Every government is a good representation of its country.

[Rusk]

And would you label the people in the abusive governments (not the people in the abused countries) stupid shitheads?

This is semantics, i already said that they can be labeled by a number of different bad adjectives, depends on the situation, abuse and government.

For example in Russia i would label the liberal opposition as stupid shitheads and weak and impotent.

and right-wing opposition as stupid and naive.

both of those groups are getting abused by Russian government.





Did i misunderstood your question?

 

[RockstarChris]

Do you agree with this quote?

I used to think no, but with the rise of populism in democracies around the world, im now leaning towards a yes.

Get over it she lost.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

An interesting case in point is that the USA doesn't have a left-leaning economic offering. I am pretty sure that a sizable minority of Americans would vote for a euro style Social-Democracy. Yet this doesn't exist in the USA, where politics are dominated by a duopoly. Both democrats and republicans are traditionally very neo-liberal on economics with extremely close ties to industrial groups. Can you imagine a third party emerging with an alternative?

In theory you are right, but IMHO in practice it is, in some instances, unthinkable.

In my opinion if there is one case that we are living in oligarchies and not democracies it's the example I just presented.

Of course, thats why Bernie was so popular in the last election and his campaign had to be sabotaged. The only viable candidates are corporate puppets, and something drastic will have to happen before there is a way for a guy like Bernie to win.

 

[Rod1]

I am not claiming anything, i am going by your logic in the OP.

I said that immigrants are not a representative sample of the parent country, you said you did unless it was a persecuted group.

Then you claim that Indian-Americans arent a representative group, the one who is contradicting itself is you.

But if most bricks are made out of shit, then it will be a shitty house, or maybe not even a house but a shithole. So one would want good bricks to build house with.

So you are calling every individual who lives in a poor country to be pieces of shit?

Yes but then you said that people are shaped by their environment, so the government is shaping people as well so its not really their fault.

Government is composed by people.

Back to the brick example, you can have the best quality materials in the world to build a house, but if the house is built with an improper foundation, everything is going to come down, that doesnt means that the materials themselves are of poor quality but that the house itself was poorly made.

well South Africa is not a good country... still not sure where you are going with this.

Yet it produced Elon Musk, which by all accounts is a succesful individual.

I think i was very clear. Your English is better than mine. You got no excuses.

You are asking me to extrapolate a whole system not an individual to a different system.

 

[Rusk]

I said that immigrants are not a representative sample of the parent country, you said you did unless it was a persecuted group.

Then you claim that Indian-Americans arent a representative group, the one who is contradicting itself is you.

The sample you are presenting comes from a population of 1,3 billions. 18% of worlds population. With many different ethnic groups. If you dont see problem with your example i dont know what to tell you. Even if you take away your huge sample size they are simply an exception to the rule.

So you are calling every individual who lives in a poor country to be pieces of shit?

Please read again what i posted this is not the case at all.

Government is composed by people.

Back to the brick example, you can have the best quality materials in the world to build a house, but if the house is built with an improper foundation, everything is going to come down, that doesnt means that the materials themselves are of poor quality but that the house itself was poorly made.

In our case the material and the builder is the same thing. When it comes to foundation, look at Europe. Every country except perhaps UK had a really shitty foundation. You will see enslavement, famine, wars, deceases. Basically if you look at any (successful) people`s history you will see huge amount of suffering. Suffering is the ultimate foundation, the difference is some people endured other people did not.

Yet it produced Elon Musk, which by all accounts is a succesful individual.

Yes 8% minority in South Africa "produced" Musk.

You are asking me to extrapolate a whole system not an individual to a different system.

Well we are talking about systems here, no?

 

[Rod1]

The sample you are presenting comes from a population of 1,3 billions. 18% of worlds population. With many different ethnic groups. If you dont see problem with your example i dont know what to tell you. Even if you take away your huge sample size they are simply an exception to the rule.

Thats a lot of words for saying "yes" or "no"

Are immigrant groups a proportional representation of the parent population?

Please read again what i posted this is not the case at all.

You said "when the brick is made of shit" and i said that the brick is the individual.

In our case the material and the builder is the same thing. When it comes to foundation, look at Europe. Every country except perhaps UK had a really shitty foundation. You will see enslavement, famine, wars, deceases. Basically if you look at any (successful) people`s history you will see huge amount of suffering. Suffering is the ultimate foundation, the difference is some people endured other people did not.

I wasnt talking about your case in particular, i dont even know where are you from or your background.

Yes 8% minority in South Africa "produced" Musk.

mma3

8% is still part of the country.

Well we are talking about systems here, no?

I was specifically talking about the role of an individual on a different society being different than in their parent society.

Extrapolating all of Somalia to Sweden isnt what i was talking about, its merely an exercise that tries to prove something i wasnt even arguing about.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Do you agree with this quote?

I used to think no, but with the rise of populism in democracies around the world, im now leaning towards a yes.

Monsieur de Maistre's comment reeks of bootstraps and pulling motions.

Sure there are mistakes made by people and their governments are oftentimes a reflection of those mistakes, but for the most part the levers of power are beyond the reach of most people. A vote cast in good faith can turn ruinous if there are unseen, unspoken and undiscovered character flaws, motivations, and manipulations that would have altered that vote.

Its easy to blame Americans on Bush and Trump, but the majority of Americans voted against them and still lost.
Then there is the constant brainwashing of the population. Cult members are usually considered the victims, but of course not without fault.
And finally their is the burning frog metaphor. The youth of today are inheriting a world created by previous generations. To paraphrase His Majesty; if you've got a shitty government, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happen.

So I'd vote, and emphatically so, for "maybe, but not necessarily".

 

[VivaRevolution]

Do you agree with this quote?

I used to think no, but with the rise of populism in democracies around the world, im now leaning towards a yes.

Quite a statement coming from you. What did the people of Mexico do to deserve their government?

In all seriousness. Yes, and no. In more cases then not, shitty governments exist for a lack of action, not as a result of action of the people.

Do you deserve an outcome for inaction?

Not real clear. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I guess I would amend to, people get the government they earned.

 

[Rod1]

Quite a statement coming from you. What did the people of Mexico do to deserve their government?

Tolerate corruption, thinking that laws should be followed discretionally, favoring family and friendship over institutionalism, thinking everyone is the problem but not oneself, etc, etc.

As a collective Mexico is well represented by its government.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Monsieur de Maistre's comment reeks of bootstraps and pulling motions.

Sure there are mistakes made by people and their governments are oftentimes a reflection of those mistakes, but for the most part the levers of power are beyond the reach of most people. A vote cast in good faith can turn ruinous if there are unseen, unspoken and undiscovered character flaws, motivations, and manipulations that would have altered that vote.

Its easy to blame Americans on Bush and Trump, but the majority of Americans voted against them and still lost.
Then there is the constant brainwashing of the population. Cult members are usually considered the victims, but of course not without fault.
And finally their is the burning frog metaphor. The youth of today are inheriting a world created by previous generations. To paraphrase His Majesty; if you've got a shitty government, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happen.

So I'd vote, and emphatically so, for "maybe, but not necessarily".

Boot strap picker uppering, is great as long as people understand this is a solution to micro personal progress. You can improve your own life through boot strap picker uppering.

On a macro level, collective action is necessary. As you said, the levers of power are not freely given.

It comes down to education. I certainly don't trust the government to be the source of that education, which begs the question of how do you have political education from decentralized institutions?

Not an easy problem to solve.

 

[Rod1]

Monsieur de Maistre's comment reeks of bootstraps and pulling motions.

Sure there are mistakes made by people and their governments are oftentimes a reflection of those mistakes, but for the most part the levers of power are beyond the reach of most people. A vote cast in good faith can turn ruinous if there are unseen, unspoken and undiscovered character flaws, motivations, and manipulations that would have altered that vote.

Its easy to blame Americans on Bush and Trump, but the majority of Americans voted against them and still lost.
Then there is the constant brainwashing of the population. Cult members are usually considered the victims, but of course not without fault.
And finally their is the burning frog metaphor. The youth of today are inheriting a world created by previous generations. To paraphrase His Majesty; if you've got a shitty government, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happen.

So I'd vote, and emphatically so, for "maybe, but not necessarily".

Bush and Trump are Americans and tons of Americans followed Bush in their adventurism, not even mentioning the congressional support towards his wars.

 

[spin]

no.

"deserves", rarely has any bearing on this life.

 

[Rusk]

Thats a lot of words for saying "yes" or "no"

Are immigrant groups a proportional representation of the parent population?

I already said yes, but not from a sample of 1,3 billions, and 2nd generation immigration.

You said "when the brick is made of shit" and i said that the brick is the individual.

Dude read again....

I wasnt talking about your case in particular, i dont even know where are you from or your background.

what??? i was not talking about my case either.

8% is still part of the country.

I already made a disclaimer about minorities. Do we really need to go in circles?

I was specifically talking about the role of an individual on a different society being different than in their parent society.

And this is where our disagreement is.

I argued that a Somalian will influence his new society in a Somalian way unless he is pressured to do otherwise. In other words it is up to the host to influence the newcomer unless he does not want the newcomer to influence him. If there are many newcomers it will be harder to do, and they may change the host nation to be as shitty (or as good) as their old country. The reason i was talking about systems is because of the OP (Every country has the government it deserves). So i am not sure where your individual comes into play here, Musk, a super smart somalian, or a gay muslim may not deserve their government, but they are not your average, they are above or below the masses, and its the masses who makes up the country, its the masses who gives government its power.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Bush and Trump are Americans and tons of Americans followed Bush in their adventurism, not even mentioning the congressional support towards his wars.

I get that, but they also lied.
W is the one of the best example of a guy who completely fabricated his platform. He ran as an isolationist...
Then the propaganda from the Administration down to the MSM with bipartisan support....

As @VivaRevolution eluded to; education has been watered down as well.
Laws are written by lobbying groups and pushed through Congress without proper explanation, or oftentimes even acknowledgement, from our media.

I don't find the observation completely without merit, but I don't think you can blame swaths of victims (hyperbole for some governments not so much for others).

 

[MiniCraque]

No, not always.

But it depends on your worldview. When I hear the word "countries" I don't immediately think of political entities, I think of the collection of citizens. That's why I consider myself patriotic, and I don't even really connect that to government at all. I am patriotic in that we are all in this together, as a large group of people.

There are countries all over the planet that still do not have fair democracy, and the citizens are all but helpless to combat the problems they face. So in what way do they deserve their government? They are human beings, and they deserve much better. They did not choose their government and they cannot change their government.

Obviously in some cases that's not true though. In developed nations with fair elections, you get what you deserve for the most part.

I think some nuance is needed here. The statement "every country has the government it deserves", taken literally (which, unfortunatelly, is how most people spin it), is flat out wrong. Government (or even regimes) sometimes change overnight. Did the people not deserve the previous from. Did they change as drastically as the government did? Not likely, I'd say.

There is an interesting way to look at it, even though it was not what the author meant it to be: over time and most importantly, safe from significant outside influences (which can't be said for most countries, but oh well), it is very much true that governments tend to reflect the values groomed amongst the people they represent. If you want a crystal clear example, look at the way the US and Europe branched on different paths after WW2. A lot of that was because the horrors of war significantly changed the way European societies modeled themselves, while the US had a significantly different war experience and drew different conclusions from it.

 

[panamaican]

This is semantics, i already said that they can be labeled by a number of different bad adjectives, depends on the situation, abuse and government.

For example in Russia i would label the liberal opposition as stupid shitheads and weak and impotent.

and right-wing opposition as stupid and naive.

both of those groups are getting abused by Russian government.





Did i misunderstood your question?

You did but you answered it indirectly none-the-less.

 

[HomerThompson]

And would you label the people in the abusive governments (not the people in the abused countries) stupid shitheads?

Sounds to me like it is @Rusk's position that all Russians are stupid shit heads.

 

[Rod1]

I already said yes, but not from a sample of 1,3 billions, and 2nd generation immigration.

Yes but no?

Dude read again....

In the analogy i said bricks are people and you said most bricks are shit.

what??? i was not talking about my case either.

You said Europe and i assumed. Also suffering isnt really a common denominator, since pretty much all nations have suffered and plenty of succesful nations have suffered pretty little (USA) in comparison to others.

I already made a disclaimer about minorities. Do we really need to go in circles?

Every country is made by different minorities, class, education level, professions, etc, etc. These minorities still influence and shape the events of a country.

And this is where our disagreement is.

I argued that a Somalian will influence his new society in a Somalian way unless he is pressured to do otherwise. In other words it is up to the host to influence the newcomer unless he does not want the newcomer to influence him. If there are many newcomers it will be harder to do, and they may change the host nation to be as shitty (or as good) as their old country. The reason i was talking about systems is because of the OP (Every country has the government it deserves). So i am not sure where your individual comes into play here, Musk, a super smart somalian, or a gay muslim may not deserve their government, but they are not your average, they are above or below the masses, and its the masses who makes up the country, its the masses who gives government its power.

The issue is that you are talking about hypotheticals "what is a random Somalian was dropped in a random Swedish place" while i am talking about real case scenarios "Economic immigrants from poor countries moving into countries looking for work".

As i have said before, nobody is moving to America to become a hobo.

America isnt getting random people, they are getting people with marketeable skills.

 

[Son of Jamin]

Was it a lie though, or a mistake? I think it was the latter. The people who sold those ideas, they're dispassionate technocrat types. They see people as numbers on a page, just move some here and a few others there and things align perfectly on their spreadsheets. But people aren't just numbers and we don't live in spreadsheets so there were unforeseen consequences facilitated by ideological blinders.

But that raises yet another question.

How long will it be acceptable to call it a mistake before it is either due to ideological blinkers or intentional?

The most flagrant example of this is how the most prestigious newspaper in Sweden (Daily News) said in a headline that Sandviken (a small municipality) makes billions on taking on many immigrants. Fast forward two or three years and the economy is in rut and people are afraid of going outside due to crime. It's just one example but it was used by politicians and other media to justify mass-immigration.

 

[Trotsky]

Do you agree with this quote?

I used to think no, but with the rise of populism in democracies around the world, im now leaning towards a yes.

In a pre-international era? Perhaps.

But to say that now is, in my opinion, extremely obtuse. You think that all the Latin American countries whose democratic aims were undermined by the United States thereafter deserved the following governmental regimes? You think countries like El Salvador and Chile deserved what the US gave them? You think Iran deserves to live under a theocratic quasi-autocracy because the United States ousted their elected social democratic leader? When the premises that lead to a conclusion were posited not by the people but by outside interference, it seems kind of silly to then hold the conclusion as representative of the native population.