30 ms·

> it looks to be more freeing There are many other factors, and it depends on what you mean by "freeing". Political power, like energy and matter, is generally

> it looks to be more freeing There are many other factors, and it depends on what you mean by "freeing". Political power, like energy and matter, is generally conserved; the question is, who controls it. * The ethical, generally accepted solution is for the people to control political power, via democratic government. (Undoubtedly it's very imperfect, but that's inevitable for every large human institution.) * When you reduce government control of political power, you usually simply transfer it to someone else and often that's not 'the people'. Lacking a systematic, rules-based way to control and express that power, it often becomes might makes right, which dis-empowers most people. * As a simple example: Less regulation by government often shifts power to big business; most consumers lose power: Government is responsive to them, and regulations often empower consumers. * Regarding Brexit, intra-European issues and power won't go away. If there is no EU, who determines trade rules? Border laws? Security issues? The fair way to do it is to take a vote. Sans the EU, it's might makes right. We've seen how that works out in Europe (and everywhere else), and in fact the EU was created to prevent a repeat of those scenarios. Now the UK is essentially refusing to respect the votes of their neighbors and will return to the stone-age doctrine of power in a state of anarchy (which is what international relations is widely regarded to be). They also don't get a vote now. There are other factors too, of course. The UK used to be a major world power; then they became a second-rate one, but allied with the U.S. and Europe. With the rise of billion-person economies in China and India, and with the U.S. already five times larger (320 million), the 60 million people in the UK become an afterthought on the world stage, with limited ability to affect the world's or their own destiny. A united Europe, however, with ten times that population is a player. The UK is 'freer' like Hawaii would be if they left the United States. Sharing government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom, it's simply respect for others.

alexbilbie 10y ago
> Sharing government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom, it's simply respect for others. But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government. With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares it means trying to form trade deals is a multi year process that leads to no tangible output (see the failing Canada trade deal as a prime example). You argue that 60 million people might not make a global super power but it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government. Nothing "necessarily" leads to anything. See my comment above about FUD like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125 > With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares ... They'll be vying regardless. That's the nature, indeed the whole point, of democracy: To provide a system of rules for doing that fairly, rather than might makes right. > it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions. More FUD. They need to deal with those other nations' interests one way or the other; who would choose anarchy over democracy? The EU regularly makes trade deals among its 28 nations, far more quickly and flexibly than any other trade block. That's because, rather than stone-age international anarchy, which requires painful, undemocratic treaty negotiations that are so difficult that they can't be updated and revisited, they operate with normal laws and regulations. How will the UK make deals now with those 28 nations? Certainly not as easily. How will their 60 million have the leverage to get the deals that an entity ten times bigger gets? Would the individual U.S. states be better off negotiating international trade deals absent the federal government? After all, then they wouldn't have to deal with all the other interests. The ideology is naive. You have to deal with other people and their interests; that's part of life. You can do it by fighting them or by cooperating to create the best possible outcome. It also is moral, because we need to respect that others' interests are as important as our own, another element of maturity. It is called 'civilization' and even 'enlightened self-interest'.

alexbilbie 10y ago

> Sharing government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom, it's simply respect for others. But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government. With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares it means trying to form trade deals is a multi year process that leads to no tangible output (see the failing Canada trade deal as a prime example). You argue that 60 million people might not make a global super power but it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions.

hackuser 10y ago
> But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government. Nothing "necessarily" leads to anything. See my comment above about FUD like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125 > With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares ... They'll be vying regardless. That's the nature, indeed the whole point, of democracy: To provide a system of rules for doing that fairly, rather than might makes right. > it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions. More FUD. They need to deal with those other nations' interests one way or the other; who would choose anarchy over democracy? The EU regularly makes trade deals among its 28 nations, far more quickly and flexibly than any other trade block. That's because, rather than stone-age international anarchy, which requires painful, undemocratic treaty negotiations that are so difficult that they can't be updated and revisited, they operate with normal laws and regulations. How will the UK make deals now with those 28 nations? Certainly not as easily. How will their 60 million have the leverage to get the deals that an entity ten times bigger gets? Would the individual U.S. states be better off negotiating international trade deals absent the federal government? After all, then they wouldn't have to deal with all the other interests. The ideology is naive. You have to deal with other people and their interests; that's part of life. You can do it by fighting them or by cooperating to create the best possible outcome. It also is moral, because we need to respect that others' interests are as important as our own, another element of maturity. It is called 'civilization' and even 'enlightened self-interest'.