[QUOTE=KillerTV;17812199]I sort of consider a megaeurope would be us carrying on to the next stage of civilization. We started off with small tribes, which became larger countries. Now however, we're looking at the USA/China/India. All massive countries, two of which have ridiculous growth and one of which with ridiculous power already. I think it's necessary for the the seperate countries of units to combine to keep Europe relative on the world scene.
I'm also a bit of a romantic when it comes to space, and genuinely believe that humans will colonise other planets, this will become far easier with larger power blocks.
Downside to my argument is that I am a ridiculous idealist, I know there are problems along the way, but a unified Europe is what I would ideally like to see.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but you forget that "countries" are what prevent the entire area, to a degree, from cooperating. The European Union was founded to [i]prevent[/i] trade between its members and external countries and make internal trade easier, but this is just an extension of the "disease" since state borders were the problem in the first place (and will still be, with regards to external entities).
Try thinking outside the box. Don't the existence of states. Imagine a completely free market without arbitrary, counter-productive EU regulations. People would invest in space travel voluntarily if it proved profitable. The European Union is just in the way of that. It prevents economic growth (as compared to a free market, not to an inter-state market) and it's worse at investing in research required for space travel.
[editline]07:07PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812244]In Britain we just ship them back to were they came from if proven to be illegal immigrants, that's [b]really[/b] violent, we also give them money to support them back in their original country.[/QUOTE]
You really do live in a candy world, don't you?
What do you think prevents the """[i]illegal immigrants[/i]""" from going "screw you, we're staying here, this is our home?"
If they don't, they will be forced to the ground and taken there through violence. If they defend themselves, they'll be beaten up. If they defend themselves with guns, they will be shot. And if they blow themselves up - oh, wait, they do. And then their family gets shot in a "War on Terror." Great stuff.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17812387]
Try thinking outside the box. Don't the existence of states. Imagine a completely free market without arbitrary, counter-productive EU regulations. People would invest in space travel voluntarily if it proved profitable. The European Union is just in the way of that. It prevents economic growth (as compared to a free market, not to an inter-state market) and it's worse at investing in research required for space travel.[/QUOTE]
What I don't even...
Completely free trade is the way to destroying the production of goods in a country that makes them more expensive than others.
Or do you want to rely on [B]COMMUNIST[/B] food made in [B]COMMUNIST CHINA[/B]
Oh yes, please, I want this! Maybe then the weaker backwater Eastern European countries will get the help they need - a powerful, non-corrupt government that doesn't steal at any chance they have, and one which actually cares about the people.
Plus we need more western culture here, we have so many Russians here I want to kill myself. It's like the Mexicans in USA, only much, much worse.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17812387]Sure, but you forget that "countries" are what prevent the entire area, to a degree, from cooperating. The European Union was founded to [i]prevent[/i] trade between its members and external countries and make internal trade easier, but this is just an extension of the "disease" since state borders were the problem in the first place (and will still be, with regards to external entities).
Try thinking outside the box. Don't the existence of states. Imagine a completely free market without arbitrary, counter-productive EU regulations. People would invest in space travel voluntarily if it proved profitable. The European Union is just in the way of that. It prevents economic growth (as compared to a free market, not to an inter-state market) and it's worse at investing in research required for space travel.
[editline]07:07PM[/editline]
You really do live in a candy world, don't you?
What do you think prevents the """[i]illegal immigrants[/i]""" from going "screw you, we're staying here, this is our home?"
If they don't, they will be forced to the ground and taken there through violence. If they defend themselves, they'll be beaten up. If they defend themselves with guns, they will be shot. And if they blow themselves up - oh, wait, they do. And then their family gets shot in a "War on Terror." Great stuff.[/QUOTE]
You made an entire thread on all your terrible ideas and every single one got shot down into the ground.
Just stop.
Also your ideas on the EU are entirely wrong.
EU wasn't founded on preventing trade, it was founded on preventing war through interdependency, seeing as we had just fought the largest war mankind had ever seen and decimated ourselves.
(Look up European Coal and Steel Community)
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;17810135]Then there could be a 'United States of Asia' and a 'United States of Africa' and so on and so forth. 'The United States of Earth'...[/QUOTE]
United Earth Sphere
United Earth Directorate :smug:
..battlecruiser operational..
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17812486]You made an entire thread on all your terrible ideas and every single one got shot down into the ground.
Just stop.
Also your ideas on the EU are entirely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Where is the "And your mom is a whore" in there
[QUOTE=evilking1;17812517]Where is the "And your mom is a whore" in there[/QUOTE]
No, otherwise he'll focus more on that and not on the fact that his ideas are shit.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812356]Boarders are really none existence in Europe anymore (besides the United Kingdom), you can just go anywhere and you rarely have to show your passport, I went to Prague recently and no one ever bothered to ask me for a passport. If we decided to just 'delete' boarders then I doubt much would change, people would keep into their areas and a imaginary boarder system would just would be created, its a natural human thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, that is how the system is in the US with state borders, but it's still the same country. Though there would definately be more patriotism about the different states though.
There might be a lot of different languages in the EU, but I think we can all agree that nearly everybody in Europe speaks english.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17812387]
What do you think prevents the """[i]illegal immigrants[/i]""" from going "screw you, we're staying here, this is our home?"
If they don't, they will be forced to the ground and taken there through violence. If they defend themselves, they'll be beaten up. If they defend themselves with guns, they will be shot. And if they blow themselves up - oh, wait, they do. And then their family gets shot in a "War on Terror." Great stuff.[/QUOTE]
No, you make it sound like all boarder control officers do is beat up innocent illegals which is not the case. Violence is only used upon them if they are violent back. Those that are in the country already and proven illegal normally end up staying here because it is normally cheaper that way, but if they are raided by immigration police then they are restrained and arrested, is that what you call violence? Why is that bad? Are you really going to nit pick at my words that much?
Anyway as I stated the others that get kicked out are given money and are given support back in their home country, tell me how that is bad.
Guns can be also hard to obtain in Britain, I don't know were you get the idea all immigrants have easy access to guns. Illegal immigrants don't blow themselves up, nice job with mixing them up with extremists.
You need to stop living in a fairy world yourself, British boarder patrols only use a means of violence if the the subject reacts with violence, stop fucking nit picking at things and try to look into it further. Yes of course they would use violence but only as a last resort, I'm not sure what they do in your country but fuck me they can't be popular fellows if all they do is shoot them.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]No, you make it sound like all boarder control officers do is beat up innocent illegals which is not the case.[/QUOTE]
I did not say that either.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]Violence is only used upon them if they are violent back.[/QUOTE]
That statement does not make any sense. How can they be "violent back" if aggression was not iniated towards them?
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]Those that are in the country already and proven illegal normally end up staying here because it is normally cheaper that way, but if they are raided by immigration police then they are restrained and arrested, is that what you call violence?[/QUOTE]
That [i]is[/i] violence, per definition. Your argument is VERY thin at this point.
Also, lol @ "proven illegal," you assume the legitimacy of the state which is exactly what I'm arguing against, you're begging the question.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]Why is that bad? Are you really going to nit pick at my words that much?[/QUOTE]
You're the one nitpicking my words. Why is it bad? I guess that depends on what premises you have, so I would like to know what kind of insane premises leads you to the conclusion that it's not bad/good. My reason for saying that it's bad is that there's no reason to do it, hatred leads to hatred (AKA terror), the labor is needed (obviously, since they came to England for a higher wage), freedom etc., and the usual moral/subjective argument.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]Anyway as I stated the others that get kicked out are given money and are given support back in their home country, tell me how that is bad.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, I never said it was bad, I'm talking about the use of violence. But if you really think that justifies it, [i]offer[/i] them the money for going back instead of forcing them, because that's like (no, it's [i]exactly[/i] like) forcing them to sell you their home, then going "heh, I did them a favor."
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]Guns can be also hard to obtain in Britain, I don't know were you get the idea all immigrants have easy access to guns. Illegal immigrants don't blow themselves up, nice job with mixing them up with extremists.[/QUOTE]
Guns are hard to obtain because gunsmiths and gun importers are punished with violence.
You're the one labelling them extremists, usually they're just people who are pretty fucking tired of government violence:
[i]"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."[/i]
- Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 2005 London bombers
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]You need to stop living in a fairy world yourself, British boarder patrols only use a means of violence if the the subject reacts with violence, stop fucking nit picking at things and try to look into it further. Yes of course they would use violence but only as a last resort, I'm not sure what they do in your country but fuck me they can't be popular fellows if all they do is shoot them.[/QUOTE]
Again, reacts with violence to what? Verbal orders? I doubt so. Reacting with violence to violence is called self-defense.
If the police doesn't use force, people won't follow orders when they find out. People have to know that the guns will be drawn if they defend themselves. Even sedating people against their will is violence, whether that is more humane is irrelevant. If I don't want to go to England, you don't sedate me, fly me there, and then everything's alright.
[QUOTE=Beafman;17812571]Exactly, that is how the system is in the US with state borders, but it's still the same country. Though there would definately be more patriotism about the different states though.
There might be a lot of different languages in the EU, but I think we can all agree that [B]nearly everybody in Europe speaks english[/B].[/QUOTE]
no I think the frogs are winning on that one, also all the europian [I]`states`[/I] are diferent countries in their own right.
[editline]07:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;17812663]No, you make it sound like all boarder control officers do is beat up innocent illegals which is not the case. Violence is only used upon them if they are violent back. Those that are in the country already and proven illegal normally end up staying here because it is normally cheaper that way, but if they are raided by immigration police then they are restrained and arrested, is that what you call violence? Why is that bad? Are you really going to nit pick at my words that much?
Anyway as I stated the others that get kicked out are given money and are given support back in their home country, tell me how that is bad.
Guns can be also hard to obtain in Britain, I don't know were you get the idea all immigrants have easy access to guns. Illegal immigrants don't blow themselves up, nice job with mixing them up with extremists.
You need to stop living in a fairy world yourself, British boarder patrols only use a means of violence if the the subject reacts with violence, stop fucking nit picking at things and try to look into it further. Yes of course they would use violence but only as a last resort, I'm not sure what they do in your country but fuck me they can't be popular fellows if all they do is shoot them.[/QUOTE]
all the British do is moan about terrorists, god our country has gone down the shitter.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17813457]That statement does not make any sense. How can they be "violent back" if aggression was not iniated towards them?[/quote]
Because I am sure a lot of illegal immigrants would be willing to fight for their right to live in another country, you don't have proof that police are always violent first.
[quote]That [i]is[/i] violence, per definition. Your argument is VERY thin at this point.[/quote]
Erm, I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to show you here;
[i]"Mmmm no, I'm not, state borders and state laws within those borders are always enforced by the threat violence. I went from A to B, I didn't strawman you."[/i]
A quote by you, you don't actually have proof that all boarders are enforced by violence. But if you're willing to show me that the British boarder police are the first to be infact violent (or endorse it as a policy) then I'll look at it. Yes by definition violence is an act of aggression, but the word is neutral. You can have good or bad aggression, some aggression can stop people from doing harmful things, while other aggression can lead to bad things.
The law generally tries to keep on the 'good' aggression side.
[quote]Also, lol @ "proven illegal," you assume the legitimacy of the state which is exactly what I'm arguing against, you're begging the question.[/quote]
Okay then, why is it bad? I want to hear a direct argument on it.
[quote]You're the one nitpicking my words. Why is it bad? I guess that depends on what premises you have, so I would like to know what kind of insane premises leads you to the conclusion that it's not bad/good. My reason for saying that it's bad is that there's no reason to do it, hatred leads to hatred (AKA terror), the labor is needed (obviously, since they came to England for a higher wage), freedom etc., and the usual moral/subjective argument.[/quote]
In reality we do it because it can keeps people under control and to avoid anything dangerous, you call restraint 'violent', which to be honest is stupid. By definiton yes its aggression but it does not make it bad as I keep stating.
[quote]Uhh, I never said it was bad, I'm talking about the use of violence. But if you really think that justifies it, [i]offer[/i] them the money for going back instead of forcing them, because that's like (no, it's [i]exactly[/i] like) forcing them to sell you their home, then going "heh, I did them a favor."[/quote]
Oh I see, when we see a illegal hiding in the back of a truck we shall just have to ask him nicely to come out, we can't touch him otherwise thats an act of aggression according to you. That bad and the big old government is pushing people around again.
[quote]You're the one labelling them extremists, usually they're just people who are pretty fucking tired of government violence[/quote]
Show me were I said that, go on.
[quote][i]"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."[/i]
- Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 2005 London bombers[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILWPrVYb7G4[/media]
Not worshipping Islam in a Islamic country is punishable by death, you really try to say that because the British government will not submit to ex British citizen who had been brainwashed by extremisits with conspiracy theories thats governments fault?
[i]"Boohoo someone built a Starbucks in Afghanistan, America is corporate evil of the world, I must bomb people and kill all Americans and the rest of the west because they do not worship Islam. I do not like freedom of choice and expression and the right to his/hers opinions because Islam says so"[/i]
Also, in what way are the government being violent that bothers you?
[quote]If the police doesn't use force, people won't follow orders when they find out. People have to know that the guns will be drawn if they defend themselves. Even sedating people against their will is violence, whether that is more humane is irrelevant. If I don't want to go to England, you don't sedate me, fly me there, and then everything's alright.[/QUOTE]
So what is your problem with this kind of aggression that keeps people from attacking eachother?
what the fuck are you on about
I doubt this will happen. Europe is far too nationalistic to come together peacefully and easily. Still, it would be cool to finally see a lot more the of the hostility die down in Europe through an agreement like this.
I wish the British would be given the chance to vote on the EU - leave or stay. I think we would leave.
When the United Sates started it was pretty much like the E.U is now, over time the government gradually grew in power and became more like a country rather than a union of states. So honestly, I wouldn't be that surprised if the E.U. became a country in the next hundred years.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;17814535]When the United Sates started it was pretty much like the E.U is now, over time the government gradually grew in power and became more like a country rather than a union of states. So honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the E.U. became a country in the next hundred years.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? The United States started as British colonies and came together because of a common sentiment of hating the British and because they could only remove the British by fighting together. The colonies were in many ways much closer than the EU is now. Also, the colonies had a loose system of government setup on the eve of Revolution. They didn't just all of a sudden decide to unite together, and form a strong democratic government.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17814130]:words:[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, I'm laughing out loud at the hilarious idea that police can enfore [i]anything at all[/i] without the use of force... Who's the first to be violent? Their JOB is to use violence, and you try to create this scenario that police are just hangin' with guns on a boat full of "illegal" immigrants, and then the immigrants iniate violence?
Or MAYBE, the police comes knocking on their door, asking politely, "would you please move to this desert wasteland being bombed by American forces? We'll give you money!" And then the immigrant will be like "OMFG HE POLITELY REQUESTED THAT I GO TO AFGHANISTAN FOR MONEY, I MUST PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE."
Hilarious.
I don't need to "prove" that they use violence, the police's job is DEFINED as en[b]force[/b]ment of state legislation. The very idea of police enforcing anything without force is ridiculous. Whether they do it for a good purpose or not is irrelevant, we're discussing whether borders are enforced by violence or not, because it was relevant to who had to justify their view. Do I have to justify non-violence? Gee, I don't know, guess non-violence isn't just.
[QUOTE=Evilan;17814586]What are you talking about? The United States started as British colonies and came together because of a common sentiment of hating the British and because they could only remove the British by fighting together. The colonies were in many ways much closer than the EU is now. Also, the colonies had a loose system of government setup on the eve of Revolution. They didn't just all of a sudden decide to unite together, and form a strong democratic government.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about after the revolution, during the Articles of Confederation and the early days of the current government system. Back then, all the national government did was settle disputes between states, create a common currency, and provide a military. So, back then the United States government had very little power and sates did most things by themselves. It was only later that the national government started to have more power.
Everyone in Europe hates each other, this will never happen.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17814683]Jesus Christ, I'm laughing out loud at the hilarious idea that police can enfore [i]anything at all[/i] without the use of force... Who's the first to be violent? Their JOB is to use violence, and you try to create this scenario that police are just hangin' with guns on a boat full of "illegal" immigrants, and then the immigrants iniate violence?
Or MAYBE, the police comes knocking on their door, asking politely, "would you please move to this desert wasteland being bombed by American forces? We'll give you money!" And then the immigrant will be like "OMFG HE POLITELY REQUESTED THAT I GO TO AFGHANISTAN FOR MONEY, I MUST PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE."
Hilarious.
I don't need to "prove" that they use violence, the police's job is DEFINED as en[b]force[/b]ment of state legislation. The very idea of police enforcing anything without force is ridiculous. Whether they do it for a good purpose or not is irrelevant, we're discussing whether borders are enforced by violence or not, because it was relevant to who had to justify their view. Do I have to justify non-violence? Gee, I don't know, guess non-violence isn't just.[/QUOTE]
Anarchy for the win bro, we can all live equally and successfully if we all just work together man.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17813457]I did not say that either.[/quote]
You were insinuating that border controls regularly use unfair violence against immigrants.
[quote]
That statement does not make any sense. How can they be "violent back" if aggression was not iniated towards them?
[/quote]
This is called nitpicking, you know what he meant...
[quote]
That [i]is[/i] violence, per definition. Your argument is VERY thin at this point.
[/quote]
Again, nitpicking. Common sense would tell you that by 'violence' he means immoral or unneeded violence (i.e. anything more than the minimum needed to protect the officers and actually remove the immigrants.) Border controls just lead the immigrants out of whatever transport they've tried to enter the country in and remove them. Many immigrants come back several times after being caught, trying to get in again and again, why would you do that if you were beaten every time?
[quote]
Also, lol @ "proven illegal," you assume the legitimacy of the state which is exactly what I'm arguing against, you're begging the question.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that 'the state' is illegitimate and so therefore cannot decree anything is illegal? If you are then that is an entirely different and far more complex argument, it's hardly a strong argument either so using it in this way is just silly. The fact is that the state exists and has laws, and arguing about the illegitimacy of those laws is a different argument.
[quote]You're the one nitpicking my words. Why is it bad? I guess that depends on what premises you have, so I would like to know what kind of insane premises leads you to the conclusion that it's not bad/good. My reason for saying that it's bad is that there's no reason to do it, hatred leads to hatred (AKA terror), the labor is needed (obviously, since they came to England for a higher wage), freedom etc., and the usual moral/subjective argument.
[/quote]
There are plenty of arguments here both ways, mostly people complaining that the influx of immigrants removes jobs for other people and overpopulates an already relatively high population island. I'm not saying I agree with these arguments, but it is by no means clear cut that continued mass immigration is not a bad thing as you are suggesting.
[quote]
Uhh, I never said it was bad, I'm talking about the use of violence. But if you really think that justifies it, [i]offer[/i] them the money for going back instead of forcing them, because that's like (no, it's [i]exactly[/i] like) forcing them to sell you their home, then going "heh, I did them a favor."[/quote]
Only [b]illegal[/b] immigrants are forcibly deported (actually most of them aren't, but anywho) the key is in the word [i]illegal.[/i] The real argument here is if we should allow all immigrants legal citizenship. At the moment it is illegal to enter and live in Britain announced, so those who do are removed, since what they did is illegal and we have every right to do so. When you enter a nation you abide by it's laws and those immigrating here know this.
Opening our borders might or might not be the right thing to do, but upholding our laws certainly is not wrong, it's not as if we beat or kill them, we simply remove them from the country they entered illegally.
It sounds like your whole argument is about basically having an anarchy, which is hardly surprising given your name, but arguing that the laws should be changed or removed is different from arguing that removing people because they clearly and knowingly breached the laws in a pretty major manner is wrong.
[quote]
Guns are hard to obtain because gunsmiths and gun importers are punished with violence.
[/quote]
[quote]You're the one labelling them extremists, usually they're just people who are pretty fucking tired of government violence:
[i]"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."[/i]
- Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 2005 London bombers[/quote]
He is an extremist because he mass murdered innocent people furthering a factitious cause, although that is opinion on my part.
[quote]
Again, reacts with violence to what? Verbal orders? I doubt so. Reacting with violence to violence is called self-defense.
[/quote]
No. 'Violence' is needed, just and moral in many cases, a criminal often can and should be apprehended with violence. When you enter a country you must abide by it's laws, and by entering illegally the citizens of that country have every right to remove you forcibly (although abiding by the persons 'human rights' etc, which we do pretty damn well.)
Think of it like this, the government is simply an arm of the citizens of the country, composed of those the citizens want to organise and manage the country, in this case the citizens have decided that they want to know and control who lives on their land, and so by force if necessary they can remove those who enter it illegally. However, unlike an anarchy, the citizens have also put into place various systems to protect both themselves, and those who their rules disagree with.
Sorry, but what exactly is your point? You yourself sound like you are living in candyland, where violence should never be needed and laws pointless.
Should we not be able to use 'violence' (hardly violence anyway) to apprehend a thief? Easy question maybe. How about a credit card cloner? Or a rotten businessman turned scammer? How else do we stop these people, do we just let them get on with it? The world is a stupidly complex thing, there is no black and white, in law and politics [b]everything[/b] is subjective at it's most basic level, and just because you disagree with it does not make it wrong.
Anarchist is a troll who probably spends his spare time trolling policy debate teams and reading Star Trek fan fiction, replacing Riker's name with his crush's.
[QUOTE=tankkiller;17814754]Everyone in Europe hates each other, this will never happen.[/QUOTE]
I don't hate anybody from any of the other European countries, I think most have it the same way.
[QUOTE=IAreJackass;17814911]Anarchist is a troll who probably spends his spare time trolling policy debate teams and reading Star Trek fan fiction, replacing Riker's name with his crush's.[/QUOTE]
Yeah if it'd twigged to me that his name was Anarchist before I'd got halfway though I would probably not have bothered...
Oh jeez, the anarchist is in this thread, why bother posting.
The fact he has Anarcho Capitalist avatar makes it more funny.
Rating every post of the anarchist's I see as dumb, the guy's a moron.
[editline]09:16PM[/editline]
The fuck's mah automerge
[QUOTE=Vasili;17815033]The fact he has Anarcho Capitalist avatar makes it more funny.[/QUOTE]
Why does everyone think this is somehow contradictory? I don't think you know what market anarchism is.
[editline]10:18PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=jcallan;17815052]Rating every post of the anarchist's I see as dumb, the guy's a moron.[/QUOTE]
Oh God please no D:
With the Lisbon Treaty being approved in Ireland (and hopefully the cezch Republic and Poland)
Too bad the Czechs are holding out for the Conservatives to take power and veto the treaty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.