is really important here.

Here is the main problem and the uncertainty of the worker. What will happen if the strike doesn't succeed? Most important: who covers up the situation of his family during the strike? Because this issue can take months... — javi2541997

Fucking weasels in that trade union I say, that cannot then give assistance to member workers when they go on strike! Where the hell have gone the money that you have paid the trade union just for these kind of situations? Jesus, that's the 1.0 thing for a trade union to do.

I say just fuck them, it's all lost anyway. Start looking for another job IMMEDIATELY because once that the coal mine closes, you'll be competing with all the hard working guys for those open positions in the area. Yeah, don't bother about those that will just bitch about everything, drink beer and have fights with their wives. Either you will be one of them or then MOVE ON. Those who don't move on, hoping for the collier to be opened by some miracle or some populist Trump idiot that will descend from heaven and "turn things around" will only make the environment be gloomy. It was just a workplace and a job, that can and do disappear. It was just a service you provided for which you got money. Nothing else. Get over it.

And if you have a sick child, heck, the choice is a no brainer: your family, those that really depend on you, should come first. You don't owe the trade union and especially the company that you have worked for anything. Once you move on to another job, they really won't be crying after you. Yet for your children you are one of the most important persons in their lives.

And if your wife cannot find a job, then you should look somewhere else. If you give more importance to your present job or especially to those incompetent assholes who cannot run a trade union, then obviously you have your problems in putting important matters in your life first.

And look for work somewhere else with your wife. You are a team and it's your children. Would the two of you get jobs somewhere else? Then move out and don't be too sentimental about it. There's enough of people that simply will stay in a dead end place that offers no job positions and it's not going to be pretty sight. The bleakness will just create apathy and you will feel like a failure. And that's the reason why the unemployed don't start revolutions: it's a personal stigma in this society. You'll have the memories of the past, but you cannot live in them and they will not put food on the table.

Do you pay for the Fire Department's equipment before or after your house catches fire? — LuckyR

Well, one does buy insurances for various issues and hope one isn't going to need the services.

Yet even in the case of the fire department this is a bit tricky. If / when you opt not to have that "insurance", then by logic the fire department will not come to help when your home catches on fire. All fine, if the house is in rural area. Yet if it's in a tightly built up city center, the adjacent building owners might not be so happy that your building/home, if caught on fire, will be let to burn down. They might insist that you take the insurance to protect also their property. Again, as in multiple cases, individual freedom can harm others.

But then the "insurance" against another country attacking your country, the "buying a service" of the armed forces, the mentality is even more weird. Many libertarians will do an exception with the military and defense (and briskly move on to other issues), because here the individual freedom viewpoint loses reality. What if you opt out of paying for that "insurance"? Is whoever from ISIS to Putin free to do with you whatever they want? These libertarians, who have opted out not to pay for the police/army/security "insurance", can you start hunting them down from helicopters as an extreme sport? (A gunship is required because many of them have shotguns to protect themselves)

At any rate, I don’t think anything like liberalism or Marxism can exist on Republican terms. — NOS4A2

Marxism yes, liberalism, ummm... now just what to you is liberalism? I think you are simply disillusioned or disenchanted about the current state of the Republic (of the US). Yeah, who don't be? Or then you feel better the more ultra-liberalist you think you are. More refreshing?

We should start from the role of family in society here, perhaps. That's where community and the collective start I guess.

Either way, wherever one looks there has been no liberty, no laissez-faire, and no individualism anywhere in the world. No one can point to a liberal place or liberal time period because the closer one looks there lies the law, regulation, military, and the statism present in all other ideologies. — NOS4A2

The simple fact is that democracy is the cause of this, and I would say rightly so. (There are naturally other reasons, but this is a structural reason for this in the West)

If we assume that all citizens have a vote, then always people will have different views. It's totally absurd to think that everyone will want the laissez-faire liberalism. They'll be happy if the economy and the society works, but that won't change their ideas. Enough people will want safety-nets and a welfare state. Other people will crave for strong leaders. Don't think that the most liberal success story of a society won't have it's leftists that are critical about it the whole system. Social-democracy just thrives in a capitalist liberal system: there's always the lure of "curbing the excesses of capitalism" for many. Marxism-Leninism was a failure, but Social-Democracy and overall leftism survives very well in a functioning capitalist society.

Thinking otherwise would be as delusional and mad as the Marxists thinking that somehow with educating new generations, all people will be happy Marxists. You won't get everybody to be a liberal.

We have to make of the World what we really can, not daydream about people being different. Yes, radical thinking is good, striving for the values of liberalism is good. I don't complain about that. Yet we shouldn't forget reality.

. Before things will change, we need to know there is another way. How many people do you think are aware of other ways of doing things than the way they have always done them. — Athena

Few if any! And that's the worst part of it. Just look at the history: People really wanted change after the Bush years and got Obama. Then other people really wanted change and we got Trump.

When that "Third Party" comes that finally wrecks the duopoly in the American political system, you are very lucky if it's something you can support. But likely it's a disaster and the incompetence of these totally new people can be seen. But that's not the point: the real point is that when both Democrats and Republicans find themselves either in the opposition or working in a coalition government, then they have to change. In many countries with stagnant political systems, when new parties finally come and win elections, do reforms and then years later people decide to vote for the old parties. Because many times the old parties still have competent politicians if the party isn't totally tarnished and politically dead.

And democracies can make huge mistakes, don't think otherwise. But you can learn from mistakes. The best example is the UK and it's Brexit. Just ask the British how well that has gone or look how popular the UKIP is now there. Brexit was such a huge disaster for the UK that all the euro-sceptics in the EU countries have really toned down their criticism.

I've heard the stories of White Death and now I view you in a different light. — NOS4A2

Lol. If there wouldn't have been conscription in this country, I would never, ever have gone to the military voluntarily. Not because of opposing the service, but because I had so low self esteem that I considered to be totally unfit for military service. I thought it would be living hell (as I wasn't at all good in sports in school), and really didn't think I'd find myself as a reserve officer.

I would argue that it is republicanism rather than liberalism that is the dominant political and state ideology throughout the world. — NOS4A2

I totally agree with this.

I would argue that it is republicanism rather than liberalism that is the dominant political and state ideology throughout the world. I would even argue that liberalism has never gained any foothold anywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. — NOS4A2

Many would have an opposite view. Liberalism, the classic liberalism, is a political movement that was very successful especially in the 19th Century, but had started in earnest in the 18th Century. It was so successful that the movement basically waned after achieving it's main objectives. It's like feminism after women getting the vote and have equal rights to wealth: after the most important issues are fulfilled come "new waves".

Hence saying that liberalism hasn't ever gained any foothold anywhere in the world sounds like the often heard argument here that "Marxism has never been TRULY attempted in the world".

Well, I've learnt it's the Noam Chomsky approach: you only criticize your own leaders (or leaders of the West, if you are Western). Others can criticize their own leaders. :roll:

What's your role in your government? — NOS4A2

I don't work for the government and am not an official. Yet as a reservist I have voluntarily trained other reservists, so that's I guess the closest I come to working with the authorities. It's been quite popular now especially after last year. And when your government in these voluntary exercises train reservists how to detonate a VBIED by a text message (as how in the Big World it is done), you know there is trust between the government (the armed forces) and it's reservists.

American institutions in particular do not have the greatest track record, to be fair. But it's true; the mistrust is present even in the founding documents and much of the subsequent literature. The mistake was to organize these founding principles on roman and republican ideals of statehood, in my opinion. These ideals are as statist and collectivist as they come. — NOS4A2

That is a very interesting point of view.

Care to elaborate what's the mistake with Roman and Republican ideals. I thought the "Republican" part of the US system avoided the democracy becoming something like in the French Revolution.

In other words, only a part of a community, a ruling class, seeks power over others and organize themselves in a similar function. In other words, it's not as universal as we like to say it is. — NOS4A2

Those that seek power are a minority, I agree. But those who take part in a voluntary street patrol or militia are usually those that do other community work and are respected in the community. Of course there are criminals too who obviously see an opening in a protection racket, but well, they are part of their own community.

It's quite similar to the people that show up to help if there is a natural disaster, actually.

In a moneyless, wealth-free society, what does anyone have to gain by being 'a politician' in the first place? — Vera Mont

Great way to say that: I agree, a moneyless society is genuinely and literally wealth free. Poverty is abundant and people can often experience a famine. :up:

And you really don't have anything to gain in being a politician in that kind of situation.

(The Soviets tried that first, the moneyless society, and they failed and then Lenin had to resort to NEP for the Marxist-Leninist experiment to survive.)

The only human community behind the state is its administrative staff. — NOS4A2

Lol. Obviously coming from an American. Well, in smaller expandable countries where the people have to have fought just to survive as a people, the feeling towards one own nation is a bit different, should I say that. That doesn't mean our politicians cannot be bad and incompetent and the government can suck big time.

It's hard to fathom how one can be so loose with the term "community", that it would contain both the ruling class and its subjects, as if they shared a common interest. But that's collectivism for you. — NOS4A2

It's hard to fathom how far Americans have fallen from the ideals of their state. Perhaps it's spoon fed in the media, by your politicians, by Hollywood that the first and foremost enemy and threat to the citizen is the state. No really, I believe you. I went with my family to Capitol Hill (in the Trump years) and hearing with my own ears how a Republican member of the House speaking during a Session what a danger the FBI constitutes to the US and Americans made me see just how deep the utter mistrust and hatred for the state Americans have. So it isn't any surprise that you think the way you do.

It's no doubt that you find the state's authority and legitimacy sacrosanct, but conflating the will of the state with the will of the people is mistake. The only human community behind the state is its administrative staff. — NOS4A2

Ok, Why don't you first read what was my point.

The point was this: Communities and families that people belong to matter to people. Their actions and work inside these groups aren't the same when buying or selling or trading something. Everything isn't materialistic and connected to money. And since the security starting from our own families is extremely important, so does our attitudes toward security in general are different. It is naive to think that security is just a service you can buy.

The fact is that if the state's authority collapses, the police doesn't work, then communities organize themselves and perform a similar function. This happens quite universally. Also it's actually not surprising that in many countries the history of the police has evolved from watches made up from citizens (or loyal subjects) who have been volunteers at first.

I disagree that is impossible to put an end to the two party system. — Athena

So do I. But Americans simply have to understand that the present system can totally change, and actually quite quickly. The naive thing is to think that it's the Presidential election where you could have someone not being either a Democrat or a Republican that can change things. Nope, change starts from the communities and the states and also the federal level. And it's possible.

You keep offering evidence of how broken party political systems are but also, you keep rejecting new proposals. Why do you insist in trying to defibrillate an already dead but still deadly system? — universeness

Because not all party political systems are braindead or not working. But I guess you will not hear anything about it in your hate of political parties.

a) If political parties do give the respect to others that in a democracy you should have. This is possible when the parties have to create coalition administrations. When they need to form coalition administrations, the relations towards other parties have to be civil or somehow cordial. This makes the discourse rather boring, but it doesn't lead to polarization.

b) Political movements need to come and go. Once they lose their reason, they just being in power isn't enough.

c) And finally, I'm not so sure if your insistence of banning political parties will do the trick. Still politicians will group, form coalitions and groups.

Really???
From wiki:
Afghanistan is a mountainous landlocked country at the crossroads of Central and South (Southern) Asia. Some of the invaders in the history of Afghanistan include the Maurya Empire, the ancient Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongol Empire led by Genghis Khan, the Timurid Empire of Timur, the Mughal Empire, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and most recently the United States. — universeness

Yes, really.

In earlier times you simply gathered a large force that then by pillaging the countryside for food roamed forward and this way Alexander the Great or the Mongol Empire came to Afghanistan.

Modern warfare is a bit different.

Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, — universeness

You do understand that this is the way that the two parties hold on to power: the other side is so bad, so evil, that you have to vote for us, because otherwise they will win. And Americans do take play along: they back their side whatever it takes. Never they will be critical about the party that they vote, because then they seem to be giving their finger to devil, or just more ammo to the assholes on the other side. The present political polarization is a way to uphold the present system.

The reason classic liberals argue for a smaller state is because they assume people can take care of themselves, without the need for state coercion. — Tzeentch

The classic liberal starts from the individual, for example from the rights of the individual. Yet people function as members of a community and members of families. Here it's the communities that take care of themselves.

When states stop functioning, people don't panic and start fighting each other as individuals especially when there is a community that they belong to. If there is no community, absolutely no social cohesion whatsoever, only then people will start to behave like it's a dog-eat-dog World. But usually that doesn't happen, especially not in communities that do have social cohesion.

This makes security so different from the other "services" we buy and it's wrong to assume that "safety" is similar to buying any other service there is a supply of.

My theory is that governments need to plunder their populace to sustain their activity because they do not have other means to do so. — NOS4A2

Or simply the payment for the services they provide is called taxes.

They possess the monopoly on violence, and therefor criminality, so it is indeed a point of fact that they will use the spoils of their plunder to finance their wars. — NOS4A2

You are intentionally dropping crucial things here that the sociologist Max Weber pointed out.

In his definition of a state, it is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Legitimacy comes from the acceptance of the people, and behind a state is a human community. Not some others like zombies who make up the government, who somehow aren't part of the people.

Yet perhaps for an individualist liberal, it's hard to fathom people functioning as a community, but it does happen.

Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. — Vera Mont

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.

When the military has a bigger role in politics, just look at the consequences in Egypt, or Sudan, or Myanmar.

There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. Civilian control of the military is important. But now, when you constitutionally give the military the power legislative power, it does matter. It's one matter for the military to ask for those tax dollars to invest, it's another thing when the are taking part of deciding just who or what gets tax dollars in general.

Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY? — Vera Mont

If the political leadership wants to start a truly idiotic war, then I guess they have to go through a lot of generals until they find the yes-man they want. Again typical what has happened in history.

And if you are referring to the US, then the reason is that as the sole Superpower, it simply has the capability to go off in idiotic wars where other countries are simply uncapable of doing: absolutely no other country could fight a war like in Afghanistan without having it's border next to it. In the end (when the US had lost support of all of the countries around Afghanistan), the US was airlifting everything from Romania to Afghanistan! No other country can fight an insurgency in a country of the size of Afghanistan and airlift everything there.

Yes, governments everywhere run protection rackets. — NOS4A2

Obviously. If it wasn't for them, then you surely would have genuine protection rackets being run. At least in the long run.

Actually this would be an interesting topic, because usually if the police for some reason doesn't work, then people will quite easily form vigilante groups and militias. I think it's an universal thing and will happen quite quickly if there is no police to call. But it isn't formed like a business transaction (meaning you pay for the service, just like you pay for an electrician or a doctor), but starting with fellow minded people who have something to protect. It tells a lot about the society how "the police" or call it anyway you want is formed in the society.

So there has been any nation that has not used taxes to fund militaries. Why is that? What's your theory? — RogueAI

Organized violence and protection against other nations and states is the first actions that nations need to organize and fund for their own survival. Every nation now has been formed from another prior nation (or more) and the violence between nations is as old as history. That's the first thing. Now, if you really outsource this and pay for instance mercenaries for this "service", it's likely that you will end up with the mercenary leader (or other country) in control of your nation. City states in Italy in the medieval times had many instances of this happening.

That's my reasoning.

Is there an executive branch? — Vera Mont

Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him.

Who put the military and the police under a single jurisdiction, anyway? Last I heard, police served individual municipalities, townships or states/provinces/counties. — Vera Mont

The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches.

As I said to universeness, putting an institution like the military also having a say in passing the laws isn't a good idea in my view.

There isn't any nation that does so. Icelandic and Costa Rican police do get their pay through taxes.

I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten. — Vera Mont

In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, hence the proposal goes against the Montesquieu's separation of powers. From their role of being the armed forces of the country they have already enough say in government's actions, they don't need to have a direct say on legislation in the process of making laws.

Why would any particular stakeholder be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont

The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. You simply cannot ask the voter to invent themselves a list of what are "important stakeholders". Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say.

What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves.

Political parties should have to be frightened that they really lose it, all of it, not wait just for some time (perhaps in a lucrative think-tank job or working for the private sector) until the electorate is so disenchanted with the other party that they vote for them again.

Now in the both American parties have this rigid career path of being just loyal and waiting for one's turn. And in the end, you have things like this:



You know, what comes to mind are the Soviet Politbyro members of the Brezhnev time, waiving from the Kremlin (or above Lenin's tomb) during some parade:



Such vitalism, such energy to confront and solve the present and future problems of the socialist experiment in the picture above.

It is a check and a balance to the first chamber or the sitting government. That is its main mission. — universeness

And my questions are:

1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy.

Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented? — Vera Mont

I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. But they themselves likely will see themselves as important and worthy of the "stakeholder" position.

It is true that one of the main aims of the European Commission is to reach a common tax policy, but this will be one of the toughest tasks to be done. — javi2541997

The EU is a de facto confederation of independent states, which desperately tries to be an union. Perhaps something similar to the US by some visionaries in the EU. But everybody knows that isn't going to happen.

I don't remember if it was with you, javi, or some other Spaniard, that we talked about how simply different is the geostrategic security environment of Finland and Spain. For Finland the security threat is Russia, Russia and Russia... , but for Spain it's how narrow the strait of Gibraltar is and North Africa with all of it's problems is the real security issue (as Spain even has Ceuta and Melilla in the other continent). And I guess both Finnish and Spanish authorities totally understand these differences between them. Yet that's just the tip of the obvious iceberg. And when it comes to a "common tax policy", I think "common EU defense policy" might be far more easier to plan and to get everybody behind it.

On the other hand, I do not know if tax havens are ethical, but I understand that it is the only way to survive in globalisation. What can Andorra or Bahamas do in a complex system of transactions? They need to be attractive to attach foreign investment. — javi2541997

Remember it starts from places like the City of London and the tax havens inside the US. Trade is good, it does really create wealth, yet we must understand just how fragile globalization is too. Tax havens are perhaps an annoyance, but getting rid of them, what else do you throw out with the bathwater?

And globalization can stop rapidly. War between the US and China and that's it: the end of present day globalization. And UK's experiment with Brexit shows just how much our wealth and prosperity is based on EU membership and how difficult it is to opt out of the system. But what will remain sovereign are the nation state members of the EU. And they'll have different tax laws. That's a fact in my view.

I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. — universeness

You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks.

But what's not to like about silly walks? Monty Python is really part of modern British culture. Well liked and even mimicked abroad.

I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. — universeness

That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter.

So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works? — universeness

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. Even if they aren't important anymore. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. And what are "important stakeholders". For starters.

You have to design a system for the existing people ...those too that you don't like and oppose your political views. They'll participate, I guarantee you. One way or another.