European Voters Know What They Don't Want

Its interesting in a way that this is now a topic. Two years ago it was all about the bad Americans. Now that we have a weak president the EU is finally getting back to its own issues.

[Letum]

In English your meaning translates better as: "I have sympathy with your/that viewpoint".

Originally Posted by Letum

In English your meaning translates better as: "I have sympathy with your/that viewpoint".

I think you are right Letum. I do have sympathy, but a bit of scheudenfraude also.

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I fear so, but as I said, the global contexts in which man is embedded will take care of the problem their own way sooner or later. And then we will stand aside in helplessness, and will not belief the ammount of suffering. Or we will not care, like we learned to do over the past 40 years and more. BTW, why do you think just the Indians and Chinese must reduce their populations? I do not exclude Europeans and Americans as well, no to mention Africans and South Americans. To me, dear old Gerjmany is an extremely crowded place. I know that it is even worse in other places, say Seoul or Tokyo or Los Angeles, but these nightmares are almost beyond imagination for me. At no cost I want to live there, not even for a million per year.

I believe I did, when I said "Or anywhere else for that matter". Doesn't really matter. Looks like we have another thing we share Skybird, I myself do not like large cities very much. The first time I went to Paris on my own and went to the Champs-Elysée, I almost had an anxiety attack. Christ, I did not end and the number of people. And it was not really a busy day. That is why I proposed in my previous post smaller communities which can more easily take matters into their own hands and make sure, what while they conform to the rule of law of the greater area, that things are kept in check, as they themselves know their neighbours better than someone else. Yet again, we must think about the human personality and the "Slovenian syndrome", that is always wanting to have more than your neighbour, yet I believe that with time and education even this can be solved.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Please read my reply to Letum above. It seems I messed up vocabulary. My apology to you, if you had not realised all by yourself what I meant, and took my comment queer. It was my fault.

No problem Skybird. I guest in a way that you did not take pity of me when you used the word sympathy. Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by Skybird

It is not so different with me, at least most of the time. Though I prefer to fight, and though I seem to know it will be in vain, I still do so with joy in my heart, maybe a little bit like those famous words that maybe are just put into the mouth of Luther: "Even if I knew that tomorrow was the end of the world, I still would plant an apple tree today!" . Because in the end this is my life, I need to confess to my own conscience, and if fate has placed me in this time and place, I may see the grim things to come, but still have no other choice than to make the best of it and make use of my options to influence the outcome, no matter how limited they may be. To me, this means not to comfortably hand over responsibility to foreigners by making a cross on a ballot, knowing that it is wrong, but trying to influence the individual that I meet face to face. For I am sure that any eventual improvement will only last if it bases on true insight and conviction of people, and is not acchieved by more economical tricks and media cheats. Some may argue it is more economical to work and raise millions, invest in a Tv station or a party and adress the wide public. But we have that - and what has it helped us? I have been engaged in voluntary work, and as a meditation teacher I worked for free over years. I have learned to meet all mass movements with utmost scepticism, and that nothing can replace the individual looking after the single individual person finding himself in search of answers. and where people have no doubts all by themselves, they are unlikely to accept new content. Besides other reasons, these are two of the most important reasons why I am so unforgivingly hostile to mass religions and cults.

This is becoming a nasty habit Skybird, we seem to be agreeing more and more. Are you growing soft with old age or did I pick up an ounce of knowledge or two?

In all seriousness, I myself dislike all mass cults and even mass control of the public. I am particularly critical of religions which do not let their congregation to think freely and examine what sacred texts there are and decide for themselves what they wish to believe or disbelieve in. Although, one must always be vigilant, if one does not wish to risk what is happening to the USA with the thousands of factions or splinter groups which are more or less radical in nature and as dangerous as the islamists.

Yet how does one go and change the world Skybird. I seek to teach reason to those around me, yet I am but one man. While I may hope that the spark I carry will ignite the flame in others, or at least brighten their paths for a few moments, how can I effect people on a larger scale needed for us to change so radically so that we may survive? If I go en masse, I risk becoming the televangelists or spark a mass movement which will in its irrationally of the masses bring more harm than good and completely distort my message? How do you propose that we "impose" that what needed, when the people do not wish to wake up from their comfortable consumerist dreams and face the harsh reality which is the outside world and their community, to which have have responsibilities as well as privileges. When does this change of the community, or better yet, the society, which you have to admit is necessary, turn into a radical-fest destroying what little you have constructed so far?

[Hitman]

I'm now 36 years old and since I was 18 I have had the chance to vote. However, I have NEVER EVER in my life voted Why? When I was 18 I was still unsure about what and who I considered worthy voting. I considered voting not a guts or simple interests action, but something that should be more thought about, more serious. So I decided to wait and follow the political scene. It ended up in not willing to vote anyone

But also at 18 I started my university law studies and with that, learning the "system" well through, as well as a good part of political science (In Spain the jurist/law studies program has a share of politic science study on it) and I started HATING it and feeling sick of what I saw and learned. So my non-voting became a personal conviction of intimate hate and disgust with the system and specially, with the persons who managed it.

¿Do you want to make voting mandatory? OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU MORONS. I prefer to pay a fine and not vote rather than to participate in this disgusting system and give it an appearance of acceptation or whatever.

Yeah making voting mandatory does take away from the process. Forced democracy isn't democracy at all. is it?

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Hitman

But also at 18 I started my university law studies and with that, learning the "system" well through, as well as a good part of political science (In Spain the jurist/law studies program has a share of politic science study on it) and I started HATING it and feeling sick of what I saw and learned. So my non-voting became a personal conviction of intimate hate and disgust with the system and specially, with the persons who managed it.

¿Do you want to make voting mandatory? OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU MORONS. I prefer to pay a fine and not vote rather than to participate in this disgusting system and give it an appearance of acceptation or whatever.

What do you propose? What do you all propose when voting is not an option and mass movements pose more harm than good to the democratic (in it most pure form) and republican process?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Yeah making voting mandatory does take away from the process. Forced democracy isn't democracy at all. is it?

Im not in favor of forced voting, but I don't see why it wouldn't be democracy.

Originally Posted by Letum

Im not in favor of forced voting, but I don't see why it wouldn't be democracy.

I guess any time the vote is inflicted on the populous it isn't democracy. Its the hand of tyranny, defining democracy. Anything forced is far and away from anything I define as freedom.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

I guess any time the vote is inflicted on the populous it isn't democracy. Its the hand of tyranny, defining democracy. Anything forced is far and away from anything I define as freedom.

While I agree that forcing people to vote would be an infringement upon freedom, I do not believe that it would violate any of the principals of democracy.

Think about it: say the people voted to force all citizens to vote. If forcing citizens to vote in the first place is not democratic, and ignoring the vote of the citizens to impose forced voting would not be democratic, we'd be left with an unresolvable paradox.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Im not in favor of forced voting, but I don't see why it wouldn't be democracy.

Maybe you also do not see why the German Democratic Republic (where they had several parties to chose from - true! ) was anything but democratic a political system.

Originally Posted by Aramike

While I agree that forcing people to vote would be an infringement upon freedom, I do not believe that it would violate any of the principals of democracy.

Think about it: say the people voted to force all citizens to vote. If forcing citizens to vote in the first place is not democratic, and ignoring the vote of the citizens to impose forced voting would not be democratic, we'd be left with an unresolvable paradox.

I guess I have a different view of democracy. Although forcing a vote has been done in other nations it doesn't seem to be democracy as I understand it. Forced democracy is not democracy...it is tyranny using the name of democracy as a cover. That is my view.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

I guess I have a different view of democracy. Although forcing a vote has been done in other nations it doesn't seem to be democracy as I understand it. Forced democracy is not democracy...it is tyranny using the name of democracy as a cover. That is my view.

"Democracy" has little to do with how it is exercised and practiced, but I understand your point and agree with you in principle.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

I guess any time the vote is inflicted on the populous it isn't democracy. Its the hand of tyranny, defining democracy. Anything forced is far and away from anything I define as freedom.

I agree that it isn't free, but you can have democracy with out freedom and
freedom without democracy.

Originally Posted by Letum

I agree that it isn't free, but you can have democracy with out freedom and
freedom without democracy.

So tyranny means nothing and democracy is on the same level. I have to say I am saddened by the understanding of democracy, human rights, and republicanism as many understand it.

Wasn't this how national socialism took hold? make my life better and i'll support you, never mind that i don't want to make it better on a personal level, national socialist government do it for me.