But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to.
Who says we must?
To be polite to others?
F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world go round. Immigrants for example.
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders?
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught.
What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.
No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Like every penalty if you think about it.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.
Oh, politeness. I forget, that is of course the motivator of behaviour. Not interests or economics, forget about those of course.
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
Not every discussion about rules ends with citing immigrants. Immigrants are relevant here – see the article – and the rules that exist favour either rich immigrants or people with citizenship. And migrants do make the world go round, look at doctors, people working in industry and so on.
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught. What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.
All of that is after the fact. After murders have happened. Murderers know they will be punished harshly and do it anyway. The interesting question is how to prevent murders without strictly relying on harsh punishments since that is something murders factor in…
Like every penalty if you think about it.
So you do recognise rules are forced upon subjects by an authority, in this case the state. I assume you are not a state servant or business owner, do you also recognise that the state wants to squeeze you of every ounce of labour so that it can do its deed to perpetuate its system of class rule? It’s hens OKing the fox guarding the hen house.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Society is not merely a set of rules. Society is made up of relations between people and physical infrastructure such as housing and workplaces. What you think of as rules are at best for edge cases. Most people don’t go about their day thinking about rules, those who do are a small minority which most would generally label bean counters. You have a highly idealistic conception of why things work.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.
Actually, no those who voted did not understand the consequences. To understand the consequences you would need to spend time that most people don’t have because they work. Nationalistic thinktanks that position themselves against German (and French) competition pour a bunch of money into campaigns that say the UK will be paradise after Brexit and the people lap it up. Not that this is the thing that brought us Brexit, there was a nationalistic sentiment that existed before Brexit was even a concept. This has a logic, and it has very little to do with rigorously rational voting.
But yeah, what you are saying, about needing to follow rules and whatnot, is exactly the same thing someone killing for the military would say. “I need to follow the rules, if I didn’t something bad happens or society collapses into complete disorder”
Not every discussion about rules ends with citing immigrants. Immigrants are relevant here – see the article – and the rules that exist favour either rich immigrants or people with citizenship.
In this situation the immigrants (the Britons) were able to stay in Sweden exactly because UK was in the EU and then there were rules about this. Also a lot of people was forced to left UK for the same reason.
And migrants do make the world go round, look at doctors, people working in industry and so on.
I would like to discuss about this, if what you say would be true we would not have rise from all the parties that say to send them back. Now we can discuss about legal Vs illegal immigrants but I don’t think we could agree.
All of that is after the fact. After murders have happened. Murderers know they will be punished harshly and do it anyway. The interesting question is how to prevent murders without strictly relying on harsh punishments since that is something murders factor in…
Would you commit a murder if you would be **sure ** to be caught, put in prison cell 2x2 meters and never ever exit, not even for 1 hour a day, until you die ?
Or, let’s take a lighter crime: would you park your car in a no parking zone if you would be sure to be fined every time you do it ?
The problem is not how harsh is the punishment but how sure you are to be punished: you can have a death sentence for murder but if your probability to be caught is 1% it is not a deterrent.
So you do recognise rules are forced upon subjects by an authority, in this case the state.
Yes, and it is necessary.
I assume you are not a state servant or business owner, do you also recognise that the state wants to squeeze you of every ounce of labour so that it can do its deed to perpetuate its system of class rule? It’s hens OKing the fox guarding the hen house.
No. Simply because even if I am currently not a state servant or business owner (but I was both of them) there is nothing that stop me from being one once I had the prerequisites (for being a state servant) or I want to start a business.
Society is not merely a set of rules. Society is made up of relations between people and physical infrastructure such as housing and workplaces. What you think of as rules are at best for edge cases. Most people don’t go about their day thinking about rules, those who do are a small minority which most would generally label bean counters. You have a highly idealistic conception of why things work.
Maybe but I am pretty sure that if there was not a set of rules then society as we intend it would fall in a very short time frame.
Relationships between people work once the people know that if the do something wrong there is some sort of punishment, else it would become something like “the strongest rules” very fast.
Actually, no those who voted did not understand the consequences.
It is not an EU problem, it is their problem. Why we should try to solve a problem they created for themself.
Beside the fact that in my opinion UK voter understand very well what the possible consequences would be, they simply choose to belive that they were in a position to impose their will.
To understand the consequences you would need to spend time that most people don’t have because they work. Nationalistic thinktanks that position themselves against German (and French) competition pour a bunch of money into campaigns that say the UK will be paradise after Brexit and the people lap it up. Not that this is the thing that brought us Brexit, there was a nationalistic sentiment that existed before Brexit was even a concept. This has a logic, and it has very little to do with rigorously rational voting.
True. But what you are saying is that UK was so full of itself that they think that EU would beg to them to make treaties at their (UK) conditions.
Unfortunately for them it was (and is) not true.
But yeah, what you are saying, about needing to follow rules and whatnot, is exactly the same thing someone killings others for the military would say. “I need to follow the rules because if I don’t something bad happens or something”
No. Killing in a war has rules too. And a soldier can refuse to follow and order.
True, you follow orders but if the order is unlawfull you must refuse to follow it, since the “I was following the orders” defence does not work.
In this situation the immigrants (the Britons) were able to stay in Sweden exactly because UK was in the EU and then there were rules about this. Also a lot of people was forced to left UK for the same reason.
Of course.
I would like to discuss about this, if what you say would be true we would not have rise from all the parties that say to send them back. Now we can discuss about legal Vs illegal immigrants but I don’t think we could agree.
The thing is, immigrants are the perfect victims. They often don’t have the same rights as citizens, they might have difficulties expressing themselves in the local language and often times they are poor. They cannot defend themselves as easily, not as a collective, nor as individuals. There are certainly migrants who do speak up, I wouldn’t deny this. I am focusing on the fact they’re a generally marginalised group present in daily life.
They are also something that is perceived as external. Foreign if you will. A nation defines itself though external facts and the principal externality is competition, like china being Competition for Japan and vice versa. Immigrants are of course not external, they become part of a nation because of local realities like paying taxes. Anyone who pays tax on their income in Germany is a German from a simple functionalist lens.
When the current political system reaches its inevitable boundaries, what is the more comfortable thing for a self sustaining system to do? Admit faults and inherent limitations (which exist in regards to growth, etc.,) or is it easier to define scapegoat minorities? I would say the latter.
The antagonism against immigrants is great for business. Immigrants are less likely to unionise or make demands if there is significant pressure for them to conform. They don’t want to be thrown out of a country because it means loosing everything, so they will make a point to work harder, longer, and with less pay. Immigrants will accept living in bad housing, harassment, and discrimination in social services, just to have a chance at survival.
Many nationalistic forces use immigrants, and generally those who have nothing, as a vehicle to direct the class antagonism away from workers vs. business owners and (a good chunk of) state servants, towards average workers and those in the middle middle class (including very few small businesses) vs. extremely impoverished sections of society, which includes poorer workers without qualifications who work back-breaking jobs.
All in all, immigrants are not inherently harmful. They are in a sense quite useful.
Would you commit a murder if you would be **sure ** to be caught, put in prison cell 2x2 meters and never ever exit, not even for 1 hour a day, until you die ?
I would not commit murder because I think doing it is enough of a punishment. My not-terrible upbringing have led me to dislike such acts. I have nothing to gain from just murdering people and that has rather little to do with punitive consequences
Or, let’s take a lighter crime: would you park your car in a no parking zone if you would be sure to be fined every time you do it ?
I don’t drive a car. I think it’s an outdated technology.
The problem is not how harsh is the punishment but how sure you are to be punished: you can have a death sentence for murder but if your probability to be caught is 1% it is not a deterrent.
I would agree that a functioning society needs to be able to take care of itself. I would agree that people need to keep their eyes peeled. I would agree that someone going on a killing spree needs to be contained for the safety of others and themelves. Rehabilitation would be called for in cases of violent infractions. But the punitive angle doesn’t grab issues at their root, it’s much more a way of pruning phenomena in a way that appears palatable at first glance.
Yes, and it is necessary.
I am going to let this end-in-itself stand as is.
No. Simply because even if I am currently not a state servant or business owner (but I was both of them) there is nothing that stop me from being one once I had the prerequisites (for being a state servant) or I want to start a business.
The phrasing here is a little unclear to me. I presume you mean that you want to preserve the potentiality of becoming a state servent or business owner. Statistically speaking (and logically speaking) workers don’t just move up the ladder. If everyone could the system as it is would implode and we know that it’s self-correcting against collapsing in on itself. As a worker it’s very difficult to start a business because you need money and time to plan. Oftentimes you fail because the real world is noisy and certainties are few.
Maybe but I am pretty sure that if there was not a set of rules then society as we intend it would fall in a very short time frame.
I don’t know about this. ISIS in Syria went against conventions. Now ISIS is practically in power. Now that they are in charge of a state they were forced to liberalise and adapt their previous rules and convictions. Exactly the same thing has happened in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan may not be the shining democracy that people envision as an ideal, but it’s not too different from the West-allied UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain. It seems to be the case that rules, in the sense of rules that are written down, come after activity.
Relationships between people work once the people know that if the do something wrong there is some sort of punishment, else it would become something like “the strongest rules” very fast.
But the punishment here does not come out of thin air. There is a monopoly on violence that is in the hands of the state. The state presents itself as the biggest on the block – it is already similar to the rule of the strongest. Aside from that, relationships between people work because because humans are social animals that tend to be cooperative, that is how evolution made us. It is more fundamental than a fear of punishment causing people to behave a certain way. I could ask why friendships work without punishment. If I am with my friend, the last thing that I want to envision are punishments for them or myself.
/
It is not an EU problem, it is their problem. Why we should try to solve a problem they created for themself.
It is a problem that the UK and the EU created. It is a problem of the contradiction between the local level and the international level. This problem is quite relevant for the EU, because it signals greater antagonisms affecting the entirety of Europe.
/
But what you are saying is that UK was so full of itself that they think that EU would beg to them to make treaties at their (UK) conditions.
Yes of course. It’s analogue to Trump’s talks about making deals on his own terms. A nation is not an intelligent being, it’s quite the opposite. Nations are scared and driven by competition. Just because there are a couple of smartiepants designing policy, does not necessarily mean that a nation makes decisions that are clear and intelligent in historical retrospect. I feel there is in fact a quite libidnal quality to the nature of nations.
/
No. Killing in a war has rules too. And a soldier can refuse to follow and order. True, you follow orders but if the order is unlawfull you must refuse to follow it, since the “I was following the orders” defence does not work.
Assuming rules are static and respected: Wars cause innovation because either side seeks to win. Technical novelties are a benefit. You may not see mustard gas be used or soldiers being blinded by lasers, but you might have to deal with new technology for which no specific laws exist. There are these magical battle technologies called autonomous drones and autonomous turrets.
Rules are not static and can be liberalised in the case of war. Everything the Wehrmacht was doing was legal according to the laws in Germany at that time. These rules were tuned to benefit Germany as a military power.
You can say organisations like the U.N. exist to act as an ombudsman between warring nations, however the U.N. only has power as long as it is supported by the nations it is supposed to keep in check. The U.N., NATO, BRICS, and the EU may collapse. When these organisations collapse it becomes a question of the winning side in a war, or rather controlling sides in the case of warring parties continuing to exist after conflict, who did what wrong.
I can also break the rules in favour of my superiors and hope I receive their good will. I can lie and say I was following rules. What’s important here is the authority judging me in the end turning a blind eye and that has happened time and time again throughout history. Operation Paperclip is a fairly decent example of this.
It makes sense that rule breakers would use the following-orders defence since the rules are made by those declaring the orders.
To be polite to others?
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught.
What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.
Like every penalty if you think about it.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.
Oh, politeness. I forget, that is of course the motivator of behaviour. Not interests or economics, forget about those of course.
Not every discussion about rules ends with citing immigrants. Immigrants are relevant here – see the article – and the rules that exist favour either rich immigrants or people with citizenship. And migrants do make the world go round, look at doctors, people working in industry and so on.
All of that is after the fact. After murders have happened. Murderers know they will be punished harshly and do it anyway. The interesting question is how to prevent murders without strictly relying on harsh punishments since that is something murders factor in…
So you do recognise rules are forced upon subjects by an authority, in this case the state. I assume you are not a state servant or business owner, do you also recognise that the state wants to squeeze you of every ounce of labour so that it can do its deed to perpetuate its system of class rule? It’s hens OKing the fox guarding the hen house.
Society is not merely a set of rules. Society is made up of relations between people and physical infrastructure such as housing and workplaces. What you think of as rules are at best for edge cases. Most people don’t go about their day thinking about rules, those who do are a small minority which most would generally label bean counters. You have a highly idealistic conception of why things work.
Actually, no those who voted did not understand the consequences. To understand the consequences you would need to spend time that most people don’t have because they work. Nationalistic thinktanks that position themselves against German (and French) competition pour a bunch of money into campaigns that say the UK will be paradise after Brexit and the people lap it up. Not that this is the thing that brought us Brexit, there was a nationalistic sentiment that existed before Brexit was even a concept. This has a logic, and it has very little to do with rigorously rational voting.
But yeah, what you are saying, about needing to follow rules and whatnot, is exactly the same thing someone killing for the military would say. “I need to follow the rules, if I didn’t something bad happens or society collapses into complete disorder”
In this situation the immigrants (the Britons) were able to stay in Sweden exactly because UK was in the EU and then there were rules about this. Also a lot of people was forced to left UK for the same reason.
I would like to discuss about this, if what you say would be true we would not have rise from all the parties that say to send them back. Now we can discuss about legal Vs illegal immigrants but I don’t think we could agree.
Would you commit a murder if you would be **sure ** to be caught, put in prison cell 2x2 meters and never ever exit, not even for 1 hour a day, until you die ?
Or, let’s take a lighter crime: would you park your car in a no parking zone if you would be sure to be fined every time you do it ?
The problem is not how harsh is the punishment but how sure you are to be punished: you can have a death sentence for murder but if your probability to be caught is 1% it is not a deterrent.
Yes, and it is necessary.
No. Simply because even if I am currently not a state servant or business owner (but I was both of them) there is nothing that stop me from being one once I had the prerequisites (for being a state servant) or I want to start a business.
Maybe but I am pretty sure that if there was not a set of rules then society as we intend it would fall in a very short time frame.
Relationships between people work once the people know that if the do something wrong there is some sort of punishment, else it would become something like “the strongest rules” very fast.
It is not an EU problem, it is their problem. Why we should try to solve a problem they created for themself.
Beside the fact that in my opinion UK voter understand very well what the possible consequences would be, they simply choose to belive that they were in a position to impose their will.
True. But what you are saying is that UK was so full of itself that they think that EU would beg to them to make treaties at their (UK) conditions.
Unfortunately for them it was (and is) not true.
No. Killing in a war has rules too. And a soldier can refuse to follow and order.
True, you follow orders but if the order is unlawfull you must refuse to follow it, since the “I was following the orders” defence does not work.
Of course.
The thing is, immigrants are the perfect victims. They often don’t have the same rights as citizens, they might have difficulties expressing themselves in the local language and often times they are poor. They cannot defend themselves as easily, not as a collective, nor as individuals. There are certainly migrants who do speak up, I wouldn’t deny this. I am focusing on the fact they’re a generally marginalised group present in daily life.
They are also something that is perceived as external. Foreign if you will. A nation defines itself though external facts and the principal externality is competition, like china being Competition for Japan and vice versa. Immigrants are of course not external, they become part of a nation because of local realities like paying taxes. Anyone who pays tax on their income in Germany is a German from a simple functionalist lens. When the current political system reaches its inevitable boundaries, what is the more comfortable thing for a self sustaining system to do? Admit faults and inherent limitations (which exist in regards to growth, etc.,) or is it easier to define scapegoat minorities? I would say the latter.
The antagonism against immigrants is great for business. Immigrants are less likely to unionise or make demands if there is significant pressure for them to conform. They don’t want to be thrown out of a country because it means loosing everything, so they will make a point to work harder, longer, and with less pay. Immigrants will accept living in bad housing, harassment, and discrimination in social services, just to have a chance at survival.
Many nationalistic forces use immigrants, and generally those who have nothing, as a vehicle to direct the class antagonism away from workers vs. business owners and (a good chunk of) state servants, towards average workers and those in the middle middle class (including very few small businesses) vs. extremely impoverished sections of society, which includes poorer workers without qualifications who work back-breaking jobs. All in all, immigrants are not inherently harmful. They are in a sense quite useful.
I would not commit murder because I think doing it is enough of a punishment. My not-terrible upbringing have led me to dislike such acts. I have nothing to gain from just murdering people and that has rather little to do with punitive consequences
I don’t drive a car. I think it’s an outdated technology.
I would agree that a functioning society needs to be able to take care of itself. I would agree that people need to keep their eyes peeled. I would agree that someone going on a killing spree needs to be contained for the safety of others and themelves. Rehabilitation would be called for in cases of violent infractions. But the punitive angle doesn’t grab issues at their root, it’s much more a way of pruning phenomena in a way that appears palatable at first glance.
I am going to let this end-in-itself stand as is.
The phrasing here is a little unclear to me. I presume you mean that you want to preserve the potentiality of becoming a state servent or business owner. Statistically speaking (and logically speaking) workers don’t just move up the ladder. If everyone could the system as it is would implode and we know that it’s self-correcting against collapsing in on itself. As a worker it’s very difficult to start a business because you need money and time to plan. Oftentimes you fail because the real world is noisy and certainties are few.
I don’t know about this. ISIS in Syria went against conventions. Now ISIS is practically in power. Now that they are in charge of a state they were forced to liberalise and adapt their previous rules and convictions. Exactly the same thing has happened in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan may not be the shining democracy that people envision as an ideal, but it’s not too different from the West-allied UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain. It seems to be the case that rules, in the sense of rules that are written down, come after activity.
But the punishment here does not come out of thin air. There is a monopoly on violence that is in the hands of the state. The state presents itself as the biggest on the block – it is already similar to the rule of the strongest. Aside from that, relationships between people work because because humans are social animals that tend to be cooperative, that is how evolution made us. It is more fundamental than a fear of punishment causing people to behave a certain way. I could ask why friendships work without punishment. If I am with my friend, the last thing that I want to envision are punishments for them or myself. /
It is a problem that the UK and the EU created. It is a problem of the contradiction between the local level and the international level. This problem is quite relevant for the EU, because it signals greater antagonisms affecting the entirety of Europe. /
Yes of course. It’s analogue to Trump’s talks about making deals on his own terms. A nation is not an intelligent being, it’s quite the opposite. Nations are scared and driven by competition. Just because there are a couple of smartiepants designing policy, does not necessarily mean that a nation makes decisions that are clear and intelligent in historical retrospect. I feel there is in fact a quite libidnal quality to the nature of nations. /
Assuming rules are static and respected: Wars cause innovation because either side seeks to win. Technical novelties are a benefit. You may not see mustard gas be used or soldiers being blinded by lasers, but you might have to deal with new technology for which no specific laws exist. There are these magical battle technologies called autonomous drones and autonomous turrets.
Rules are not static and can be liberalised in the case of war. Everything the Wehrmacht was doing was legal according to the laws in Germany at that time. These rules were tuned to benefit Germany as a military power. You can say organisations like the U.N. exist to act as an ombudsman between warring nations, however the U.N. only has power as long as it is supported by the nations it is supposed to keep in check. The U.N., NATO, BRICS, and the EU may collapse. When these organisations collapse it becomes a question of the winning side in a war, or rather controlling sides in the case of warring parties continuing to exist after conflict, who did what wrong.
I can also break the rules in favour of my superiors and hope I receive their good will. I can lie and say I was following rules. What’s important here is the authority judging me in the end turning a blind eye and that has happened time and time again throughout history. Operation Paperclip is a fairly decent example of this. It makes sense that rule breakers would use the following-orders defence since the rules are made by those declaring the orders.