France's Authoritarian Establishment Faces Off Against the Even Uglier Authoritarianism of the Far Right
French President Emmanuel Macron is authoritarian-light. Candidate Marine Le Pen is worse.

This Sunday, French voters will decide on their next president. While most of the country and the rest of the world are united, for valid reasons, against populist Marine Le Pen, the truth of the matter is that voters have a choice between two shades of illiberalism: the aggressively populist one of Le Front National and its authoritarianism-light version represented by incumbent President Emmanuel Macron.
Le Pen is everything observers around the world are saying she is. She is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, taking positions among the worst that populism has to offer. She's also obsessed with "wokisme," a catchall word for the "leftist" ideologies she dislikes. Unsurprisingly, she admires Hungary's authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban, and would happily follow in his footsteps by imposing his economic policies, as well as his practice of using whatever powers necessary to crush the opposition.
Le Pen is far more polished than her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Founder of the Front National, Jean-Marie is a diehard antisemite who called the Holocaust a mere "detail" of history. But this polish only makes her more dangerous. And while her critics call her a far-right candidate, on economic issues, she's a typical French statist, favorable to large spending and centralization of powers.
She is without a doubt an authoritarian, and more authoritarianism would be bad news for France. Yet it doesn't follow that her opponent represents liberal governance even if he compares favorably to her.
Their main differences come from their geopolitical stances. On the international stage, Macron comes across as a globalist who embraces liberal democratic values. In 2018, following Hungary and Poland's moves toward authoritarianism, Macron told the European Parliament, "In the face of authoritarianism, the response is not authoritarian democracy but the authority of democracy." Unlike Le Pen, he supports NATO and other international organizations. However, he seems to be less willing to criticize Russia's actions in Ukraine when compared to other Western leaders.
On economic issues, the difference between them is less pronounced than people believe. While Macron talked in vain about reforming the French retirement system, he is actually a big spender with a propensity for overregulation, though he did reform the wealth tax.
Unfortunately, Macron's actions while in office have also exposed him as an authoritarian-light. Under Macron, the French have lived in a state of permanent emergency. When he was elected in 2017, he let expire some of the emergency powers put in place after the terrorist attacks of November 2015. But other anti-civil liberty police and military powers were made permanent. These new powers were deployed when the police fired rubber ball-shaped projectiles—a practice forbidden by other European countries—and dispersal "sting-ball" grenades against yellow vest demonstrators protesting another green tax on gas.
Under Macron, the Avia rule forbid any speech deemed hateful, without any legal definition of what "hateful" means. The Conseil Constitution voided it for being anti-constitutional. Macron also favors the "Fake News" rule, based on the idea that voters are wise enough to distinguish a good politician from a bad one but too naive to make a similar distinction when it comes to news.
In 2020, COVID-19 gave Macron another excuse to re-up the state of emergency. As a result, the French endured curfews for months on end, restrictions on going more than three miles from home without filling out a form, indoor and outdoor mask mandates, vaccine mandates and an explicit commitment to make the lives of the unvaccinated "miserable." Some of these measures were enforced by French police and punishing fines.
Meanwhile, the state consumes 62 percent of France's GDP, public hospitals are in shambles with fewer beds and workers than before COVID-19, and—as the French like to say—"everything that is not forbidden is mandated." This record explains why Macron's having a difficult time convincing the electorate that voting for him is voting for liberalism.
Macron is clearly still the more liberal candidate. However, if he wins, it will not be a mandate that he is governing wisely. If he fails to change, it's only a matter of time before France elects an authoritarian—one quite likely worse than Le Pen.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Jean-Marie is a diehard antisemite who called the Holocaust a mere "detail" of history."
Can you link to the source material for these quotes, I would like to believe that a writer for reason wouldn't take a statement out of context, but over the last 8 ish years you all have gotten to the point where nothing you say can be taken at face value
It's true: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/jean-marie-le-pen-fined-again-dismissing-holocaust-detail
What I find interesting is the original quote doesn't appear in the article.
I really don't know much about the Le Pen family history. And he might be... a vicious anti-Semite. But I've become so skeptical of everything in the media because they like to use ellipses to cut out... you know, that part of the quote or statement that changes the significance (as Mr. Hitchens puts it) that I really need to see the full quote with context myself to judge.
For instance, depending on how he used 'detail' of WWII in the context of the Holocaust, it might make him merely an asshole, instead of an anti-Semite.
According to the Washington Post, being anti-Semitic is fine if they perceive Jews as the enemy. Besides their
moral relativisticAce reporter, Taylor Lorenz, of PTSD fame for being doxxed, was defended by WahPutz with “an accomplished and diligent” jurinalist. So clearly there are Authoritarian-Light and there are “accomplished and diligent” Authoritarians.“Orthodox rabbis demand apology from Washington Post after identifying Libs of TikTok owner as Orthodox Jew”
https://news.yahoo.com/orthodox-rabbis-demand-apology-washington-004822131.html
^ This
Antisemitic speech is okay if it comes from an establishment Oracle.
Also in any intersectionality discussion involving Muslims.
Or a newly anointed victim class...
https://twitter.com/GarlandNixon/status/1516946116029427716?t=9FpG4GhsewTzvN-E8QgYTw&s=19
Ukrainian refugees are defacing holocaust memorials in Germany.... Wow, who saw that coming?
It isn't a quote. It was TV appearance in 2015 (April I think). Im sure it's on YouTube. In French.
If you're sure about everything you could link it to verify.
What I find interesting is the original quote doesn't appear in the article.
Never in the history of journalism has a journalist been able to provide a direct quote that didn't originally appear, as written, by the author.
Are you so stupid you think it is impossible to quote something out of a TV appearance?
As Brigitte Bardot would say: "It's twue! It's twue!"
It's weird too, because people throw around anti-Semite fairly liberally in the US, sometimes for borderline or ridiculous things.
But in Europe when someone is anti-Semitic, damn, they are anti-Semitic. It's a much bigger issue there overall and goes into a core difficulty of comparing the US vs. Europe in many things. There are real and true cultural differences at this point that are significant.
I still am missing the context and the full quote. I'm skeptical enough that I believe it's misrepresenting things.
You're right.
The Guardian article says he called the holocaust a "detail" but doesn't give the actual quote, the context of the quote, why saying it's a detail of history is bad, or why it is was regarded as antisemitic.
Now I'm fully prepared to believe that he is antisemitic. For most Frenchmen it's as natural as breathing. But the fact that his accusers refuse to specify anything, makes me super suspicious.
FWIW her pronouns are she/her.
Sorry strike that. Marie/Marine confusion.
Exactly this.
The word 'detail', depending on the use, might make him an asshole. It might make him ignorant of history. It might make him aggressively stupid. it might make him insensitive. It also might make him a vicious anti-Semite.
But the fact that everyone (including Reason) just keeps saying "Tom Cotton said slavery was a necessary evil" without providing the full quote, makes me skeptical because journalists as a class are notoriously lazy, agenda driven and ignorant. So it's not incumbent upon me to prove he's not an anti-Semite, it's incumbent upon them to prove that he is.
Evil, with today's journalists tou forgot evil because these mischaracterizations are deliberate to further an agenda.
^Yup, evil.
De Rugy knows what she's doing is decietful and wrong.
It doesn't even matter. Jean-Marie Le Pen isn't running for office. He's not even in Marine's party, as I understand it. It's an attempt to smear Marine Le Pen as antisemitic without lying and literally calling her an antisemite.
He's not even in Marine's party
Correction, he was suspended over his antisemitic remarks and then ousted a couple of years later while Marine was in charge.
So he was ousted by his daughter over what DE rugby uses to try and smear her?
This is why reason isn't to be trusted
Jean-Marie Le Pen... has once again been convicted of contesting crimes against humanity for saying the gas chambers used to kill Jews in the Holocaust were a “detail” of history...
It was last April’s interview that sparked a bitter family feud with his daughter and successor as party leader, Marine Le Pen, who moved to expel him from the party...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/jean-marie-le-pen-fined-again-dismissing-holocaust-detail
De Rugy is a propagandist.
It doesn't even matter. Jean-Marie Le Pen isn't running for office.
Just like Hunter Biden doesn't even matter.
That's a whopper, even for you.
Hunter Biden being a sleezy crack addict with a taste for underage girls is not relevant to Joe Biden's candidacy. Hunter Biden's emails directly implicating Joe Biden in an international corruption scandal is.
Hunter Biden's emails directly implicating Joe Biden in an international corruption scandal is.
uh huh
Uh huh, Jeffy.
Interesting how you deliberately ignore the pay for play emails which indict Joe.
Hunters emails show he was working with and finding his dad. Their accountant his said they had mixed bank accounts. Biden flew hunter on AF2 to meet Chinese business people.
Try again.
Facts don’t matter to Lying Jeffy.
Just like Hunter Biden doesn't even matter.
Let's pretend for a moment that Marine Le Pen wrote Jean Marie Le Pen's speech...
There, that puts it in the proper context.
If Hunter Biden were merely a crack addict who got on the board of Nabisco, that would be one thing. But Hunter Biden is a crack addict that got on the board of a Ukrainian Oil company in the middle of an investigation that involved his father as Vice President of the United States, with emails that... by inference, implicate his father.
good one!
Speaking of Authoritarians dogpiling on Authoritarians, I had to pass the one along. This is funny, I don't care who you are:
China calls on Sweden to respect the religious beliefs of Muslims over Quran burning incident
https://nextshark.com/china-condemns-quran-burning-sweden/
"I felt a great disturbance, as if millions of Uighur cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
Another cynically humorous part of this story is that the very Muslim nations that denounce the Qu'ran-burning in Sweden equally have nothing to say about Red China's treatment of the Uighurs. To them, a Goddamn book is more important than a life.
All this said, the best way to deride a "holy" book is not to burn it, but to read it verbatim on a street corner and snort, chortle, snicker, and guffaw between verses. Maybe put the more grim passages on black billboards, with attribution to God or Allah or other fill-in-the-blank Omnific Asshole.
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Le Pen is everything observers around the world are saying she is. She is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, taking positions among the worst that populism has to offer. She's also obsessed with "wokisme," a catchall word for the "leftist" ideologies she dislikes.
Stop supporting, cheering, apologizing for or generally pretending the miasma that is "wokeism" doesn't exist, and you'll stop getting "populist" knee jerks in reaction to it.
It's unpopular, normal people don't like it, it's toxic, racist, anti-enlightenment, anti-reason and destroys everything that finds itself enshrouded with it, and for the love of Pete, learn to find the point on the map when "the left" go too far. Once again, we seem pretty confident on when the right goes too far, but we can't seem to ever find that place where the left goes too far. And that's why we're in this mess.
Well stated!
The reason evil tyranical pseudo fascist regimes are on the rise all over the world and threatening our democracies more and more is because the so called leaders of our democracies actually prefer fascist tyranny. What they really love is money and profits....if China and Russia can get them the profits they want, they will gladly support those evil regimes.
This was a hatchet job by Dr. DeRugy, not an intelligent discussion of how views differ between Macron and LePen.
Pardon me Dr. DeRugy, didn't you say at one time you were libertarian?
"She is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim"
I don't get it. Whats the problem?
That makes her Authoritarian, as opposed to the politicians who extralegally implement unlimited immigration.
Bad beliefs are bad when they go against your betters beliefs
The writers at Charlie Hebdo would tell you but they've been made unavailable for comment.
Putin's greatest warning to the West yet: Russia unveils first image of its Satan 2 super-nuke that is capable of wiping out England and Wales and 2,000 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb
The RS-28 Sarmat missile, dubbed Satan 2, will replace the SS-18
Flies at 4.3 miles (7km) per sec and with a range of 6,213 miles (10,000km)
The weapons are perceived as part of an increasingly aggressive Russia
It could deliver a warhead of 40 megatons - 2,000 times as powerful as the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3870192/Russia-unveils-image-terrifying-Satan-2-missile-Super-nuke-destroy-area-size-FRANCE.html
Alright. Let's be honest. Other than Eva Green and some choice cheeses, would anyone really miss France?
I have to confess I wouldn't miss Eva Green, but I admit my tastes may be somewhat more pedestrian.
What about stinky cheese?
Let's be honest. Does anyone actually think Russia's military and political classes have any credibility left after these last two months? Does anyone have any respect for their most basic core competency?
I honestly don't know how to answer this question. The sanctions against Russia have made me realize that literally no one in a policy-making position of power in the West has ANY basic core competency.
What else are they supposed to do? Seriously.
What they claimed they were going to achieve with the sanctions would be the bare minimum.
Do and achieve are different things. Putin did but didn't achieve. So did everyone else, apparently.
This isn't hard. We can start with Biden's own public claim, that the Ruble (Rouble) would be Rubble. Well, that about wraps it up for #1.
Just one small example of how no one in the administration had any idea what they were doing when they sanctioned Russia:
That assumes they had a lot of credibility to begin with. Their political class has always been a model of corruption, and their military hasn't had a great victory since they took Berlin.
Does anyone have any respect for their most basic core competency?
Are you speaking of Russia, the United States Congress, White House current occupant, the CDC, the DOJ or the legacy media? It is hard to keep track of so many entities lacking basic core competencies. Thankfully we have cloth masks to decorate our beleaguered faces
Is this article NATO or Russian propaganda?
It's so hard to tell anymore.
That would take out a lot of wonderful Muslim immigrants. Why are you so racist?
LOL
Suck that totalitarian globalist dick, you worthless cunt.
Veronique is as evil as the rest of Goebbels' pomo disciples.
They should fire the writers and replace them with bots.
It might improve the quality.
Then you can quit your job at riteaid and make $300 an hour to spend on Eastern European trannie hookers.
I know I'm missing a few but those are the most common bots
The bots and the whores they advertise have more journalistic integrity and higher ethical standards than this crew of Reasonistas.
Under Macron, the French have lived in a state of permanent emergency.
By the by, everything in this article after this sentence justifies removing Macron from power.
It's only an enabling act when Literally Hitler's do it.
to be replaced by LaPen's permanent state of emergency?
"Le Pen is undoubtedly authoritarian"
.... followed by five paragraphs outlining all the authoritarian over-reaches of Macron. amazing
Did I tell you about the pain in my hip?
Yeah, about five minutes ago.
Well it's worse now...
Le Pen is everything observers around the world are saying she is.
This is a weird statement that doesn't help illuminate anything about Le Pen. Which observers? The "right" observers or the "wrong" observers?
Because just so you know, this is why, after NOT voting for Donald Trump in 2016, I voted for him in 2020, because after four years, I realized that nearly everything 'observers said about Trump' was either a lie, wrong, purposefully taken out of context, or just flat out made up.
Because just so you know, this is why, after NOT voting for Donald Trump in 2016, I voted for him in 2020…
Cue the clip of the stoning scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5YU_spBw0
I'd have a LOT more respect for writers who were as profligate with "far right" as they are with "far left". Marxists are farther left than Le Pen is far right. Self-proclaimed socialists are farther left than Le Pen is far right.
It goes hand in hand with dismissing wokism as an insult. Wokism is farther left the Le Pen is far right; they want to cancel free speech, bring back state-mandated racism and segregation, destroy capitalism, and destroy individual rights.
It's practically mainstream on the left to want to destroy the nation state, end global capitalism, eliminate international borders and crush the Nuclear family. But it's "far right" to want to slow down immigration.
People like you two are the reason we can't have a productive conversation on this topic. You are not honest. Or you're just stupid.
Bernie Sanders is definitely "far left" but we have never elected a far left POTUS. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were free trade, deficit cutting, market supporters. Solid centrists. That is why progressives hated both of them.
Likewise the Bushes were global centrists. That is why conservatives hated them. Progressives wrongly accused Dubya was "far right". Dubya loved government programs like Medicare Welfare.
If you would be honest for once I would be surprised. Call a centrist a centrist and I will call Bernie Sanders what he is - a Marxist/socialist.
Likewise the Bushes were global centrists. That is why conservatives hated them. Progressives wrongly accused Dubya was "far right". Dubya loved government programs like Medicare Welfare.
Show me a "compassionate conservative" and I'll show you a progressive who opposes abortion.
Between immigration "reform", Harriet Myers, TARP, Medicare Welfare, Mortgage Downpayment Gifts, AIDS in Africa, and the Iraq War it is no wonder today's conservatives despise Dubya.
Tell us how Biden is a moderate again shrike.
Biden campaigned against Bernie's Medicare for All and AOC's Green New Deal.
I know you ignore that fact on purpose.
The GND was in in his campaign platform. Biden has talked about expanding medicare multiple times and expanding ACA.
Try again.
Joe Biden rejects Green New Deal and other progressive policies in debate, irking activists
Biden disavowed the Green New Deal in Tuesday’s debate and rejected “Medicare for All.” He refused to answer when moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News asked if he would support some Democrats’ calls to end the Senate filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.
The former vice president then doubled down on his lack of support for Medicare for All and touted his own climate change proposal, the “Biden Green Deal,” while speaking to reporters Wednesday in Alliance, Ohio.
You're such a liar.
So you avoided his actual campaign website. Interesting.
https://slate.com/business/2020/07/joe-bidens-climate-plan-is-the-green-new-deal-minus-the-crazy.html
"Minus the Crazy" - all the AOC bullshit. 90% of her sorry ass bill.
Do you read your own links?
Did you read the 2 trillion dollar American jobs act? Lol.
I get idiots like you fall for propaganda. By just attaching it as "the same without the crazy" makes you think it is different. It isnt. Look at the details of his bill.
This is like idiots who say communism or socialism has never been tried.
When will you understand youre a gullible idiot shrike?
You obviously didn't.
"Biden’s primary season climate plan included some of those pillars, and even referred to the Green New Deal as a “crucial framework,” but the new version adopts it much more fully. The candidate’s original platform called for $1.7 trillion in spending over 10 years, and set a goal of zero net emissions by 2050. The new edition ups the price tag to $2 trillion over four years (there’s your massive spending), and aims to scrub carbon from the electricity sector by 2035 using a clean energy standard for utilities (there’s your mandate)."
Now mind you I'm using left leaning site on top of his actual campaign website which has been linked here many many times.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/20/joe-biden-has-endorsed-the-green-new-deal-in-all-but-name
Do I need to go on?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/green-new-deal-influence-american-jobs-plan/
Because I can do this all day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/biden-climate-plan.html
This is embarrassing shrike.
Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/
"This is embarrassing shrike"
If he were capable of shame he would've stopped posting when he was first banned for posting kiddie porn links.
First off, your analysis is bonkers.
Second, you repeat the same error. When was the last time any part of the media called Berni "far left"? Or AOC, Lizzie, or *any* Marxian academic?
Yet anyone to the right of Stalin is far right.
Suck off, pig.
I called them "far left and Marxist. I know the media doesn't.
But conservatives are the full time liars here. I have heard wingnuts call our best capitalists "socialist" - like Warren Buffett and Soros.
It is like anyone who doesn't suck Trump cock is a "socialist" to them.
Soros is a NATIONAL Socialist.
And you're a fucking moron.
Next you’ll be denying you posted a link to child porn.
In the 40's was Soros a member of the Hitler Youth or not, Shrike?
We'll just ignore the Hillary-supporting center-left paper of record loudly promoting the 1619 project. You know, because we're all friends here.
People like you are why we have to watch our children
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were free trade, deficit cutting, market supporters. Solid centrists. That is why progressives hated both of them.
Clinton was pushing for National healthcare when the democrat congress was pulled out from under him and had to spend his remaining years frolicking as a libertine and turned to warmongering when he was impeached. He dropped bombs on Baghdad the very same day. IF progressives hated Clinton they had the opportunity to rid themselves of him and replacing him with Gore.
Obama nationalized the auto industry, pumped 20 billion tax dollars propping up the UAW. He fired GM's CEO and his replacement still sits in the seat. He handed over Chrysler to Fiat. No progressive anywhere hates Obama.
The Bushes were and are big government globalist warmongers. As Sevo says
You
are
full
of
shit.
You are completely full of shit.
TARP nationalized a lot of banking and other stuff but was a BUSH program. Did Obama use part of TARP to loan money to GM? Yes, and taxpayers made got their money back.
Both Clinton and Obama were the only presidents who claimed to care about deficits and then reduced them. The GOP has been dreadful on deficits. The old CT that conservatives WANT to bankrupt the country has merit.
GM is profitable today and wholly owned by private entities. Yes, Obama save the auto industry by NOT nationalizing it.
Taxpayers did not get their money back you lying feckless fag. They got billions they never paid back.
Neither Clinton nor Obama nor Bush nor Trump nor Biden gave or gives a shit about deficits.
Clinton and Obama were hemmed in by midterm takeovers of the congress by republicans clipping of their spending sprees.
GM has fallen from 1st largest vehicle manufacturer to 6th. And Obama's girl CEO isn't going to turn that around.
What's sad, or funny, is that every one of those policy positions is, populist within their in-group.
Hitler was "far right". Le Pen is center right.
Not by media standards. Hitler was as right as Stalin was left. Every Marxist is as far left as Stalin. Yet none of them are ever labeled "far left", and Hitler would never be merely "far right".
There certainly is a double standard in usage by the media..
We agree on that. Which is fucking amazing.
Le Pen is everything observers around the world are saying she is. She is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, taking positions among the worst that populism has to offer.
When I see something like this, I'm 99% convinced it's a lie, even though I know nothing about Le Pen. It puts up my guard that I'm about to someone horribly misrepresented or taken out of context.
Le Pen is far more polished than her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Founder of the Front National, Jean-Marie is a diehard antisemite who called the Holocaust a mere "detail" of history
Like that, for example, is I'm sure not at all a spin or distortion of something he said taken out of context. I'm sure it means he's secretly pro Holocaust and absolutely in favor of rounding up people he doesn't like and gassing them. He's probably said as much. I'll read on.
She is without a doubt an authoritarian, and more authoritarianism would be bad news for France.
Oh, good, this is doubtless the part where you back up this claim by providing evidence of her positions or things she said in full context. I'm looking forward to learning more about how she's an authoritarian shitstain who is bad for France, instead of having to take you at your word that your assertions are accurate.
Oh, wait...the rest of the article is just including examples that prove that Macron is an authoritarian who has actually pushed France into being a repressive hellhole. He's stopped out protestors who have issues with government policies and repressed free speech. But somehow I'm supposed to believe Le Pen is just as bad or worse without one single example that supports it.
Learn to fucking write, or learn to fucking code.
The writers here are what happens to those who took the Tide Pod challenge and made it a way of life.
public hospitals are in shambles with fewer beds and workers than before COVID-19
Unpossible! Socialized health care is flawless in its intentions!
Good intentions are more important than actual outcomes. Check your woke bible.
My impression of Le Pen after reading this article is much like my impression of Trump in 2016. I have no idea what she would actually do if elected, but she certainly has all the right enemies.
^this.
In many ways, this is most important. I trusted Trump far more than either Obama or Biden because I knew that no one would cover for him. If he did something stupid, he would be called out.
To compare, we now know Obama tolerated outright bribery in his office by his second in command, and the national media didn't say a word. Looking back, I can't trust any of his presidency because I know I wasn't hearing the whole story.
We need an adversarial system to have balance and keep people from getting too powerful. So even if Le Pen is somewhat worse personally, she will at least be kept in check by her opponents, leading to the system working better.
The natural pushback to Uber globalists is always going to be nationalism and populism. There needs to be a balance. The globalists have dominated politics since the 1990s, the pendulum is going to swing hard the other direction. Probably much harder than any sane person would want, but it's only natural.
What is happening is the classical class struggle. Globalists tend to be elitists, who come from a background most workers and citizens won't achieve and don't enjoy. Global worries tend to be abstract to most voters, who are far more concerned about local conditions. It's easier to worry about abstract conditions when one has more than adequate resources, much more difficult when one lives paycheck to paycheck. Our founders realized the fact that politics tends to be local, and that there needs to be mechanism in place that local doesn't replace/dominate big picture, while also realizing that big picture can't dominate local. It's obvious from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that they favored a system that attempted to balance the two. This has led to conflict between local vs national, but that conflict is a good thing. It's a necessary thing. The problem is we've come to believe conflict is always a negative thing, but conflict and stress is how evolution occurs, including cultural and societal evolution.
Globalism is not an inheritently positive thing, nor is nationalism an inheritently evil. Instead a balance between the two is desirable. Many believe in a utopian ideal of an united world that conflict has been eliminated from. But I believe such a world would be much less free, much less concerned about individual liberty and much more focused on universal good. It would almost have to be by it's nature. To function it would require conformity. It would likely become stagnant, moribund and hidebound. The promise of the Wilsonian Progressive Globalists is unlikely ever to be achieved, and that is a good thing. It won't be the Star Trek federation, it's far more likely to be 1984 and the forced uniformity of the Soviet Union and Communist China. And we can see evidence of that from the actions of the current globalists like Macron, Trudeau, Biden, Obama etc. You question Hungary, Romania, Poland etc, and why they have gone nationalist? It's because they have already suffered under a globalist regime and know what that entails.
Globalism is the future, or we have none, don't kid yourself. Hopefully it can be done rationally and with freedom maximized. One can take some hope in the fact that with increased globalism since WWII, more people live in democracies and with more freedom than in any previous age, including the nationalistic 30's that led to WWII. Even today, the supposed "populist" countries of eastern Europe have less freedom than their western European counterparts. The leader of Hungary was just reelected primarily because he controls almost all of the media and press in the country.
As to local vs large picture, well, not exactly soldier. Americans don't know fuck about their local and state legislatures and leaders while they are much more likely to know about their national leaders and Congressional representatives. National issues are followed much more closely as local newspapers and reporting are dying. A prime example of this is that a study a couple of years ago found that those most concerned with immigration in America are those who live farther from the borders who interact the least with immigrants.
Increased globalism is the only way we will solve major problems like global warming and nuclear destruction and fortunately the young are most attuned to these issues and the possibilities for world cooperation. Humans have survived and flourished because of our ability to adapt, but also to cooperate. Competition is an important ingredient for advancement, but not taken to the extremes of nationalistic triumph. Those days are dead or we are.
Correct.
When Europe or China can veto one US company from buying another (they blocked the GE purchase of Honeywell) you know global agreement is vital.
Due to capitalism today - balance sheets are more important than borders are.
That is just the way it is.
I understand why populists hate globalism though. But they are the ones who hated it when Obama de-nuked Iran.
Thank you for admitting you are a globalist and not a libertarian. You can stop pretending now.
Globalism by definition removes individual liberty away from the individual.
I see you are also against capitalism. So thank you for also admitting that.
You're full of shit.
As a capitalist I know that the US can produce any product faster and cheaper than any other country. But tariffs corrupt that.
A global free trade agreement is consistent with my classic liberal values.
You're the anti-libertarian protectionist. Trump has rotted your brain with his love of tariffs and content requirements.
the US can produce any product faster and cheaper than any other country. But tariffs corrupt that.
Think through this logically. Go ahead, work it out.
I am not a protectionist. But I also understand economic theory has changed since the 1800s through the discussion of Game Theory and understand that allowing an anti-free market actor to go forth unimpeded just promotes more bad actors.
In a world where supply chain shifts happen, tariffs to protect against IP theft, currency manipulation, etc are valid. Tariffs to simply induce trade balancing is not. You are free to read up on modern economic theory and AI competitions regarding it. The tit for tat strategy usually comes out on top. Not ignoring bad acts.
So try again.
But I also understand economic theory has changed since the 1800s through the discussion of Game Theory and understand that allowing an anti-free market actor to go forth unimpeded just promotes more bad actors.
So you reject Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Bastiat, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Friedman...
Holy shit. Talk about an idiotic misreading.
Does saying physics has changed or evolved since Newton mean his initial premises are entirely wrong?
God damn sarc, please be defending shrike the hill to die on.
How is that a misreading? You're quick to insult and belittle anyone who mentions Smith or Bastiat. From that I infer that you reject their economics.
Because you don't understand how theories change over time. Answer the Newton question.
Smith and Bastiat essentially stayed within the theoretical realm. Economic theory has evolved since then dummy.
I laugh at you quoting bastiat because all you've ever read is various quotes based on your talking points.
Bastiat especially didn't think past 1st order effects of trade theory such as excluding downstream effects like the reduction of internal research as dollars move to security and protection of business. If you read him you'd understand that.
You know it's possible to have a conversation with someone without calling them names. If you did that then maybe people would be interested in what you say. They might say something like "You know more about something than I do. Tell me more."
Instead they think "This guy is a jerk. Fuck him and whatever the fuck he was saying."
How fucking childish are you? You admit to creating a childish misreading of my comment to try to score a point then act like a crying baby when I call you out. Lol.
I see you ignored the rest of the response. Is it because I was right? Dumbass.
And of you wanted an honest response you would ask for an example of what I meant and I'd be happy to give you a half dozen books on the evolution of this or links to AI driven economic games. That is not what you did.
I stopped at "dummy."
Jesse is an avid supporter of Trump economics - aka the King of Debt.
HUGE deficits, big government spending, tariffs, and protectionism.
Cite? Because I called put his spending. But I also correctly state they were veto proof bills.
It helps to understand how government works dummy.
I think he knows more about economics than I do, but because he likes to call me names whenever the subject comes up I don't ask him about it. Why should I?
Jesse read on some right-wing blog some pseudo-intellectual rationale using buzz words like "game theory" to justify getting rid of free trade, so he can continue on being a good footsoldier for Team Red as they march into mercantilism while still pretending to have an intellectual reason for his viewpoint.
It looked to me like he sees the global economy as contest between nations. If it's a game then who are the players? Must be countries, right? That seems more pre-1800 than post.
It is amazing watching people discuss my ideas without citations lol. I cite your past comments.
What else could game theory mean in the context of global trade and tariffs, JesseAz?
Please enlighten me.
https://www.economicshelp.org/university/game-theory/
Start by learning what it is. Then grab a book from Amazon. When I get home I can give you titles if truly interested.
By the most simplistic all tariffs are bad models declare all tariffs a tax on consumers. But extend this to domestic trade and cops. Spending tax dollars to defend theft is also a tax on consumers indirectly. It is basically the same issue to defend against all tariffs.
From an international standpoint international theft from countries like China costs US businesses billions of dollars a year. Dwarfing taxes on tariffs. On top of that domestic costs increase due to increased security and protection costs, a second order effect. Another one is these costs then reduce profit often diverted to IRAD efforts. This is the same claim used to allow patents, a set time frame to allow for.
Being singularly principled in no tariffs you would also have to be against all patents as well to remain consistent. I doubt you think patents are intrinsically bad and will admit it functions to increase research from companies, yes or no?
Game theory applies, and is seen in economics, through various games and competitions that try to find the ideal level of behaviors between 2 actors in the economic realm. Almost exclusionary the algorithms built around for tit for tat behaviors end up the winners as they don't allow bad actors to populate the game and exclude them from market creating more idealized and beneficial outcomes.
This research is deep and spanning almost 70 years at this point. As a CS major it should interest you if you actually care to research.
Thanks for not being a jerk. I don't know if you're on a phone or what, but some of that was intelligible. I'll look over the link you provided.
Wait, Jesse said something intelligent? Without insults or ad-hominems? Is this bizarro Jesse or something?
Wait, Jesse said something intelligent? Without insults or ad-hominems?
Pretty cool, huh?
Don't complain.
I looked it over and I'm not persuaded. It doesn't negate general principles if that was the intent. I'm still convinced that in the long run, even unilateral free trade is best from the point of view of consumers. That's me. A consumer.
There are other points of view.
The problem is that the system requires consumers with enough expendable wealth to spend. This requires a strong middle class, which usually requires a strong manufacturing base, agricultural base and commodity acquisition base. If you continue to trade with nations that undercut, through nefarious means, the costs of these bases, such that they are relocated, you destroy the middle class, and thus your consumers. Recognizing bad trade partners is vital to a strong economy. Rewarding bad trade partners only results in imbalanced trade and eventual destruction of your consumers.
sarcasmic
April.21.2022 at 6:52 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Thanks for not being a jerk. I don't know if you're on a phone or what, but some of that was intelligible. I'll look over the link you provided.
Lolwut?
I wrote in plain English dummy. What concept or example was difficult? What word do you not kno
chemjeff radical individualist
April.21.2022 at 7:12 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Wait, Jesse said something intelligent? Without insults or ad-hominems? Is this bizarro Jesse or something?
Amazing when someone asks for an opinion instead of projecting sophistry an an argument. Maybe you two should try honest argumentation without rationalization of leftist policies through sophistry.
sarcasmic
April.21.2022 at 7:50 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I looked it over and I'm not persuaded
Make up your fucking mind. Was it unintelligible or unpersuasive. You are free to educate yourself on modern economic theory which you clearly have no interest in from your responses.
Amazing when someone asks for an opinion instead of projecting sophistry an an argument. Maybe you two should try honest argumentation without rationalization of leftist policies through sophistry.
Jesse, it is not "sophistry" to present valid hypothetical situations in order to illustrate a point. You misuse the term because you don't want to engage in the discussion, probably because the hypothetical situation makes you uncomfortable. Maybe you could actually engage in the argument instead of throw invectives.
Jeff. Google economic game theory. There are dozens of books on it so you can educate yourself.
But you and sarc seem to be using ignorance as a defense to the realization that bad actors in a free market unimpeded leads to more bad actors.
Example.
Mob opens up business X selling goods stolen from business Y at half the price of business Y. Under your theory of economics nothing should be done because consumers can buy stolen goods more cheaply. That is until business Y shuts down and stops investing in research and development of better goods. This is literally where your purile beliefs in economics lead.
This goes for you as well sarc.
When did anyone endorse theft? Find another strawman to attack.
What the fuck do you think retaliatory tariffs are in response to dummy?
Retaliatory tariffs are in response to LOTS of things, not just alleged theft. In the case of both Trump and Biden, they are in response to political considerations - with Trump, to appear "tough on China" and to placate his nationalist base - with Biden, to placate his union base. The tariffs are also a redistributionist scheme to reward the politically well-connected, in the form of selective tariff exceptions to favored cronies, and in the form of distributing the tariff proceeds to political constituents more likely to vote for that team. So no, Jesse, I don't buy the argument that these tariffs are some naive economic scheme to 'punish theft'.
Besides, are you saying that ALL trade from China is the result of theft? Surely not. If you are alleging individual instances of theft in China, wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute those specific instances of theft?
In your scenario, it would be:
"Mob boss steals goods and sells them at half the price. The government responds by applying tariffs on everyone in the neighborhood, both on the mob boss and on legitimate businesses as well."
That makes no moral sense, and it doesn't even make economic sense.
There is no such thing as free trade.
Period. Multiple thousand page long "Free trade" agreements are many things...free trade is not one of them.
Trump, mind you, offered total free trade. He said we would drop ALL of our tariffs when others do the same. He had no takers.
"As a capitalist I know that the US can produce any product faster and cheaper than any other country. But tariffs corrupt that."
Um no. It's cheaper for American companies to assemble products in places like China. That's why you see so many "made in China" labels on toasters and shirts. It has nothing to do with tariffs. In fact, one of the reasons tariffs are put in place is to protect domestic products from cheap imports.
A capitalist would realize that prices are affected by things like rising labor and healthcare costs. If you let government run those, then they have to tax all their big business for funding, and the cost is carried over to the consumer.
That's why you see so many "made in China" labels on toasters and shirts.
For a few labor intensive products this is true. We called those Cut-and-Sew. Like Nike does. I was a manufacturing consultant for a worldwide software company.
But for the most part direct labor is less than 1% of the cost of a product. Most companies don't even track direct labor anymore.
An I-phone is assembled in China for less than one dollar. The US and Taiwan and other component makers get 99% of the phone.
“….. direct labor is less than 1% of the cost of a product.”
Not in the aerospace manufacturing world that I live in.
Support slavery, so long as it's the ccp doing it
Don't forget the organ harvesting. There's a market for that so any sacrifice by others is acceptable to them.
When Europe or China can veto one US company from buying another (they blocked the GE purchase of Honeywell) you know global agreement is vital.
Welcome to globalism.
Globalism, tying our fortunes to authoritarians like Putin and totalitarians like Xi, is why the world is screwed right now.
Globalism triumphant is also power moved far away from the people who should have a voice in it. The EU is more authoritarian that Hungary is.
Your understanding of national vs local is obviously biased. People may not know their local legislation but they experience daily the result of that, then they apply those results to a national stage.
Your examples of global tragedies that require global efforts is entirely my point. Because all those solutions require the masses to sacrifice in the name of the greater good, that is why a global attempt to solve them is invariably going to fail. People are and will always be tribalists. The only way to undo that is to enforce conformity. That is the lie of globalism. You cannot have globalism without enforced conformity. Your posts proves exactly why globalism is doomed to failure. People are far more concerned about the cost of bread and gas, their kids and their neighborhood. Globalism is the antipathy of these concerns.
The Globalists, especially the left, believes the best answer to this is to share resources, but this is a fools errand. It's easy to share resources during periods of plenty, but during periods of scarcity, becomes much more difficult. People naturally become more self serving during periods of scarcity. It's been shown time and time again. And that isn't an inherently bad thing. Except to the globalists mind set.
There will always be periods of plenty and periods of scarcity. That is nature. Asking people to give up, to sacrifice during periods of scarcity, especially when you do it by force (and the government always does it by force) leads to resentment and eventually revolution. And revolution rarely ever brings about a better system, 99/100 times it brings about even less desirable systems.
Our Revolution was different only because we really didn't drastically change anything, our governance and culture were not radically changed. That is because Anglo-Saxon culture has always had a tradition of decentralizing power. The wyrd, the parliament, the common law, all these things are direct outgrowths of each other. From it's foundation, the colonies had charters and legislatures etc, we only revolted because we saw ourselves as equal to native born Englishmen, and demanded the same rights they hypothetically enjoyed.
We believe England was a stratified society, but it's history belies that. Serfdom was never a major part of English society, and nobility was not as divorced from daily life as was common on the continent. It was also far more possible to raise yourself from your class, into the next class, than in the more stratified Continental feudal cultures. The same is true was true of the Scandinavian societies. And it isn't any surprise that the two have very similar cultural roots, in Northern Germanic cultures, that mainly escaped influence and domination of the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire were the globalists of their day. The European imperialists were the globalists of their day. And how did they enforce their globalists agendas? By forced conformity, where the rights of the individual were sacrificed for the "greater good". And we saw how these all turned out. Because that is how globalism always turns out. It promises a utopia, it's foundations are always benevolent and hopeful, but to achieve those goals requires the sacrifice of individuality for the greater good. And that is why it always fails.
And I unmuted you and responded because you made a decent good faith argument. But it still revolves around the central, inescapable tenet of globalism, that it is the only answer and requires a sacrifice for the greater good. And that is why it will fail.
People are greedy. It's hard to sacrifice when your kids are having to go without. It's nature. All mammals behave this way. As much as we pretend otherwise, we are mammals, and while we have evolved sentience, we are at our base programmed to survive and reproduce and insure the survival of our offspring. It is our lot in life. We cannot escape it. We create laws, societies, governments and cultures to try and counteract these instincts to a degree, but when those governments, cultures etc become to antipathetic to these instincts, they inherently fail. Because you can't escape your nature.
As I've told you before, it isn't a debate of nature vs nurture, it's a combination of the two, always, biologically speaking. You can only overcome nature (genetics) to a degree, but you can never overcome it completely. That is the problem with post modernemism, globalism, communism, socialism etc. And yes that includes nationalism and populism also. They can only exists if we ignore the nature side of our being. Study the experience of American POWs captured by the Japanese, or read Lord of the Flies, or study the Ghettos of Nazi Germany, etc. When there were a scarcity, people became far more focused on their own survival. People sacrificed morals to survive. Yeah, they formed bands, and resistance, but even in those, the focus was on individual survival. And that is why globalism will fail. Because nature dictates that survival and reproduction and survival of offspring are paramount.
Societies fracture when personal survival is threatened. People splinter into groups and identities. No society or culture is universal, nor can it ever be. That is the lie of globalism. When the going gets tough, we turn to our own, and group ourselves into tribes that insure our survival and comfort. The twentieth century, for all it's well documented horrors, was actually a period of fairly comparable peace and prosperity. Science and technology and capitalism all contributed to this. That success, however, also laid the seeds of the next period of scarcity. It created a vast disparity between elites and non elites, at all levels. And we are just starting to harvest those crops. The globalists can only address this by the use of force, laws and redistribution of resources. That only will create more strife, and likely speed up the process.
Eventually all systems fail, to be replaced by the next system. The harder you try to prevent this, the more rebellion and strife you create. This may sound pessimistic and nihilistic, but it really isn't. It's nature, it's creative destruction, if managed correctly. It is only when it is resisted that it becomes counterproductive destruction. The harder we struggle against these changes, rather than attempt to shape and steer them, the more likely we are to become victims of these changes.
Even more telling is that as we have become more affluent, we have also become more despondent. Study after study shows this to be true. It's because we've removed the stress that is necessary to evolve and prosper. It has left us incapable of adapting to change. And change is usually scary to begin with. So we resist it. We push back and if that push back becomes strong enough, it breaks the system.
But when we have global Marxism our nature and biology will suddenly change and we will all be "the socialist man" duh!
Americans not only know their national leaders better than local and state but follow national issues more closely and are even blind to state and local ones. As I noted, reporting on those issues is thin to non-existent and the cost of bread and gas are fought out on the national stage, not local.
Tribalism is not our destiny, it's our past, and in the present world, an obstacle to achieving those greater goals. America is the proof of this possibility as different groups that fought in neighborhoods now mingle completely to the pointof mixed heritage for most of us. Racism - the extreme of tribalism - was rampant in the past and now dying out as the young are the least susceptible to it and most likely to think of them selves as global citizens along with whatever nation they are from. Abuse of the "masses" - what is this, a cell block meeting - is not somehow a function of bigger human organizations, but not smaller ones, and of course things can go wrong and certain groups try to gain control, but that's what an educated population in democracies - there are more of both now - can effect. Let's get busy and make the future work, not end.
You buy into the globalists agenda, we understand. But that agenda misses human nature. You can't end tribalism. People will always divide themselves. It's human nature. That is what tribalism means. The only way to end that is through forced conformity. That leads to authoritarianism. People will always flock to people who have similar values. And when those values clash with other groups, the result is strife. You can't avoid this. It's built into our nature, into our genetics. That is why globalism, a unique, single global society is impossible. Tribalism is at the root of our existence. Tribalism is not in our past. We see it in every single thing we do. Russia-v-Ukraine, tribalism. Democrat v Republican, tribalism. New York v New Jersey, tribalism. Red Sox v Yankees, tribalism. Democracy itself is based upon tribalism. It can't exist without competition between values. We really tried, but it didn't even survive Washington's first term. Globalism vs nationalism is also tribalism. Socialism v capitalism is also tribalism. We have not escaped tribalism. We can't escape it. The problem is been mislead to believe tribalism and strife and conflict are inheritently bad things but they aren't. It's only when taken to extreme that they become bad, the same as conformity. It's the extreme that is bad. The only way to end tribalism is via enforced conformity, which means authoritarianism.
The globalist agenda doesn't just think everyone in the worlds thinks the same, it demands they think the same. Hence the increase in conflict as globalism increases.
You ignore the reality of America and indeed the present world, where mixing of peoples and the decline of racism is undeniable. Ever larger identity groups - "nations" did not exist across Europe until recently in history - also disproves your assertions about "human nature". Tribalism is primitive behavior with declining appeal and utility. Humans unite on principles - sometimes religion - but much less commonly on tribal groupings.
You must not get out much.
He obviously doesn't understand tribalism. As for the idea that European nations are new, that is entirely false. Europe has had the concepts of nations for millenia. The size and borders of those nations have changed through time, but not the concept of nations. Just because the makeup of a culture changes over time doesn't change the fact that the very concept of nationhood is in itself a form of tribalism. Tribalism doesn't automatically equal divisions based upon race. It's the concept of us vs them. The definition of us and them changes, but not the underlying fact that humans group themselves into us and them. It's at our very core. It's fundamental to any understanding of the human condition. Politics is a form of tribalism. Nationalism, patriotism, religious are all forms of tribalism. Just because some of the old tribal identities are less valid, doesn't mean they haven't been replaced by new definitions. Right vs left is a form of tribalism. Individualists vs conformists is a form of tribalism. Rural vs urban is a form of tribalism. You can also belong to several different tribes at once. The borders and definitions are generally fluid. It's how societies function. He's obviously never taken an anthropology course in his life.
Both Germany and Italy were groups of dukedoms until the 19th century (a fact some historians blame their 20th century rabid nationalism - fascism - on). The "tribal" groups humans think they belong to have grown ever larger as personal knowledge of members has grown to nations and religions of millions.
I suggest you read Yuval Harari's widely read and praised "Sapiens" for a discussion of this change in human societies as he describes the formerly unseen obvious facts of this. He is by the way a a pessimist, so no sunshine pumping. Another book of great interest and also widely read, though controversial is Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now which tabulates our relative condition to humans of the past with conclusions not easily deniable. While being accused of pumping sunshine he is neither pessimist or optimist on our future, but correctly notes we need to understand our accomplishments to understand our future.
You may or may not agree with these books but both are major factors in the current discussion and will likely force you to think about possibilities you probably haven't considered.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316117/ref=asc_df_0062316117/?tag=reasonmagazinea-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312721175982&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11085332767035961001&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011707&hvtargid=pla-521615074766&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0143111388/reasonmagazinea-20/
Yeah. There was a "Kingdom of Kievan Rus" centered around modern day Kyiv back in 900 AD.
"Your examples of global tragedies that require global efforts is entirely my point. Because all those solutions require the masses to sacrifice in the name of the greater good, that is why a global attempt to solve them is invariably going to fail. People are and will always be tribalists. The only way to undo that is to enforce conformity. That is the lie of globalism. You cannot have globalism without enforced conformity. Your posts proves exactly why globalism is doomed to failure. People are far more concerned about the cost of bread and gas, their kids and their neighborhood. Globalism is the antipathy of these concerns."
It also fails because the globalists themselves do not abide by the demands they make upon the "common folks". Many are fabulously wealthy, far moreso than was possible in history. They certainly do not practice shared sacrifice, which makes insisting others do so a major fool's errand.
Also, when stuff, like a pandemic, hits --- globalism fails in the most spectacular ways possible. It is a horribly non-redundant system given that it ends up being one or two countries handling some very key pieces of the equation.
All of this.
If the globalists were at least living the ascetic lifestyle they advocate for others, it'd be one thing. But they want *me* to live like a monk while *they* get to live beyond the wildest dreams of emperors. And pay for them to do it. And praise them for it.
The problem with globalism, and government in general, is human nature.
People on the left are quick to distrust capitalists and put them down for wanting to keep and increase their wealth, seemingly ignoring that the only way to do this in a market is to provide things people want to pay for.
The problem is that people in government want to keep and increase their power, as in their ability to use force on others.
The difference between markets and government, and the reason I trust markets and don't trust the government, is who decides.
In the market people vote with their dollars and millions of people decide. In government one person is given the task of deciding, and everyone else has to go along.
The only thing I can think of to prefer government decisions over the market is that government can be influenced, while markets are true democracy.
I'm confused. I thought the globalists were the big corporations and they are capitalists? I'm not a capitalist - I don't thrive by investments - but I've owned a productive business for over 40 years, and I am globalist in the sense that I recognize the future includes a now very small and integrated world of human civilization, businesses, and governments. A dualistic good/bad judgement on two essential human organizations is silly. Might as well be for kitchens and against bathrooms.
Like I've said on other parts of this thread, it all depends on how globalist is defined. Problem is that no one seems to agree on what it means.
I'm confused.
We know.
JFC
"The leader of Hungary was just reelected primarily because he controls almost all of the media and press in the country."
Might want to talk to an actual Hungarian i stead of watching CNN and reading the NY Times. Just saying.
To expand, France's leadership has for decades sacrificed the needs of it's own people in the name of the European Union. All the while they've lectured and then outright used force to force their citizens to comply with these aims. The average worker in France hasn't seen many if any benefits from this approach. They've been lectured and scolded about their privilege and the need to sacrifice for the greater good. They've watched their culture be destroyed in the name of diversity. In trade they've gotten bread and circuses. But even bread and circuses couldn't save the Roman Empire. And they are frankly fed up, so of course they are rebelling.
It's no different than what is occurring in England, America etc. Globalism is likely coming to an end, to be replaced by a period of nationalism, populism and even isolationism. This isn't desirable but it is predictable.
What classical liberals need to do is recognize this and attempt to steer it, so that the results won't result in authoritarianism in the opposite direction. Reason authors need to recognize this and instead of attacking the movement, explain it and show how it can be bent into a better trajectory. Otherwise we'll be left on the sidelines.
Globalism is not the utopian dream we were sold. It's benefits are to often enjoyed by a small elite, while the rest sacrifice. Marx was right about one thing, there is an inherent class struggle. Classical liberalism and actual free market capitalism are actually better ways to lessen this strife than globalism, communism, etc.
Culture, national identity, patriotism, etc are not necessarily bad things, and should play a part in our lives. We've endured a century of globalism, and we've made some good progress, but that progress is being undone in the name of conformity, globalism has reached its inevitable zenith. We are just entering a new period where the path isn't completely clear. Bashing the path, while offering no alternatives, other than those that are increasingly becoming rejected by the masses, achieves nothing.
Classical liberalism and actual free market capitalism are actually better ways to lessen this strife than globalism, communism, etc.
Free market capitalism IS a manifestation of globalism. What do you think genuinely free trade is?
Globalists always put themselves lol.
He is right, you moron.
I want globalism to the extent that trade is free with IP protection, nuclear weapons are eliminated, and democratic boundaries are respected.
Israel is a sovereign state with boundaries, for example.
No he isnt. He is an authoritarian. He supports global oligarchs.
You do not support freedom. Fill stop.
Depends on how you define globalism. The word means different things to different people. To some it means a global market without protective tariffs. To others it means a one-world government. And there's many flavors in between.
So to have any conversation on the subject, things have to be defined first or people will talk past each other.
Global markets are not globalism. See my most recent post.
Part of the problem is many globalists have convinced others, by using international trade, that globalism is desirable. But international trade isn't the same idea as a global community. I don't think a global community, with shared values is possible, except by forced conformity. I see buttplug is making the same argument that communist make, yeah all previous forms of globalists societies led to bad outcomes but this time it'll turn out right because it's based on better principles. This misses the point that the only way to create a global society is to have a global culture, which requires conformity. Without conformity you can't have a single society with shared values. And since conformity is not human nature, the only way to achieve it is through force. The British and Roman Empires didn't start out to enforce slavery, or other evils they're now associated with. They pretty much started out with rather benign and in some cases altruistic goals. The problem arose when the people they conquered didn't share those goals and values, so they had to be forced to accept them. The pattern doesn't change.
Even Joe Friday above falls into the same problem. He measures success of globalism by the spread of democracy. But that's a very ethnocentric outlook. We assume in the west that Democracy is the best system because it's the system we've chosen. But it isn't necessarily the best system or at least the most desirable system, for many cultures. They may prefer a strong centralized authority.
I think Thomas Sowell wrote something about how capitalism depends on trust. Trust is in ample supply in Western society. Can't say so much for the East. When you can't trust people to abide by contracts or property rights, capitalism isn't going to work. Could say something similar about democracy. So yeah culture matters. You can't impose democracy on a culture that only knows strongmen.
And that's why globalism is doomed to failure for the foreseeable future. It's seems counterintuitive, but almost all historians and anthropologists agree, that societies with large populations tend to value the individual less than those with smaller populations. See my comment about rural vs urban.
America values the individual more than smaller countries like Korea and 1930's Germany.
True but America was founded around small communities (states and localities) without a large ornpowerful central government. Large with benefits, one might say.
Which in itself is a form of tribalism. American values the individual, but the fact is that urban vs rural mindsets also have different values as to the individual vs the collective. Even in America. It's really the difference between the classical liberal and the modern liberal-progressive. The former is much less willing to sacrifice the individual for the collective good, while the latter feels that the individual must sacrifice some of their freedom for the collective good. Gun control is a great example. So are taxes. Environmental and land use rules are other examples. Free speech and hate speech laws (which luckily have never been passed though they've been proposed) are also examples.
Then why do city dwellers demand that people in the country, who deal with dramatically different issues and problems than they do, forfeit guns when they are actually very necessary in many situations that city dwellers might not have to deal with?
Like I said, different definitions for different people.
Based upon how you define globalism, I can say for certain that I'm not a fan.
I draw the distinction between globalization, where markets are intertwined, from globalism, which is an idea of a unified global culture. Globalization can't be resisted, technology makes that impossible.
The EU, UN etc are examples of globalism, where the individual state is subservient or even eliminated in favor of a large, unified government and culture. Macron is far more in favor of globalism than globalization. I also believe that Joe Friday seems to be in favor of globalism than globalization. I tend towards more of a nationalist globalization, where we are free to trade, but our governments are focused on national rather than global problems. I believe that the best government is the government closest to the people.
The reason most Americans focus on national politics is because local governments tend to cater more to the local people's needs and barring major mistakes, people generally don't grow concerned with them. However, as we see with the revolts in school boards and such, once those local governments stray to far, the people will yank them back hard. It's also because we've basically avoided the 9A and 10A over the past century, and people are starting to realize that.
By the very nature of our system, we elect at the local level, to represent us at the national level. It's built into our system and we built in checks and balances, so that local won't become slaves to the national. It's why the Senate is elected the way it is, and the electoral college exists.
All elections are local, even national elections are local. We are currently having fights over voting administration. This is a local matter. The people of Montana don't want the same system as Washington. Georgia doesn't want the same system as California. He believes these are national issues, but to at least half of Americans they are local issues. The fact that we have a debate about the electoral college demonstrates how local dominates national politics. To the urban centers on the coast, popular vote makes sense because it would favor the candidates that these locals already favor and vote for. Supporters of the electoral college on the other hand, favor the electoral college because it gives their preferred candidates a chance at winning. So, in essence it's a local issue, that impacts national policy. Abortion is another. As are gun rights etc. Our stances on these tend to be based upon our local culture. All politics are thus local. Globalism ignores this, in favor of a greater good. There really is an urban rural divide. And it's not a matter of education, but of different needs, and thus different values. In urban centers you have to learn to sacrifice some individuality to avoid strife. But urban residents also tend to have smaller support networks as a result of the required anonymity of urban living. Rural you have to learn to be more self sufficient because you have access to less shared resources. However, you tend to have larger support groups because anonymity isn't really feasible in a small town or school.
The difference in preferred government doctrine is a result of the differences I noted. Rural is shaped by necessary self reliance, but voluntary association as a result of low anonymity. Urban, due to large shared resources, and interdependence, but less voluntary association prefer a system that addresses the needs of the many, and forced association over free association. It's not that any system is evil or bad, they are just shaped by different needs, and thus different values. To a degree technology has somewhat smoothed some of these differences, but can't eliminate them completely, at least not yet.
A town of one thousand or less will never have the same infrastructure or need it or be able to support it, as a city of a million residents. But that town of one thousand exists for a reason, generally to support that city of a million. And vice versa. That town of one thousand needs a place to sell it's goods and services to, and generally the only place that has the resources to purchase them in volume are the urban centers.
The problem becomes when one system begins to dominate this relationship and then tries to enforce it's goals and values on the other. That's why the pendulum is necessary, although not perfectly desirable, because it becomes necessary to correct when one system becomes too dominate. In a perfect world it would be a perfectly balanced scale, but in reality, it's more of a metronome. We will never be able to achieve that perfect balance until everyone has the same needs, and thus values. Which I don't think is possible.
Maybe in a world of transporters and replicators it may be possible, but even that I believe will be incapable of creating a balance between individual and the whole. It's a universal theme of science fiction. Even Roddenberry touched on it. Heinlein, Dick etc all addressed it. Asimov addressed it. They all came to different conclusions, shaped by their own biases, but it really is the universal conflict behind almost any sci-fi ever created.
The thing is, as societies evolve, our tribal definitions change. But the essence of tribes don't change. It may no longer be Frank vs Briton. Or Saxon vs Dane. Or Comanche vs Ute. But tribalism still exists, and will exist. It's inescapable. The systems that have tried to erase tribalism, the Soviets or Communist China, within their own borders, have always had to resort to violence to maintain that unified culture. And even then they fail. Even in a way, fascism, despite it's nationalistic tendencies, tried to stamp out tribalism, while also making full use of tribalism. Because the us vs them narrative is one of the best ways for totalitarian governments to maintain power.
The best a society can do is to insure individual freedom, including (and most importantly in my opinion) freedom of association. This won't lead to conformity, nor shared values or morals, nor will it lead to the end of conflict, but that is a bad thing only if you believe that those listed values are good. I don't personally think so. Voluntary association is always better than forced association. Persuasion is better than force. However, you likely won't get everything you need or want with this system. But you won't with any other system either. I would much rather die free than live on my knees in peace.
Macron is far more in favor of globalism than globalization.
On what basis do you make this claim?
Does Macron want to erase French national identity? That would be very strange for any French leader, I understand that they tend to be a bit arrogant about their own culture.
I mean, sure, he might be, but I'd like to see a bit of substantiation for the claim.
Macron had used force to enforce hate speech laws, environmental laws, religious symbology laws (banning wearing religious symbols in school), he is extremely Pro-EU. The list goes on, in fact the article we are currently commenting on lists more than a few of his actions. The problem is you don't see the problems with his actions because you agree with them, which is itself tribalism and demonstrates further my thesis that globalism is doomed to failure, because tribalism will always win. The only recourse is the use of force to suppress tribalism and individualism. Which is generally what occurs.
Autboritarians and globalist will never realize that freedom includes the freedom to disagree with the prominent culture. Ie tribalism.
Humans are instinctual tribalism. They are also largely irrational.
The belief on globalism is as insane as the belief in intelligent design.
In all aspects of life evolution wins out. Bad ideas fail to good ones. Single monoculture and single globalist implementations will always fail over time as it excludes evolution.
Ok of the best authors to put this into sci fi is Asimov's Foundatiok series. Just ignore the whole statistics can control life portions.
The EC is an arbitrary system who's main fault is not written into the constitution (winner take all is a state decision which magnifies the impact of each states delegation while disenfranchising many of it's own citizens), and it protects no principle. Consider:
In 2004, Kerry could have won Ohio with 60k more votes and thereby the presidency with a minority of the national vote. What principle would that have upheld? Do we have to try hard to imagine the outcry on the right then from the same people who's situational ethics must find a defense for 2 presidencies in 16 years where their guy (the loser of the national vote) won?
The EC is crap shoot and should require proportional distribution of delegates based on their votes, as is done in Maine and Nebraska.
Can we get them to hire you as a writer here? 😀
I think we ought to be able to find some sort of distinction between “globalization” where countries choose to get increasingly involved with global commerce, travel, cultural exchange via media.
And “globalism” which aims expand world government/corporatist hegemony, ultimately liquidate national borders, etc etc. in order to centrally organize and redistribute the worlds resources.
I realize there is inevitable overlap between the two. But we can start with: international agreement made on the fly shouldn’t Trump our constitution, and go from there.
That's why I stated globalism as opposed to globalization. The latter is inevitable due to technology, the former is unattainable.
What do you think genuinely free trade is?
Trade where the EU and/or China can't veto how you trade within your borders.
glob·al·ism -- the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.
So, globalism is, in fact, the opposite of free trade and the opposite of self-governance.
Globalism is socialism/communism at a global scale.
We've always been globalists but for most of history the worst kind.
The expansion of Christianity, the slave trade, resource extraction, eliminating indigenous peoples and languages in favor of Spanish and English, plunder and theft, Manifest Destiny, world wars, and so on.
Where the old globalism was based on conquest the new globalism is based on negotiation.
You managed to jam together a bunch of things that have little to do with one another and call it globalism. It's like a catchall for "bad things around the world." Which is as good as meaning nothing at all.
You don't think that the British Empire was a form of globalism?
I think that calling everything globalism makes a conversation about the subject pointless.
We've always been globalists but for most of history the worst kind.
Wrong... absolutely wrong reading of history. America has, by its founding and its history and attitudes always been skeptical of "foreign entanglements". The American people have almost always been very reluctant to go to war for other nations. WWI was VERY unpopular with the American people, and even WWII left the American public very reluctant to get involved until pearl harbor. It was the globalist, progressive internationalist socialists such as the Roosevelts and the Wilsons that wanted to keep dragging America kicking and screaming into global conflicts. It was Roosevelt's wife that was insistent in the creation of the United Nations.
Again, there's a very common streak with people like the above. It's not that they're bad people, it's that they believe in their inherent goodness, and therefore believe that everyone else in the world should be good in the exact same way. And if you follow the shenanigans of the UN, you know how corrupt such organizations are.
Globalism is not international trade. Nor is nationalism the opposite of international trade. Free market capitalism is not globalism. The misunderstanding of this is part of the problem. You can have a national system and still have free trade. Globalism is the idea that we identify as a global population with united goals, morals, culture and desires. Those aren't required for international trade to occur. Nationalism is the idea that you place the needs of your nation before the needs of the rest of the world. This also doesn't bar international trade. The problem is we've united globalism with international trade, and sacrificed the ideals of national needs for a global need. And I reject the idea that capitalism requires the idea that we ignore our own needs for some greater good. If a country is using protectionist schemes to undercut our workers, it really isn't capitalism to take advantage of those schemes. It may lower your costs, and increase profits for the short term, but as we see, those benefits are self limiting, because as your customer base grows less affluent they are less capable of taking advantage of your goods.
When one country is purposely manipulating trade, via protectionism, currency manipulation, theft, commodities manipulation etc, it isn't capitalism, even if the other trade partner is a capitalist society. And the other problem is that eventually in a system like this, the losers begin to outnumber the winner. It destroys the middle class and capitalism can't survive without a strong middle class.
Globalism is not international trade. Nor is nationalism the opposite of international trade.
Show me a committed nationalist who is also a free-trader. It sure seems like nationalism and protectionism go hand in hand.
Conversely show me a committed free-trader who is also a nationalist. It sure seems like free trade and internationalism go hand in hand.
Globalism is the idea that we identify as a global population with united goals, morals, culture and desires.
Well, I suppose if you take a maximalist view of the term "globalism", then sure. "We are all citizens of the world" and whatnot. So if your point is that we don't all have to identify as citizens of the world in order to have international free trade, then I agree. It's not a necessary condition. BUT, there does have to be enough of a commitment to an 'internationalist pose', if not full-on globalism as you have defined it, to be okay with the free flow of labor and goods across borders.
Nationalism is the idea that you place the needs of your nation before the needs of the rest of the world. This also doesn't bar international trade.
No, not per se, but it does beg the question: who decides what are the "needs of your nation"? The government? I don't know what the needs of the whole nation are. My impression is that nationalists tend to view "needs of the nation" in terms of labor - that Americans should get preferential treatment in getting jobs in this country over foreigners. And that is contrary to the idea of free trade.
Show me a committed nationalist who is also a free-trader. It sure seems like nationalism and protectionism go hand in hand.
There are lots of them. But I can play this game too:
Show me a committed globalist who gives a shit about his own community.
I can name several nationalists that were committed capitalists. Adam Smith was hardly a globalists. Nor was Franklin, Washington, Jefferson. Henry Ford was a nationalist, as was Rockefeller. In fact, almost every capitalist of the 18th and 19th century were also nationalists. Because, in it's essence, they saw capitalism as inherently good for their nation. On the other hand, the anti-capitalist of the 18th and 19th century tended to be more globalists. In fact, progressivism was born out the idea that unchecked capitalism led to bad outcomes, and that the nation state, supported by capitalism, was the route of inequality. They did, and still believe, that capitalism either needs to be strongly regulated or eliminated and that the nation must be subservient to the global needs, if not outright eliminated.
The problem is, as Sarcasmic alluded to, is in definitions. And we tend to define things by their extreme. A nationalists doesn't automatically mean a protectionists. In fact, I would argue, that the true nationalists, recognizes that society requires trade, and international trade leads to wealth, when both sides are allowing free trade. I believe capitalism is more beneficial to a capitalists society than to a socialists society. Globalism tends to be more favorable to socialism, and is most often championed the hardest by those most open to socialism.
But being a capitalist is not the same as being a free-trader.
Huh? Really? That's a new one.
There are lots of them.
Could you provide a link? I'm genuinely interested in understanding how this person reconciles free trade with nationalism.
Show me a committed globalist who gives a shit about his own community.
Umm, most of them? Even "citizens of the world" don't want to live in a dump.
Another thought, look at the writings of Smith vs Marx. Smith talked about the nation state, Marx talked about the global community. Smith believed in international trade, but also believed in the nation state. Marx believed in sharing resources, regardless of means to pay for them, and believed in the destruction of the nation state. I believe this sums it up, capitalists are nationalists, communists and socialists are globalists. Protectionism doesn't come from nationalism, it comes from populism. Which also tends to be the root of communism and socialism and progressivism. The problem is, when bad actors tilt the playing field, rather through regulatory capture, which is common in the west, or through managed poverty and resultant market manipulation, which is more common in the east, the result is economic stratification, the elimination of the middle class, and the consolidation of the elite. This leads to populism, which then tends to exacerbate those problems.
In the west we have sacrificed capitalism, for consumerism and regulatory capture that benefits the corporation. We have eliminated creative destruction. The problem with both consumerism and corporatism is neither is sustainable. And neither are capitalism. Capitalism requires freedom of association, and free transfer of goods. Neither China nor India (nor Japan, Korea or Taiwan though they are better) actually allow free transfer of goods. It's a one-sided relationship, in which they freely manipulate to undervalue the western manufacturers, destroying the western middle class. Eventually, this leads to an elite that benefits, while the rest struggle. We already see that in places like California.
Protectionism may not be the best answer, and trade wars may not. Deregulation is a good first step, but at some point you also have to use both the carrot and the stick. Taxes and regulations may be necessary to a degree, but they've both gotten way out of hand. Yeah, tax rates were higher in the past, but actual tax obligations were actually smaller. There is nothing inherently wrong with true free trade, but to often what is label free trade isn't even close to free trade. We need to recognize this in order to address it, or it will be addressed in a way we don't agree with. Decrying populism and protectionism is easy, it's far more difficult to offer real solutions.
And if you don't offer solutions, someone else will, and you likely won't be happy with the results.
Globalism is the idea that we identify as a global population with united goals, morals, culture and desires.
Who wants that? Other than Christians and Muslims?
Oh I am sure there are some super-committed UN types who really want everyone to be a "citizen of the world". But I don't really see why it matters so much.
Um, Hillary Clinton? Jesus have you ever paid attention?
Hillary Clinton wants to erase national identity?
I think that was the right-wing caricature of Hillary Clinton, not the actual person.
Would this be the same Hillary Clinton who opposed TPP?
Would this be the same Hillary Clinton who said this?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1608/11/cnr.05.html
It is true that too often, past trade deals have been sold to the American people with rosy scenarios that did not pan out. Those promises now bring hollow in many communities across Michigan and our country that have seen factories close and jobs disappear.
Too many companies lobbied for trade deals so they could sell products abroad. But then, they instead moved abroad and sold back into the United States. It is also true that China and other countries have gamed the system for too long.
Enforcement, particularly during the Bush Administration, has been too lax. Investments at home that would make us more competitive have been completely blocked in Congress and American workers in communities have paid the price.
But the answer is not to rant and rave or cut ourselves off from the world. That would end up killing even more jobs. The answer is to finally make trade work for us, not against us.
So my message...
(APPLAUSE)
My message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this. I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
(APPLAUSE)
I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president. As a senator from New York, I fought to defend New York's manufacturers and steel makers from unfair Chinese trading practices.
CLINTON: And I opposed the only multi-lateral trade deal that came before the Senate while I was there because it didn't meet my high bar.
"Who wants that? Other than Christians and Muslims?"
Climate change activists.
soldier, you are defining the term to mean what you want to oppose. Of course international trade is a component of globalism. Globalism is the general trend toward inter connected human relations across the globe. That can be good or bad - and entirely up to humans to determine how it is done - but it is obviously our future if we don't blow ourselves up. It is not a conspiracy of whatever bogeymen you want to oppose.
Yeah, and poor New Hamsphire has sacrificed it's needs for the US. WTF? The benefits of large human organizations is obvious and you might note that England was the only EU country to exit - an act already regretted - and Ukraine is trying to get in. There is no curtailment of basic rights because of the EU and the freedom - ever heard of it? - to travel and buy goods freely, and share a continent, not just a small nation are I am told great delights for many, including travelers. No one seriously wants their state to pull out of the US either, so this supposed rear guard movement is DOA. The decline of regional culture is not because of the government but because of business - see big box stores, national restaurant chains, etc - and while regrettable is just what happens with change.
Nicely put.
But now you have me wondering about a Stalinist Star Trek series. Netflix might be desperate enough.
No such luck. CBS/Paramount owns Star Trek.
The problem isn't globalism per se, the problem is the lethargic/nonexistent response to globalism. Yes, globalism does hurt some people whose jobs are outsourced to lower-cost locations. And *overall* it is a net benefit as more people are able to afford the lower-cost goods, but overall benefit does not mean universal benefit for all. A better response to people negatively affected by globalism would help. People vote for demagogues promising to bring back their 1950's steel mill jobs because they don't see any other alternative. We need to think about how to retrain those affected, and help them realize the many opportunities that globalism also affords. No there won't be many low-skill manufacturing jobs in high-cost areas like the US, but there will be more high-skill jobs that are much more difficult to outsource that can become available. Creating the match between the displaced worker and the new opportunities is the key for alleviating the problem.
Oh..."learn to code".
Good advice, apparently, for everybody except journalists.
Le Pen is everything observers around the world are saying she is.
Followed by no evidence of such. I'm passing familiar with the history of the Le Pen family as bete noir in French politics, and from my American remove would probably choose the Macron of the post-2016 era over Marine Le Pen. But, if she's really so awful it should be pretty easy to provide quotes and links. This isn't CNN, it's not enough to merely assert that so-and-so is racist. They say that about everyone, and I frankly tune it out these days. Another commenter says Marine Le Pen kicked her own father out of the party for being an antisemite (which by most accounts he is) so where's the beef? Macron vs Le Pen sounds more like Biden vs, say, Greg Abbott than Biden vs Trump.
When everyone is racist....nobody is.
Yeah except Trump was neither a racist nor an anti-Semite... if we're to take at face value the statement:
Marine Le Pen is an anti-Semite. (no citations)
I dont know much about Viktor Orban . What is the deal with this monster?
(goes to review the basics at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Viktor-Orban)
"Orbán and Fidesz also capitalized on a strong economy that continued to steadily expand to the benefit of the flourishing middle class and on the popularity of generous tax breaks for young families with multiple children."
What a monster.
Also he apparently cares about Hungary's borders so obviously he's worse than Trump.
Also this britannica article refers multiple times to this "increasingly autocratic rule" without explaining what it is.
Woodchipper, he controls almost all the media and press in Hungary. If you're for freedom more than tax breaks, he's not your friend.
i dont know much about him but all the information I can find basically says he is anti-immigration and pro family. :shrug:
He is pro-family in an Aryan kind of way.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Make Hungary Great Again.
This is a propaganda lie from globalists. There are more independent journalists in Hungary today and more independent media than there has been in recent history. I linked you these facts last time you made this claim.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hungarian-media-freedom-is-alive-and-well
Well, let's take a look at Jesse's link, written by:
Gergely Szilvay is a Hungarian journalist at Mandiner based in Budapest.
Oh, what is Mandiner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandiner
Mandiner is a centre-right Hungarian group of news publications including the weekly news magazine Mandiner and the internet portals mandiner.hu and Makronóm.mandiner (makronom.mandiner.hu). The three publications have separate managements. They are published by Mandiner Press Kft,[1] founded in 2017, and belong to the Central European Press and Media Foundation group (KESMA).[2][3] Mandiner is a successor of a news publication run in the early 2000s by Fidelitas, the youth arm of the Hungarian national-conservative party Fidesz, which has been ruling Hungary since 2010.
Huh. So Mandiner was the successor to the literal party propaganda organ of the ruling party in Hungary. And what is the "Central European Press and Media Foundation group"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Press_and_Media_Foundation
The news outlets owned by the foundation were acquired or founded by allies of Orbán in the past few years and then donated to the foundation in 2018. The foundation’s media operations between 2018 and 2020 were led by Gábor Liszkay, a newspaper publisher known for his loyalty to Orban.
Oh, so the media outlets in CEPMF are controlled by the Hungarian government.
Jesse, you are citing literal state propaganda to try to "prove" that there is press freedom in Hungary. Surely you can do better than that.
Here is a legitimate report on press freedom in Hungary:
https://ipi.media/mission-report-media-freedom-in-hungary-ahead-of-2022-election/
Oh well if you say its legitimate then it must be.
Read it yourself and decide for yourself.
You refuted nothing in the linked articles nor the report it is based in.
Weird.
At least you can stop lying about me being muted again.
I decided to unmute you yesterday because sarc said you were actually not being a jerk for once. So I wanted to see for myself. So far, it's a little bit disappointing.
You refuted nothing in the linked articles nor the report it is based in.
Your Washington Examiner *editorial* is not to be taken at face value, it is literal Hungarian state propaganda, as I showed. Would we take claims on North Korea State TV at face value? No. If anyone here posted North Korean state propaganda here saying "see? North Korea's not so bad, look at this article I found", we would all laugh at that person. Same deal here.
The only difference between what North Korea does, and what Orban's Hungary does, is that in the latter case, the connection between the state-run media and the government is not as overt. This is what happened:
* the Fidesz government issued loans to Orban's cronies
* the cronies used that loan money to buy media outlets
* the cronies then donated those media outlets to CEPMF, which is a foundation controlled by the government
So Orban can always claim a certain amount of plausible deniability when those CEPMF media outlets run some story - "oh I didn't tell them what to print, that was CEPMF" - but that is the scheme nonetheless. You know how you like to claim that Democrats and Big Tech are colluding to run government propaganda? Well, this is the same scheme, except much more explicit. You should read about what is really happening in Hungary from a reputable source, not literal Hungarian state propaganda.
He just attacked the source, which is hilarious, because he’d never apply this standard in America.
Democrats control every branch of government.
Conservatives claim free speech is under attack in America.
Washington Post, run by a Democrat, claims free speech is fine.
Guarantee Jeff isn’t going to be quoting the out of power schmucks over the WaPo.
Hmm, supported by the European Commission AND Open Society Foundation.
Seems totes legit there.
Kinda like the Democratic party in the USA, they "controls almost all the media and press in" the USA?
I found this NYT article supposedly about how Orban appeals to US conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/magazine/viktor-orban-rod-dreher.html
Even in this hit piece on conservatives the worse picture they can paint of Orban appears to be that he is for protecting Hungary from mass immigration, enforced LGBTQ ideality from the EU, and supporting families? There's a couple references to spying on journalists and potential financial corruption but overall, he sounds nothing like the monster the headlines are trying to tell me he is.
Frankly this NYT article only confirms my current understanding that the only issues that matter to liberals are unfettered immigration and queer theory. The vast majority of the Orban criticisms I can find fall under those two topics.
I'm less than impressed about how horrible he is.
Really makes you wonder how true that pejorative “globohomo” is.
Also from the NYT article:
"In July, press accounts revealed that the Hungarian government had infected the mobile phones of investigative journalists and political opponents with spyware to track their communications. "
Spying on journalists definitely uncool.
"In 2018, just after re-election, Orban’s government defunded gender-studies programs at universities (then offered by only two colleges in Hungary)."
Big yawn.
"restricting the exposure of children under 18 to books or other materials that “promote” homosexuality or transgenderism "
Another big yawn.
"Orban pushed out the Soros-backed Central European University "
Whatever.
"and used hostile takeovers to transform the media, outlet by outlet, into a conservative (and government-friendly) landscape. "
Sounds ominous but forgive me if I'm skeptical about the real scope of this after what I've read so far.
"He has put in place numerous policies to counter a low birthrate and encourage Hungarian, not immigrant, babies: There are subsidies for family cars; women who have four or more children will never pay income tax again; and some older citizens who leave their jobs to take care of grandchildren are compensated by the government."
This sounds like half of what progressives want anyway? I'm confused why this is bad.
"he has shuffled millions in E.U. subsidy money into contracts with family members and close friends "
Corrupt for sure if true but overall the evil right wing strong man autocrat of Hungary sounds pretty un-scary to me.
Corrupt for sure if true but overall the evil right wing strong man autocrat of Hungary sounds pretty un-scary to me.
Isn't what you quoted alone scary enough? What is your standard for what qualifies as "scary"? I mean, sure, he hasn't murdered 6 million Jews, so he has that going for him. Is that all it takes - "he isn't literal Hitler so therefore he's totally cool"?
What is your standard for what qualifies as "scary"?
Action. Claims from journos won't do it.
Well, read the links yourself. There's plenty of actual things that Orban has done that are quite bad.
Did he stick his cigar into his intern’s pussy?
The European Commission, absolute toady for the EU, does not like Hungary. News at 11.
Hmm, you seem reasonable. (woodchipper)
Good comment.
Spying on journalists definitely uncool.
This is true but the people painting Orban negative carried the water when Chocolate Jesus did it. They were also cool with Twitter blocking the NY Post from tweeting its own story on Hunter.
Principals over principles, it seems.
^ Yes and these are the same people who want to execute Assange and Snowden so I dont give them much credence.
So the only bad thing on the list is something Obama also did when he was President? Hmm.
Meanwhile, talk to actual Hungarians and they will tell you they are free to criticize, debate, and discuss any aspect of Hungarian politics or life.
Interesting how all the commenters unwilling to take Dr. de Rugy at face value when it comes to Marine Le Pen, and complaining that she didn't provide reams of primary source material, are nonetheless all too happy to accept at face value her criticisms of Macron, and aren't demanding for detailed proof of her claims made about him. I wonder why that is.
Here's one of Marine Le Pen's own campaign brochures on immigration, read it yourself (if you read French) or use Google Translate.
https://mlafrance.fr/pdfs/projet-controle-de-limmigration.pdf
A few highlights:
* Abolish jus soli
* "There will be an end to the automatic acquisition of nationality by the wedding."
* Renegotiate the Schengen treaty
* Wants to severely limit asylum and refugee claims
This is what her own proposed legislation at the bottom of that document (translated from Google Translate) expects of foreigners who come to France:
Foreigners enjoy the territory, under the conditions and limits determined
by law, rights and freedoms which are not reserved by law or by international commitments to nationals or nationals of the States of the European Union. They must respect the identity of France and the French way of life, and not
not engage in political activity contrary to national interests. Their presence should not
not constitute an unreasonable burden on public finances and the system of
social protection. Family reunification of foreigners may be prohibited or limited.
So yeah I would call that "authoritarian".
Wait, it is now authoritarian to expect immigrants to your country to actually adopt your customs and way of life? Didnt see that coming.
I did. :-/
Authoritarian is when you deem all decisions to be made by Authorities. You know, like how you feel Teachers are the Top Men who should run kids' education. And how you actually said that you would prefer a world where people freely choose to make choices recommended by authorities, but in their absence you prefer
a government that forces people to make the choices recommended by authorities (like CDC) to a system where people are free to be wrong.
https://reason.com/2022/02/20/first-world-problems/?comments=true#comment-9367002
That's not what I said at all. Why are you lying about what I said? And I don't use that word "lying" lightly when it comes to you. You really did deliberately misrepresent what I wrote.
I never said that I " prefer a government that forces people to make the choices recommended by authorities (like CDC) to a system where people are free to be wrong". Please revise your statement.
Yes, like much of the rest of Europe, Africa, and Asia. This is not an extreme position, it is the default position.
Again, like much of the rest of the world. Again, this is not an extreme position, it is the default position.
And what's wrong with that?
Asylum and refugee claims in France (and the US) have been expanded far beyond what they ought to be under international law; hence, it makes sense to bring them in line with international law again.
This is how immigration law works pretty much everywhere.
I don't see what is "authoritarian" about it; authoritarianism is a statement about the relationship between governments and citizens. It is not a statement about the relationship between governments and non-citizens. As a non-citizen, you have few rights in any country.
You know what is authoritarian? When the government of a country imposes mass migration on the citizens of a country against those citizens' will.
None of this matters. Le Pen will lose because all the left and centrist people will vote against her no matter how much they hate Macron. Nation states and controlled immigration are now attacks on individuals based on their ethnicity, which is considered immoral.
A nation state is based on a "racist" premise, which is that one ethnicity has the right to inhabit a territory and by implication can prevent people of different ethnicities from coming there because they are of a different ethnicity. Almost no one articulates it like that, but it's what is happening. Most Westerners will vote for globalism because they see nationalism as immoral on a personal level, no matter how bad globalism is for them and their country.
However, can there be a French state without French people? Can there be a Hungarian state without Hungarian people? Etc... Can you divorce countries from the nations (ethnic people) that created them?
Interesting. Can't disagree.
Nation-states now aren't built around ethnicity. They are built around which government exercises sovereign authority over the particular land mass. Look at this country, or Russia - so many ethnicities represented but a single nation-state. Look at all the Central American nations - all very similar ethnicities but divided up into different nation-states.
Your argument might have made sense in 1648 but it is much less true today.
Most Westerners will vote for globalism because they see nationalism as immoral on a personal level, no matter how bad globalism is for them and their country.
Many Westerners will vote for globalism because they view what passes for nationalism as motivated largely by bigotry, ESPECIALLY in a place like the US where there is no central "national ethnic identity", it is a mixture of all types. Now, I DO think there are arguments in favor of nationalism that don't rest on bigoted premises, but those aren't the ones that get all the attention.
That statement shows a complete ignorance of how the rest of the world works. Try immigrating to Japan or India. Try living as a white European in Africa or Asia.
Yes, ignorant idiots like you have successfully indoctrinated others into that kind of bizarre belief system.
I haven't indoctrinated anyone. Millions of people on their own came to that conclusion on their own, perhaps when they see with their own eyes ugly demonstrations of self-proclaimed nationalists acting bigoted and xenophobic towards foreigners.
Nor did I say you had. What I said is that "ignorant idiots like you" had done so.
You are a nationalist, Chemjeff, since you reject subsidiarity.
There is nothing "bigoted" or "xenophobic" about saying "I want to live in a country with people who share my culture and my values".
Apparently, it's only "immoral" when certain European nations do it, since ethnically restrictive immigration is tolerated or even welcomed by the left in foirmer Spanish colonies, across Africa, across Asia, and even in the fascist ethnostates we call "Indian reservations" in the US.
Liberté? Hell, no.
Eqalité? By force when necessary.
Fraternité? Only with approved political and social types.
But let the French do French.
French President Emmanuel Macron is authoritarian-light. Candidate Marine Le Pen is worse.
By what standard is Le Pen worse? De Rugy paints a picture of an incumbent who uses violence to suppress protest, seeks control over the flow of information, imposes laws to criminalize speech, and commits to oppressing his own citizens. In contrast, it really does seem like De Rugy's case against Le Pen is that she doesn't like Muslims or immigrants and isn't that into international organization. It sounds to me like a much better comparison of Le Pen and Macron is that she's less cosmopolitan. But, the ramblings of idiots aside, cosmopolitanism isn't liberty.
I will say, though, I'd really rather it be Marion Mareschal-Le Pen because damn!
But let's be honest here. The real difference between them is immigration policy, and we know which side Reason takes.
Democracy isn't hanging by a thread if the wrong candidate wins. Democracy is about finding out what the people want.
At this point we are seeing and comparing the top two going into the second round of the election. I sure hope that the French had better reporting about the candidates going into the first round than we have had. Was there any candidate in the first round that one of us 'Reason'able people could like?
Forget it, Jake, it's France.
Valérie Pécresse (who got 4.78% of the vote in the first round, coming in fifth) was the least overtly objectionable. She's self-described as "two-thirds Merkel, one-third Thatcher".
Merkel was a disaster for Germany and the EU. Largely due to her that the EU is now flooded with unassimilable illegal immigrants.
Merkel is also the architect of Germany's idiotic energy and foreign policy, which have pretty much directly led to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Germany's inability to do anything about it.
None of which says that this wasn't still the best available candidate on the French slate.
Based on her Wikipedia profile, her views are even more awful than Macron's.
In any case, France's problems aren't with their politicians, it's with their voters, same as in the US and the rest of Europe.
Although this article does not actually explain why, I am in general agreement that Le Pen's agenda is more authoritarian than Macron's agenda. Which would be all that was relevant if France were electing a dictator.
However, France is a semi-parliamentary system, complete with a Parliament-chosen Prime Minister and Cabinet. And the June elections for the French Parliament are very blatantly not going to produce a majority that includes the National Rally (Le Pen's party, formerly called the Front National). On the other hand, it is reasonably obvious that even if Macron's current alliance doesn't win an outright majority, the alliance will be a major composition of whatever alliance controls the Parliament and chooses the Prime Minister.
Thus, the candidate who will govern France in a more-authoritarian manner is Macron, since Le Pen's authoritarianism will be thwarted by, well, all the other institutions of French governance.
You haven't read some of the backstory of what she wants to do.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/21/france-election-le-pen-ideology/
If elected, she plans to hold a national referendum on her immigration platform. Such a referendum would bypass Parliament and the courts. It's not clear whether her proposed referendum would even be legal to do, but she's going to try it anyway. So if she does succeed with her referendum, then those other institutions wouldn't have the opportunity to thwart her.
I'm well aware of her agenda, thanks. The difference between you and me is 1) I have some fucking idea of how the French government works, and 2) I'm not under the delusion that immigration policy is the only element of authoritarianism.
Oh good. Then you can explain if you think her proposed referendum would be constitutional and why.
She shouldn't have too much trouble getting one-tenth of all enrolled voters to go forward. One-fifth of Parliament would be harder, but at least possible. And those requirements met, can anyone really doubt that her proposal would deal with "reforms relating to the . . . social policy of the Nation"?
(Whether the French courts would try to pretend that immigration and nationality isn't "social policy" is another question, based on how much chutzpah they have.)
However, that combination of needing a tenth of all enrolled voters to hold a referendum and then a majority of those voting to pass it means that Le Pen will be strictly limited in how much she can go around the normal institutions of French government, which will all be arrayed against her.
I have no idea whether her referendum is "constitutional" under the French constitution; it may well not be.
However, to argue that holding a national referendum is authoritarian is absurd.
"I'm going to FORCE EVERYONE TO TELL ME THEIR OPINION! Unless they choose not to answer. And then I will do as they have said."
"FASCIST!!!"
So you are saying that Le Pen is an "authoritarian" because she gives the French people a direct say in whether to put an end to a policy of mass immigration and multiculturalism?
We must have a very different understanding of the meaning of "authoritarianism".
Good for her!
"If elected, she plans to hold a national referendum on her immigration platform. Such a referendum would bypass Parliament and the courts. "
OH NO! WE CANNOT ALLOW THE PLEBES TO VOTE ON POLICY!!!
Can we ever get some analysis that's not glib here? Instead of a few adjectives and symbolic stances, how about:
1) Take status quo policies of that jurisdiction (in this case France) as a given, and consider the direction government policy setters are expected to take them in as the point of comparison.
2) Don't analyze things as against any ideal. We know what we're for, we know we're a long way from it, that's not a serious comparison to make.
3) Focus on issues like those people here have written about over the years, and consider quantitatively what changes those policy makers are likely to make. Taxes up/down...by how much, compared to each other, not to 0. How easy to start a business, like number of hours of paperwork? How many people going to jail, for how long? Increased or decreased desire of people to enter, or leave, that jurisdiction? Privatization or collectivization of businesses, again comparing candidates to each other.
4) Ignore other people's preferences.
Let's take it down a notch with #3. The observers have noted. If that's not good enough for you, then there's nothing more I can say.
So why not tell us what LePen thinks about these things? How else can we tell who's better?
Just... accept it. The opening of the article says that "observers" have accurately described her. If you need proof, go read the "observers". I'm not going to do your work for you.
I've noticed since the victory of Orban over his opponent by a wide margin not only the E.U. but the liberal media has been squawking and chattering endlessly about that awful Orban. The scribblers in the press can't find words to describe their displeasure at the fact Orban actually represents his constiuency.
The E.U. of course hates Orban for his refusal to allow millions of Muslims and other undesirables into Hungary. This of course drives the pedophiles in Brussels up the wall. It also puts a kink in the WEF/Davos plan for the Great Reset.
Short of forced regime change from the Obiden regime, Orban will remain in power and Hungary's borders will remain solid and closed .
Kudos to Orban for defending the sovereignty of Hungary and protecting the people from the disasters in France, Germany and Britain.
It's almost an assured thing that the E.U. council is planning to somehow rid themselves of this tempestuous priest. Maybe they can get Obiden in on it, as long as there's ten percent for the big guy. gen. Milley Vanilli is most eager to prove his new woke army.
It always amazes me how people with absolutely no facts can speak with authority about what someone else will do in the future. Le Pen has never been in charge so all the dire pronouncements about what a Le Pen presidency would bring is nothing but speculation. She is running for President, not dictator. I guess the author saw what Macron did to trample rights and assumes she would be worse - but based on what? Anti-immigrant? They said the same about Trump even though two of his three wives were immigrants. Anti-Semitic? They called Trump that too despite the fact that his daughter, her husband and their children (his grandchildren) were Jewish and he was the most pro-Israel president since Israel was founded. Heaven forbid a political leader suggest that maybe, just maybe, unfettered immigration might actually change a country’s historic character and lead to increased crime and wasteful government spending. People aren’t buying into the scare tactics any more.
Le Pen has never been in charge so all the dire pronouncements about what a Le Pen presidency would bring is nothing but speculation.
Yeah, but look what happened with Trump. We were warned by the Gatekeepers of the First Amendment that a Trump presidency would bring on a new holocaust in America, and they turned out to be correct. We're not going to allow that to happen a second time merely because Trump 2.0 speaks with a French accent.
all they care about is unfettered immigration and queer theory bullshit.
Those are the only two things they measure on and if you don't line up you are a "right wing extremist" and a "dangerous authoritarian" regardless of anything else about you
FYI, let's pretend everything in this article is 100% correct. Every assertion, suggestion, innuendo, wink and nudge.
Why are you suddenly worried she might win the election? How did someone so far back in the polls suddenly shoot to within striking distance? I wonder if there were... say, a set of circumstances or events which might have propelled her candidacy? I wonder what those things may have been. Just idle thoughts... no need to answer.
If probably isn't that she is so amazing. He is just that bad.
I wonder if there were... say, a set of circumstances or events which might have propelled her candidacy?
Why do you think there must be some specific cause-effect relationship here?
Le Pen is a demagogue, like most of the right-wing populists. She appeals to emotion and earns support by stoking fear. It's as simple as that.
The fears that Le Pen stokes are well-founded, as you yourself have pointed out: an end to French national identity and culture. I quote you in your own words: Nation-states now aren't built around ethnicity. They are built around which government exercises sovereign authority over the particular land mass. In other words, French voters do not want to live in a nation whose identity is reduced to a "land mass".
If you want examples of demagogues who appeal to emotion and earn support by stoking irrational and unfounded fears, in addition to greed and envy, then look no further than to people like Obama, Biden, Warren, Sanders, etc.
...now do climate change activists.
Or trans activists.
Or COVID obsessives.
Didn't Biden claim lame-ass Romney would put black folks BACK IN CHAINS?
Yup, a problem for right wing populists.
Le Pen is a demagogue, like most of the right-wing populists.
As opposed to left wing populists? Lol
I'm not convinced. Emmanuel Macron is 100% anus meat.
May Reason get the Charlie Hebdo treatment over and over again since they seem to think nothing bad ever comes from Muslims. May they and their children get the Rotherham grooming gang treatment or any of another vile, coordinated attacks by the angelic muslim community members they are surprised anyone could be apprehensive of bringing to their cities.
You seem to have a lot of anger directed towards Reason and Muslims.
Have you thought about kindness?
France has had a distinct, proud culture for more than a thousand years. What moral or legal obligation do the French have to allow a single immigrant into the country? What obligation do the French have to accommodate any other religions?
What moral or legal obligation do the French have to allow a single immigrant into the country?
Freedom of association?
Freedom of association necessarily includes the ability for groups of people to join together in political units and choose not to associate.
If you understand liberties only as individual liberties, you are a communist, not a libertarian.
If you understand liberties only as individual liberties, you are a communist, not a libertarian.
That is bizarre even coming from you. Individual liberty is the apotheosis of libertarian thought. "Collective" liberty is what's closer to communism. *Individuals* have natural rights, not collectives. It is the exact opposite: if you favor group rights over individual rights, that makes you much closer to a communist to a libertarian.
Individual liberty is an essential component of libertarian ideology, but it isn't its "apotheosis".
Communism tries to create a world in which everybody has equal freedom and resources to pursue whatever interests they have and in which all of humanity is united without distinctions in class, race, or culture, in which "false consciousness" has been eliminated.
This is your view of "liberty": a view in which all false consciousness has been eliminated and in which everybody has "liberty" only subject to the choices that you approve of.
I don't believe groups have rights at all, so I don't favor "group rights".
I am saying that in a libertarian society, individuals have the right to peacefully and voluntarily form groups and exclude others from those groups based on whatever criteria they choose.
"I am saying that in a libertarian society, individuals have the right to peacefully and voluntarily form groups and exclude others from those groups based on whatever criteria they choose."
So the rights of a group to exclude an individual trump the rights of an individual to join a group.
From a libertarian point of view, there is no "right of a group to exclude". There are only the individual rights of the group members to freely associate and not associate, as individuals. They are individually exercising those rights when they choose to associate with each other and when they choose to exclude people from their group.
"there is no "right of a group to exclude"
But there is a right for a group of individuals to exclude. You don't appear to have thought this through, for a group is simply a collection of individuals. A company, a corporation or a nation for example.
I agree. And those individuals have a right to say "we form this group voluntarily and we make the rule for this group that homosexuals cannot join". That's an exercise of the individual right of freedom of association: you make a voluntary, individual choice to join the group and you make a voluntary, individual choice not to associate with homosexuals.
No, there is not. "The group" does not have any special rights. The individuals comprising the group are only ever individually exercising their right to freedom of association.
You'd have better luck explaining astrophysics to a goat.
"The group" does not have any special rights. "
They have rights and responsibilities. Companies have the right to exercise free speech. They can fire an individual for any reason or none at all. They also have the responsibility to follow laws which prevent them from excluding certain individuals.
"and we make the rule"
We? I thought it was the individual who was in the driver's seat deciding who's to be allowed in the car. Now it's we? You're starting to sound like a socialist.
Yes, under illiberal, progressive laws, that is so; those laws violate freedom of association.
Nothing in libertarianism or a free society precludes people voluntarily associating and engaging in voluntary collective action.
In contrast, under socialism, associations and collective actions are compelled /prohibited by the state.
There is nothing "socialist" about people saying "we voluntarily associate with each other subject to rules, including the rule that homosexuals are excluded from our association; if you do not wish to live by those rules, you are not part of our association".
In contrast, it is every much socialism and authoritarianism when the state says "you can only form associations subject to conditions that we set, including the condition that you must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation".
"If you understand liberties only as individual liberties, you are a communist, not a libertarian."
That's a take. Freedoms are only individual freedoms - to say there are collective freedoms is the definition of collectivism.
The idea that groups have rights that can supercede the rights of individual members of that group is not libertarianism.
I agree: groups don't have rights. But individuals shouldn't lose their individual rights when they associate in groups.
So, if I have the individual right to discriminate against X, I shouldn't lose that right when I get together with other people who also discriminate against X.
Yet, that's exactly what Chemjeff is arguing: I can individually exclude X from my personal life, but if I form an organization with other like-minded individuals, we cannot exclude X from that organization anymore. That sort of prohibition is an infringement on individual liberties.
"What moral or legal obligation do the French have to allow a single immigrant into the country?
Freedom of association?"
Freedom of association has dick-all to do with immigration.
"What moral or legal obligation do the French have to allow a single immigrant into the country?"
France was an imperial power like Britain. And Britain was was obliged to absorb immigrants from the west indies, the east indies, Africa and most of the other areas they colonized. France is no different in that regard. There's no moral or legal obligation. They call it karma, what goes around, comes around.
So, they have to do it because you think they should do it?
Sounds like solid policy.
"Sounds like solid policy."
Imperialism has been policy in England and France for several hundred years. It's been policy in the US since the beginning with the extermination of the native population and the importation of others from Africa, Asia and Europe. It has nothing to do with what I think should happen.
And now it isn't anymore. What does that have to do with immigration?
The US did not "exterminate the native population".
At the founding of the US, the importation of Africans was ended.
Voluntary immigration isn't "importation", and it certainly isn't "imperialism". Furthermore, until after WWII, immigration into the US was deliberately limited to predominantly people of European origin.
"And now it isn't anymore. What does that have to do with immigration?"
It's no coincidence that imperial powers host substantial populations of former colonies. Jamaica, Pakistan, Nigeria were all former colonies of UK and now the UK is home to many who originated there. Surely you don't need me to tell you this.
"The US did not "exterminate the native population".
Sure they did, and stole their land, as well.
"Voluntary immigration isn't "importation", and it certainly isn't "imperialism".
Imperialism is one population subjugating another. In America, it's stealing land, forced population transfers, massacres, concentration camps, famine, war etc.
95% of Native Americans died rapidly after the arrival of Europeans from disease, long before the US was even founded. After the founding of the US, native populations started to recover.
Furthermore, Native Americans have more property rights in the territory of the US today than they ever had before, since they are US citizens.
Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
Mistreatment of people within one's borders isn't "imperialism".
Neither is immigration "imperialism".
Yes, and that was a choice. It has nothing to do with who the French or British choose to allow to immigrate into their nations today.
"95% of Native Americans died rapidly after the arrival of Europeans from disease, long before the US was even founded. "
The per centage isn't relevant.
"After the founding of the US, native populations started to recover."
Recover what? They lost a continent and were relegated to reservations, which are, to this day, the most poverty stricken areas of the nation.
"Mistreatment of people within one's borders isn't "imperialism".
Why not? Especially when one's borders are arbitrarily chosen and include populations that don't agree with being subsumed by outsiders. The land that makes up the Louisiana Purchase for example was defined by France and the US. The people who actually lived there were not consulted.
"Neither is immigration "imperialism".
No. Immigration is people moving and setting up in a new location. Imperialism is one group subjugating another.
Apparently, it is relevant to you, since you were talking about an "extermination". I'm pointing out that that "extermination" (i.e., 95% death of Native Americans) took place long before the US was founded and was the result of disease. Hence, it was neither an "extermination", nor was the US responsible for it.
Native American populations have recovered substantially since the founding of the US.
Native Americans weren't a single political entity; "they" never owned the continent. Native Americans is a collective term for vastly different people who happened to co-exist on the same continent. Most of them simply died out and left behind depopulated lands. Some of them lost their lands in wars, the same way many European nations lost their lands. All of them are now US citizens, which gives them more rights and liberties than they ever had before.
Native Americans aren't "relegated to reservations", they are full US citizens and can live and work anywhere in the US. They have more political freedom and ownership of North America than they ever had.
The US reservation system is a failed social experiments by progressives, even worse than the American inner cities. It collects people who are unable or unwilling to assimilate into US mainstream culture. You can't blame the US for their fate. And the people living on reservations certainly have no legitimate claim whatsoever to the territory of the US outside the reservation system.
"Native Americans weren't a single political entity; "they" never owned the continent."
The government thought differently. They went as far as signing treaties with the various tribes. They did it hundreds of times over.
"Native American populations have recovered substantially since the founding of the US."
They never recovered the land promised to them in any number of treaties signed with the US government. The bison population never recovered either since the extermination.
"The US reservation system is a failed social experiments by progressives, even worse than the American inner cities. "
Progressives can be imperialists, too. Look at the Zionists and the kibbutz movement. Noam Chomsky went to visit a kibbutz as a young socialist. He returned shortly later as a slightly older anarchist, so disillusioned he was with what was going down there.
Emphasis added. You just said it yourself: "Native Americans" weren't a single political entity. Specific tribes of Native Americans traditionally lived in limited regions.
What Native Americans had prior to European arrival was tribal membership in tribes that had conquered and held onto small regions of land by force. That is, their claim to land was a political one as a member of a small political group. That membership has been replaced by US citizenship, which gives them far more rights and freedoms than they had before. I fail to see what you believe was taken from them. And all that is in addition to a massive reservation system where ownership and governance is determined by race and ancestry (offensive as that ought to be to any libertarian).
Good! The bison population that European settlers encountered were an ecological catastrophe and not natural.
Can be? Progressives are the primary drivers behind US imperialism. Conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans by and large are what progressives call "isolationist".
Because that's not what the term means.
Yet, you tell the French that they should welcome having their culture be destroyed and their country being subsumed by outsiders.
"Because that's not what the term means."
That is what it means.
"Yet, you tell the French that they should welcome having their culture be destroyed and their country being subsumed by outsiders."
The French are smart enough to know that culture is always undergoing change, and, moreover, it's impossible to turn back the clock to an earlier age.
Go use a dictionary. You don't get to make up your own meanings.
Definition: im·pe·ri·al·ism a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
The fact that French culture evolves naturally on its own doesn't mean that the French want it destroyed and replaced by Muslim culture or pan-European globalist culture, and that is what is happening.
Neither Britain nor France are "obliged" to do anything. Their voters chose to have easy immigration from former colonies, and now they can choose to end that policy. It's a choice, not inevitability or "karma".
"It's a choice, not inevitability or "karma".
Choices have consequences. If you choose to exterminate the native population and replace it with people from Asia, Africa and Europe, that will inevitably lead to a mixed, multicultural society.
The French are the native population of France. They don't want to be "exterminated" and they don't want to be "replaced" and they don't want to live in a "mixed, multicultural society". And that's why many of them vote against immigration.
Furthermore, Muslims don't want to live in a "mixed, multicultural society" either; Islam fervently rejects that kind of social organization.
"The French are the native population of France. "
What is France? People who live in Tahiti are citizens of France. Are they French? And there are quite a number of other examples. New Caledonia is another. Algeria used to be until it gained independence.
"And that's why many of them vote against immigration."
I think they do so out of fear and insecurity. In times of prosperity, people don't worry so much about immigration and foreign cultures. In England, for example, the people were introduced to an alien food culture from India. I remember a scene from Thackery's novel, Vanity Fair, I believe, where Becky Sharpe is humiliated by her being fed a spicy dish of curry. These days chicken vindaloo is the most popular dish in the country, though that's not saying much given the reputation of English cuisine.
I'm sure the French have no problem with the people of Tahiti, or immigrants from Germany or Italy or the UK, both because those are small in numbers and because those populations simply aren't causing problems.
The French specifically have a problem with Muslim immigration, both because of the magnitude of Muslim immigration, because of the hostility of Islam to French culture and religion, and because of the massive social problems and problems with crime that exist in Muslim communities in France.
Nobody has a right to immigrate to another country, and no country is under any obligation not to discriminate when it comes to immigration. The French are perfectly justified in choosing to give citizenship to the people of Tahiti and to close immigration to all Muslim nations, for any reason or for no reason at all.
"because those populations simply aren't causing problems."
Oh it's the poor refugees from Syria and Libya that are causing all the problems. The French government along with the US, the Brits and the usual rogues gallery who decided to bomb the hell out of those places are blameless, of course. Refugees are a much more convenient scapegoat.
" both because of the magnitude of Muslim immigration"
If they had stuck to colonizing tiny pacific islands like Tahiti, maybe the world would be a better place. That's not the path they took, though. Check your geography books. Algeria is not a tiny pacific island. And it's Muslim as well, as your religion books will tell you.
When it comes to crime, social problems, religious intolerance, and totalitarian beliefs, yes, refugees from Syria and Libya are causing massive problems.
So you're saying that because the French government engaged in stupid wars and prior French governments engaged in even more stupid imperialism, the French should now consent to having their nation overrun by Muslims, their culture destroyed, and their social safety nets go bankrupt? Never mind, that even doing all that, the vast majority of Syrians and Libyans would still not be helped? That is just plain stupid.
Algeria was a Roman province, then Christian. Muslims conquered it and exterminated the Christians. Under Muslim rule, Algerians raided European coastlines and took large numbers of Europeans as slaves. Its political system consisted largely of replacing the ruler by assassination. That's the evil shithole you are losing sleep over.
France picked it up after the Ottoman empire self-destructed and spent massively on its modernization and education. Algeria is far better off after French rule than it was before. France owes Algerians nothing.
That actually doesn't preclude the possibility of no immigration.
Not sure what point you thought you were making.
Thanks broken nesting; above for Jeffy.
Ms. de Rugy remarks that on domestic policy there is very little difference between Le Pen and Macron. That unless France can find someone better than Macron France will eventually elect someone like Le Pen in rejection of the failures of the establishment. That possibility includes aping Venezuela and electing someone like H. Chavez. And that also includes Pat Buchanan's remark about the immigrants and Muslims taking over the place.
We also have to ask if France has a Fatal Attraction to the concepts of 'dirigisme'.
"and Muslims taking over the place."
Neither Macron nor Le Pen is a Muslim, regardless of what Buchanan says.
I really have to wonder how France's far right could be worse than their far left.
Antisemitism? Whoah boy, the left hates Jews.
Oppression of minorities - take a trip through the banlieues.
Economic nationalism? It's *France* we're talking about - the founder of 'geographic origin' protectionism.
"I really have to wonder how France's far right could be worse than their far left."
Macron is hardly 'far left.' You should find other things to wonder about.
"Antisemitism? Whoah boy, the left hates Jews."
Le Pen's father hated Jews and was tolerant of Muslims. The daughter has reversed that. I don't think it's accurate to say the left hates Jews. They hate Zionism,if anything, as an expression of colonialism. Zionism is a political idea and there are plenty of Jews, even right wingers, who oppose it. It's the idea that a state, a Jewish state in this case, should be devoted to an ethnicity rather than the people who live there.
The hatred of the left has simply expanded from "Jews" all the way to "cis-hetero white men", which includes most Jewish men.
"The hatred of the left has simply expanded from "Jews"
You don't appear to have understood my comment. The left never hated Jews. In fact many noted leftists from Marx to Bernie Sanders are Jews. I don't think the left hates cis-hetero white men, either, else they wouldn't have voted for Biden for president. My advice, find something else to obsess over other than Jews and who or what the left hates.
That's utter b.s. Socialists, communists, and fascists have been deeply antisemitic throughout history.
Karl Max had Jewish ancestry, but his parents were Christian and he was an atheist. Furthermore, Marx was an anti-Semite, as documented in his writing. Sanders is an atheist and a political opportunist; he uses his Jewish ancestry as a political gimmick.
Sadly, I don't have a choice: I'm a successful, liberal gay immigrant and the left hates me.
"That's utter b.s. Socialists, communists, and fascists have been deeply antisemitic throughout history."
There are many who have been anti-Semitic. Leftists, however, especially leftists today are anti-Zionist. They view Israel as a colonial project and oppose it on those grounds. Throughout history, leftists have been especially tolerant of Jews. Oliver Cromwell (England's Mao Tse Tung) re-admitted them to England after a right wing monarch expelled them hundreds of years previously.
Leftists are also virulently anti-religious and anti-conservative. So, if you are an atheist with Jewish ancestry, the left tolerates you and won't hold your genetics against you.
Any other Jew, they despise with at least as much fervor as they despise Christians and conservatives.
"Leftists are also virulently anti-religious and anti-conservative."
They're anti-conservative by definition, essentially. It's hardly the revelation you make it out to be. Anti-religious? No. Again, Oliver Cromwell. The Quakers and radical Catholics today are involved in many leftist and anarchist groups and causes, like prison reform, anti-war, housing, etc. Leftists are apt to be involved in environmental causes, as well. If I've read it once, I've read it a thousand times. Environmentalism is a religion. Leftists, anti-religious? You clearly haven't thought this through.
"Any other Jew, they despise with at least as much fervor as they despise Christians and conservatives."
Clearly you are simply parroting what you've heard others say when criticizing leftists. Think for yourself.
I grew up with socialism.
You are a truly ignorant American.
We don't have a choice other than to be aware of your and the left's anti-Semitism, bigotry, racism, and intolerance, because you will come and persecute us again.
You're not paying attention and seem determined to cast me in an unfavorable light. It's arguing in bad faith. Maybe you believe that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same. But you haven't said so, so it's just speculation on my part. Let's just say you wouldn't be the only one to make that equivocation, however confused and insincere it may be.
No, YOU are arguing in bad faith. It is YOU who accused me of "obsessing over Jews". I merely reflected your scurrilous accusation back on you.
I'm glad you realize now how deplorable your attempt was.
Let it be a lesson.
Your need to drag in the victimhood of cis hetero white men and tie it in with anti-semitism was the giveaway. You're more interested in repeating tedious reactionary talking points than putting on your thinking cap.
Unlike the ignorant leftist American you are, I grew up with socialism and know of what I speak.
mtrue, you might wish to take up your cause with "anti-Zionism" protesters who have a strong tendency to go directly to "Jews are bad" in very short order.
And the Left is very anti-Semitic. Stalin was no more fond of Jews than Hitler.
"mtrue, you might wish to take up your cause with "anti-Zionism" protesters who have a strong tendency to go directly to "Jews are bad"
I tend to ignore those who say 'Jews are bad.' Jewishness is an ethnicity. Zionism is a political movement. It's important to grasp the difference.
"Stalin was no more fond of Jews than Hitler."
The secret police were hugely Jewish under Stalin, at least until the purges of the late 30s. Stalin entrusted a Jew, Kaganovitch, I believe, to conduct the collectivization of the farms in Ukraine. Another Jew, I forget the name, was in charge of the same in Kazakhstan. Hitler never put a Jew in charge of any of his major initiatives, and indeed fulminated against them as inhuman every chance he was given.
Stalin did the same. Finding some useful in spite of it is hardly a good point.
Nazis hated Jews...yet still happily fucked Jewish women. Just like racist plantation owners had few qualms fucking female slaves.
"Jewish" can mean "has immediate Jewish ancestry", "is ethnically Jewish", or "is religiously Jewish". Anti-Semitism refers to hatred of any one of those three (overlapping) categories of people.
People like you like to take advantage of this by equivocating.
Hitler hated all three categories of people. Stalin hated only two of the three categories (because socialism views people as blank slates). Both were virulent anti-Semites; neither form of anti-Semitism is defensible.
RE: "Le Pen is everything observers around the world are saying she is. She is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, taking positions among the worst that populism has to offer. She's also obsessed with "wokisme," a catchall word for the "leftist" ideologies she dislikes. Unsurprisingly, she admires Hungary's authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban, and would happily follow in his footsteps by imposing his economic policies, as well as his practice of using whatever powers necessary to crush the opposition." Hmmm.... I find myself disagreeing with the author. Europe, under the leadership of Angela Merkel, went absolutely crazy with accepting mass immigration of Muslims, from the religion of Islam, which is antithetical to Western Civilization....so what's wrong with being anti-Muslim, certainly in terms of immigration? (Christians - don't they have a long history of being marauded by Muslims?) Some immigration is ok surely, but massive immigration, which changes the nature, the character, the essence of one's country? Sorry, but I'm with Le Pen; Veronique De Rugy is just pain wrong. BTW, I love the way Orban, a good Christian conservative, stands up to Leftist/socialist Europe. I guess we can't expect all Mercatus Center fellows to possess the common sense of Walter Williams.