• gian
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Not every discussion about rules ends with citing immigrants. Immigrants are relevant here – see the article – and the rules that exist favour either rich immigrants or people with citizenship.

    In this situation the immigrants (the Britons) were able to stay in Sweden exactly because UK was in the EU and then there were rules about this. Also a lot of people was forced to left UK for the same reason.

    And migrants do make the world go round, look at doctors, people working in industry and so on.

    I would like to discuss about this, if what you say would be true we would not have rise from all the parties that say to send them back. Now we can discuss about legal Vs illegal immigrants but I don’t think we could agree.

    All of that is after the fact. After murders have happened. Murderers know they will be punished harshly and do it anyway. The interesting question is how to prevent murders without strictly relying on harsh punishments since that is something murders factor in…

    Would you commit a murder if you would be **sure ** to be caught, put in prison cell 2x2 meters and never ever exit, not even for 1 hour a day, until you die ?
    Or, let’s take a lighter crime: would you park your car in a no parking zone if you would be sure to be fined every time you do it ?

    The problem is not how harsh is the punishment but how sure you are to be punished: you can have a death sentence for murder but if your probability to be caught is 1% it is not a deterrent.

    So you do recognise rules are forced upon subjects by an authority, in this case the state.

    Yes, and it is necessary.

    I assume you are not a state servant or business owner, do you also recognise that the state wants to squeeze you of every ounce of labour so that it can do its deed to perpetuate its system of class rule? It’s hens OKing the fox guarding the hen house.

    No. Simply because even if I am currently not a state servant or business owner (but I was both of them) there is nothing that stop me from being one once I had the prerequisites (for being a state servant) or I want to start a business.

    Society is not merely a set of rules. Society is made up of relations between people and physical infrastructure such as housing and workplaces. What you think of as rules are at best for edge cases. Most people don’t go about their day thinking about rules, those who do are a small minority which most would generally label bean counters. You have a highly idealistic conception of why things work.

    Maybe but I am pretty sure that if there was not a set of rules then society as we intend it would fall in a very short time frame.

    Relationships between people work once the people know that if the do something wrong there is some sort of punishment, else it would become something like “the strongest rules” very fast.

    Actually, no those who voted did not understand the consequences.

    It is not an EU problem, it is their problem. Why we should try to solve a problem they created for themself.
    Beside the fact that in my opinion UK voter understand very well what the possible consequences would be, they simply choose to belive that they were in a position to impose their will.

    To understand the consequences you would need to spend time that most people don’t have because they work. Nationalistic thinktanks that position themselves against German (and French) competition pour a bunch of money into campaigns that say the UK will be paradise after Brexit and the people lap it up. Not that this is the thing that brought us Brexit, there was a nationalistic sentiment that existed before Brexit was even a concept. This has a logic, and it has very little to do with rigorously rational voting.

    True. But what you are saying is that UK was so full of itself that they think that EU would beg to them to make treaties at their (UK) conditions.
    Unfortunately for them it was (and is) not true.

    But yeah, what you are saying, about needing to follow rules and whatnot, is exactly the same thing someone killings others for the military would say. “I need to follow the rules because if I don’t something bad happens or something”

    No. Killing in a war has rules too. And a soldier can refuse to follow and order.
    True, you follow orders but if the order is unlawfull you must refuse to follow it, since the “I was following the orders” defence does not work.