What future do you want for Europe?

[Knowltok]

The american work ethic sux! They are not a such thing, all the decisions and influence are placed in the hand of the company-owner. They're dictatorships in nearly every american company.

The American work ethic sux....I guess I just don't buy into that theory. I'm not going to stand up on a pedastal and proclaim to the world that the American work ethic is the best and everyone else sucks, that would be a bit pompus. I will however challenge you to back up your claim about the American work ethic with something better than pointing out that decisions are handled by owners of the company. For one, I don't see this as a problem. If I own a company, I want to be able to make what decisions I see fit within the law. I can consult with my employees to whatever extent I want. I may get more out of them if I do, but I honestly don't see where any of this has any bearing on work ethic.

Perhaps your own robust and vibrant economy causes you to view Americans as lazy, but I would disagree, and continue to ask you for back-up. Please don't give me reasons that show that the US doesn't have the best work ethic in the world, because I am not arguing that. I am arguing your assertion that it sux.

I know that the europeans "exported" some religious minorities but you cannot blame the europeans of today for that. I do not blame the americans of today for the a-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

I believe I put in the appropriate smilees. If not, let me clarify: I do not blame Europeans for variety of religious expression in the US. Actually, I 'blame' Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and the rest. It is one of the things that I cherish about my country.

 

[Greadius]

If Socialized health care is so wonderful, why do people in these countries have to wait months for 'critical' medical care?

How does a socialized program help the innovation of new medicines, drugs and techniques?

The only people in America who would benefit from socialized health care are the bottom 20%. That is just not a big enough group of people with enough political clout to make that policy a reality.

Most uninsured people are uninsured because they haven't bothered filling out the paperwork. Almost every employer offers a health package, almost every school offers a health package, if you're self employed, the government will offer you a health package.
Granted, these health packages aren't that great, but that is probably because they closely resemble what American socialized medicine would look like.

America has had several experiments with socializing and they always seem to be twice as expensive and half as effective as everyone had hoped. Face it, Americans can't do socialism right.

 

[VoodooAce]

It probably makes some people feel better to believe that those that don't have a decent health care program don't have it because its their own fault.

My Mother owned a small cafe in the early 80's. The only employee she had that had insurance was one waitress, because her husband worked for a large company.

All of the rest had jack. My mom tried to put together something because she wanted them all to have some kind of coverage. Everything she explored either cost her too much, or them too much.

I'm not saying 'too much' in that, 'Gosh, we'll just have to rearrange our budget'. I'm talking too much as in, 'If I do that, I have to feed my family Top Ramen for dinner four nights a week'. It was way, way too expensive. So we all went without.

Had I broken a leg, not only would the medical bills have broke, but the lack of being able to work for however long would have practically ruined my life for some time.

The greatest nation in the world shouldn't be so selfish as to not provide something for that bottom 20%. Doesn't have to be socialized. Just needs to be done.

Whether or not their methods are right, AT LEAST most of Europe has the very noble goal of providing insurance for everyone. More than can be said for the good ol' US of A.

 

[CurtSibling]

I have reason to think that a united Euro-state with
representation of all nations will be a reality maybe
within my lifetime.

Look at Europe 60 years ago.
Look at it now...

The French, Germans, Italian Greeks and British all get along fine.
I love mainland Europe, Germany and France are among the most
influencial nations in the world. I think those who oppose unity
and networking of nations are living in the past or are latent racists.

America also seems to oppose a Euro-union, through whether
this is due to some deep-rooted distrust or due to the prospect
of the USA having little influence in a large Euro-state, would
remain to be seen.

 

[Kefka]

we should be working for a
UNITED STATES OF EARTH!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Kefka
we should be working for a
UNITED STATES OF EARTH!

I'm with this guy!

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Kefka
we should be working for a
UNITED STATES OF EARTH!

The rules for joining are in the Constitution. Go for it

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I think those who oppose unity
and networking of nations are living in the past or are latent racists.

Hmm. Very sweeping statement. I class myself as against large transnational conglomerations of states as they have a rather poor historical record, among other factors. I don't want Australia to merge with anyone or anything; this is not racism or living in the past, simply wanting a positive, independent destiny for ones beloved homeland.

I oppose international union of nations and world government. Networking, when done in an appropriate fashion which preserves the true independence, sovereignty and the traditions of its component nation states, is somewhat more permissable.

Not everyone shares one vision of the future. This does not make them wrong or racist or dwelling on the past. They simply believe in different things and hold different notion dear.

 

[adamsj]

That I think that Europe should first become a federal country, than finally to be a part of a world federal country!

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Nationalism. Nationalism. Nationalism!

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Interesting read. For once a discussion that didn't degenerate into all kinds of accusations and misunderstandings. Nice to see! I might share a slightly different opinion than most of you, please don't take this the wrong way.

I'm not so sure a european union is such a good thing. But I'm not so sure government in itself is such a good thing. This leaves me much in the minority. But I have my reasons for what I think.

1) Individual liberty. The farther away from me those people in the administration and legislation are who decide how I should arrange my life and abide their laws, the worse. The more need for an expensive bureaucracy. The more need for control. The more need for policemen and surveilance. A large state will evolve into a policestate. We saw it with the USSR, and we're witnessing it in the US (from a distance). Why did Timothy McVeigh blow up that building in Oklahoma?

2) International Power Politics. What threatens this world more than anything else is the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, still practiced by this worlds superpowers. Call it McDonalds, call it human rights, call it NATO, call it Live Aid. Imperialism, export of western ideas, capitalism and weapons. Another superpower will contribute to the bloc-policies that threatens stability and peace in this world. It is getting out of hand. Why? -because these so-called democracies are fake, swept in old clothings of ideology. And if there's something dangerous, its ideology. Especially ideologies of race, nationality and superiority.

3) Ressources. The western world swallows up huge amounts of ressources, qua the typical consumers lifestyle in the west. Increasing demands on public welfare and justice, and the enormous bureaucracy needed to administrate these goods, and this includes the transnational corporations, become too big to be profitable. In other words, western democratic capitalism as we know it faces bankruptcy. Some say within 20-30 years. Others perhaps 50-100 years. At the same time, the third world reproduces itself at an alarming rate, and Europe could very well end up swarming with poor immigrants and refugees from these places, which threatens the economic stability even more. Europe and US are already now facing these problems.

What is needed is not yet another super-government and overnational state. It is smaller, economically self-sustained and stable, independently-governed units, that are flexible enough to meet the shifting demands of these uncertain forecasts. In other words, power in the hands of the governed. Only then will people be able to plan and live their own lives, without relying on the policies of an extremely unstable outside structure like the state or the EU. Policies that become more and more expensive and will force the men in power to employ more and more drastic measures of police, justice and control, to secure these payments. In other words, slavery. If not in the first place of european citizens, then it will be immigrants, those with flatter noses than ourselves, those who get underpaid, abused and thred on.

The next war will be a european civil war, if not those people in high places starts thinking a little careful about the long-winded impacts of their policies, I'm afraid. If not now, then in 50-100 years. I don't like the prospect of my children or grandchildren lying waste to such a war, even if I can live perfectly happy in material luxury right now. Its time for some pretty careful changes.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Lt.Col. Kilgore
Nationalism. Nationalism. Nationalism!

Great to see some common sense around these boards

 

[allan]

Frankly I don't really care what direction Europe sees fit to go in as far as EU or no. I'm not European, so it is not my decision to help make. If I were European, I'd likely be in the camp for national sovereignty (I see much wisdom in what Blaabjerg said above). But the EU is underway, and who knows? It may work out well. Doesn't mean such a concept would everywhere, though. I hope the best for Europe--so if it's a mistake, I hope they learn from it too.

As for language barriers, I'd say India has far more of those, and yet it is a single nation--there's unrest sometimes between groups there, but the nation is not on the verge of falling apart. And it is still a democracy, the military hasn't felt a need to take over, either.

We'll see what happens, but either way I think the US can (and will) deal with it well.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
1) Individual liberty.

Have you not heard of the principle of 'subsidiarity'?

It does make you seem fankly amateruish when launching into something like that without even considering it first.

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
2) International Power Politics.

Are you suggesting we all simply regress into tiny little shells or soemthing?

The EU is not a confrontational organisation such as The Warsaw pact, etc.

If your whole assesment of the situation is based around the idea that the system itself is seriously flawed, I can't really argue with you.

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
3) Ressources.

Hmmmmm, deeply arguable, I'd say.

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
What is needed is not yet another super-government and overnational state.

No-one is suggesting that. I know I'm not.

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
independently-governed units,

Pish. if anything, recent times show us that independant states are ill-equpied to deal with the complexities and problems that face us in the world today. Further intergration and co-operation is the way forward, not by retreating ino little holes and pretending that we can weather storms on our own.

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
that are flexible enough to meet the shifting demands of these uncertain forecasts. In other words, power in the hands of the governed. <snip>

If all is is true, as you say it is, then we may as well just shoot ourselves now. I don't believe there will be an inevitable decline towards barbarism, and I'm sure most other Europeans don't, either. We are undertaking the EU to put an end to it, not start it again.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Greadius
If Socialized health care is so wonderful, why do people in these countries have to wait months for 'critical' medical care?

They do get it, though. And for free, too.

Originally posted by Greadius
How does a socialized program help the innovation of new medicines, drugs and techniques?

Ever heard of 'independant laboratories', 'universities', etc?

Originally posted by Greadius
The only people in America who would benefit from socialized health care are the bottom 20%. That is just not a big enough group of people with enough political clout to make that policy a reality

How, then, can Bush's corporate friends, representing a minimal proportion of the people have every sort of wonder bestowed upon them, then, and this 20% be left with nothing?

Democratic states are becoming more and more oligarchic all the time and it's worrying.

Originally posted by Greadius
Granted, these health packages aren't that great, but that is probably because they closely resemble what American socialized medicine would look like.

If I had to have treatment, I know I would get it, for free. Most medical procedures apart from operations, which can sometime take a while to be undertaken, are done quickly and well.

 

[MrPresident]

The only people in America who would benefit from socialized health care are the bottom 20%.

Exactly. Socialised medicine doesn't remove the private sectors, its still there. People who are prepared to pay for their operation can. They get it done straight away with lots of luxury. However the people who can't afford health care can also get it, free. Saying that socialised health care only helps the bottom 20% is like saying unemployment benefits only help the unemployed.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Exactly. Socialised medicine doesn't remove the private sectors, its still there. People who are prepared to pay for their operation can. They get it done straight away with lots of luxury. However the people who can't afford health care can also get it, free. Saying that socialised health care only helps the bottom 20% is like saying unemployment benefits only help the unemployed.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by Adebisi
You're right! Language will be the biggest issue. Noone is ready to give up their national language. (..)

Have you watched SubTV? The language what finnish youths talk nowadays is rather, ahem,
strange .

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Have you not heard of the principle of 'subsidiarity'? It does make you seem fankly amateruish when launching into something like that without even considering it first.

Are you suggesting we all simply regress into tiny little shells or soemthing?

The EU is not a confrontational organisation such as The Warsaw pact, etc.

If your whole assesment of the situation is based around the idea that the system itself is seriously flawed, I can't really argue with you.

We might be different, in that you obviously have confidence in this system. I have not. This is based on personal experience, as well as an assessment of the order or things in present-day world, rooted in our history. Primarily the history of european colonization and imperialism, which does not lie so far away in the past as most people think. Does the black people forget european slavery and exploitation? Does the japanese forget Hiroshima? -just 2 examples out of 1 zillion.

-What I am saying is, that what might not be a "confrontational" organization right now, might very well become one, all it takes is one Osama Bin Laden. This makes it a very dangerous construction. And an even more dangerous one, when government sees the needs to control its own citizens even further, because of this war against illegal immigration, terrorism, or whatever... Already now we're seeing a rightwinged government in this country legislating for its citizens on grounds of the threat of terror and illegal immigration. (refugees) -This has much more serious consequences for our personal liberties in the long run than people are ready to face right now. But some time, it might come to a clash. I can very easily see it coming.

Pish. if anything, recent times show us that independant states are ill-equpied to deal with the complexities and problems that face us in the world today. Further intergration and co-operation is the way forward, not by retreating ino little holes and pretending that we can weather storms on our own.

International cooperation is not a bad thing. I'm not one of those silly oldtime nationalists, far from it. I say, abandon the whole idea of state, because such a system based on rigid legislation, power and control, is of yesterday. It is simply not flexible enough to deal with the complex problems that face modern societies. I think our societies could be more flexible, if we actually would retreat a little into our own holes and look at and take care of the people we meet there, rather than carry the weight of the world on our shoulders. -could mean more flexible, economically viable, independently acting bodies of people based on their specific situations, problems and interests. There are lots of such bodies in this world, all acting independently of nationstates, be it business corporations, grassroot organizations, the local pub or church. This is the way to go, IMO. One way, at least.

If all is is true, as you say it is, then we may as well just shoot ourselves now. I don't believe there will be an inevitable decline towards barbarism, and I'm sure most other Europeans don't, either. We are undertaking the EU to put an end to it, not start it again.

Yes I know. I don't know about shooting oneself... "Life always finds a way" -but I disagree with the means of going about this business. -And I know I'm in the minority. So don't spank me. See ya around.