9 ms·

The American-Western European Values Gap

• bluthru 13y ago
  I find it interesting that more women than men consider religion important to them, when religion is partially to blame for them being marginalized in society. On the whole, I just look at those figures and feel a deep amount of shame for my country (US). We'll catch up, but I think part of the reason for these figures is that the US is relatively rural.
  • _delirium 13y ago
    On the differing-demographics question, it would be interesting to have some finer-grained data to look at some of those confounding issues. I can believe that Americans and Western Europeans differ on some values, but they also differ considerably amongst themselves: the values of Brooklyn and suburban Houston are fairly different. Even just regional data could be useful to be a more accurate view.
  • jiggy2011 13y ago
    Perhaps it is because they are more religious that they find it easier to accept marginalisation?
    • Tloewald 13y ago
      They probably do not consider themselves marginalized. To understand how people who disagree with you think, start with the assumption they don't think of themselves as stupid hypocrites.
      • newnewnew 13y ago
        A Canadian study found that extremely conservative women reported higher degrees of happiness than average: http://www.moreright.net/oaks-vs-sandboxes/ http://www.moreright.net/oaks-vs-sandboxes/
  • maratd 13y ago
    > On the whole, I just look at those figures and feel a deep amount of shame for my country (US). I feel a deep shame for your comment. I can respect someone for believing in a socialist approach, why are you unable to do the same for those who believe in a laissez faire approach?
    • jiggy2011 13y ago
      Most of the questions have nothing to do with laissez faire vs socialism.
      • dnautics 13y ago
        Uh the very first one? "Which is more important, Freedom to pursue one's goals without state interference, or that the state guarantees no one is in need"? Although there are people like myself who think that the state does a very poor job of guaranteeing no one is in need, and that individuals are better at providing 'socialism' than governments.
        • jiggy2011 13y ago
          He doesn't mention that one specifically, more likely he is ashamed by questions on homosexuality etc.
    • iterative 13y ago
      You can respect someone for believing in socialism? What about witchcraft?
      • maratd 13y ago
        I don't believe witchcraft can claim any reasonable success, while socialism can at least make a claim for converting the largest countries in the world from agrarian to industrial economies. Now, I would argue that capitalism can do it better, but there would be an argument at least ... what argument can you have with witchcraft? Hence my respect.
    • 13y ago
  • toble 13y ago
    I bet the lack of a national curriculum - that banishes religion from everything except religious classes has something to do with the US results. Here in the UK we are slowly degenerating by allowing schools to have more freedom, so religious groups are having increased influence on standard state schools.
    • Gormo 13y ago
      There's no national curriculum in the US, but religion most certainly is "banished" from state schools. Not even excepting religious classes - there aren't any such classes in state-operated schools, at least not any that I've ever heard of. Treating school systems as the primary mechanism for transmitting cultural memes, and attributing social attitudes to its functions, seems a very bizarre position. In fact, if anything, the exact reverse may be the case: by not permitting religion to have any state-supported expression, it ensures that religion is sustained and advanced by civil society itself, which yields a much more vigorous and energetic religious sphere in American culture than you'd see in countries where religion is mediated and subdued by politics.
  • bane 13y ago
    It sometimes can be obvious, the small flock of little old ladies attending Wednesday evening mass for example. If you can manage, check out the crowd shots in a modern televangelist audience. Lots of men, but many many more women: sometimes a shot will show 1 or 2 men, and 8-12 women. Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMP2lEUP1E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMP2lEUP1E It's not terribly surprising that women often assume a very conservative role in society, viewing themselves as keepers of tradition. For example, the man in a western suit and woman in traditional clothes is very common all over the world, while you rarely see the opposite: http://www.squarehe.com/images/0611/korean-wedding.jpg http://www.squarehe.com/images/0611/korean-wedding.jpg http://www.ajewelrystyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/indian-wedding-reception-clothes.jpg http://www.ajewelrystyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/indi... http://www.lassiwithlavina.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/adoption-Garg-1.jpg http://www.lassiwithlavina.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ad... http://hindtoday.com/blogs/images/USA/DEVENDRA_MAKKAR_Family.jpg http://hindtoday.com/blogs/images/USA/DEVENDRA_MAKKAR_Family... http://www.lightfootfilms.org/Peruvian-Family_c.jpg http://www.lightfootfilms.org/Peruvian-Family_c.jpg http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/media/edu/EN/uploads/image/nguyenwedding.jpg http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/media/edu/EN/upload... I'm sure it's some strange human expression having to do with who has which reproductive organs, but it's always seemed to me such a strange, interesting and repeatable pattern.
  • iterative 13y ago
    Although we haven't yet achieved the slow rate of economic growth and high rate of unemployment that Europe currently enjoys, don't worry, the current administration is working hard to get us there. And if you're too impatient to wait for the whole country to reach an acceptable level of dysfunction, you can always move to Detroit and get ahead of the curve.
    • bluthru 13y ago
      So much conflation...
  • lotharbot 13y ago
    In my experience, religious women are unlikely to agree with the assertion that religion marginalizes them. Instead, they are likely to claim that religion shows them the importance of womanhood (often motherhood in particular).
  • Tloewald 13y ago
    The young in the US are more cynical about the superiority of US culture than any other group (are of their own culture). So there is hope.
  • speeder 13y ago
    I know a musliam woman that dislike the fashion tastes of Saudi Arabian women. In Saudi Arabia, women must use black clothing covering almost everything. And the reason for that, is that they want to, there are no laws that say that, no religious rule that say that, and men don't enforce that, when a muslim visitor of another country wear muslim clothes but not black for example, Saudi women that will nag you to go change to something black. (or if a woman wear muslim clothing that does not cover the same things, they also get nagged by other women). That said, I disagree with your statement that religion marginalize women. Maybe, because I am religious myself.
    • sillysaurus 13y ago
      I'll admit that I'm apparently a dumb American, because till now I thought those women were forced to wear those black robes that cover everything but their eyes. They really like it, and they aren't coerced with any kind of religious pressure?
      • InclinedPlane 13y ago
        Of course there are laws, I have no idea what the other poster is talking about. Saudi Arabia even has a police force, the mutaween, which enforces things like dress codes for women (officially the name of the organization which runs the religious police in Saudi Arabia is called "The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice"). There is a famous example of an incident in 2002 wherein during a fire in a girls' school in Mecca the mutaween prevented girls from fleeing the school due to being improperly clothed, 15 girls died and 50 others were injured from the fire.
        • eshvk 13y ago
          In other countries where there are no laws proscribing women to wear burkhas (e.g. India), there are plenty who do so.
          • megablast 13y ago
  • newnewnew 13y ago
    I am consistently amazed by the profound contempt which modern liberalism holds for the traditional role of the wife and mother. In traditional societies, motherhood is not looked down upon or held in contempt, but mothers are honored. As the managers of families and the people that consistently invest the most in the next generation, they are the backbone of society. Every successful person today owes his success to a chain of hundreds of successful mothers, stretching back into pre-history. It is only as our planning horizon has shrunk from a thousand years to six months that we begin to look on motherhood as a form of slavery. Females are told that they must do anything but a traditional female role to have value in society. We cajole women to act like men. In a way, liberalism is ironically misogynist. It is little surprise then that Western liberals no longer breed above replacement rates. Denigrating motherhood is not the way for a people to last the aeons of time. I believe the future of the West is profoundly more conservative than the present, because Darwin. Liberalism is a suicidal ideology.
    • jamesaguilar 13y ago
      You might be projecting a little. The comment you're replying to makes no mention of the role "wife" or "mother" in a disparaging sense, or otherwise.
    • bluthru 13y ago
      >We cajole women to act like men. There's your problem. Equality means removing old sexist views about the role of men and women in society. "Women to act like men" or "men to act like women" is a farce. Humans should be free to define their role for themselves. Also, I don't know why you're worried about the amount of humans on the planet. It's already overpopulated.
      • goggles99 13y ago
        If OBSERVING that men and women are built and operate differently on a mass and indefinite number of levels (mentally, physically and emotionally) - I guess that I too hold these "sexist views". Then again, maybe I am just honest and choose not to buy into lies and false propaganda. How can there be the kind of equality that you are referring to when there is no equivalence? There are always going to be some women who could have done better than the man that got the job that they both interviewed for. Same for men who were beat out by a women, but the idea that some preconceived notion that a man is going to be a better fighter pilot than a women is going to go away is pure fantasy. When something is true 99+% of the time, people are going to lean toward probability. It is human nature. I guarantee that if anyone in this topic (man or women) was playing a game of deadly roulette and had to choose odds with who was more qualified and would do a better job in a field of men and women with certain careers, everyone here would be a "sexist". So don't call out someone with There's your problem. If you consider it a problem then it is YOUR problem too. Maybe not on the same level, but you yourself are affected by it on some level (like it or not). You are a human - therefore have human nature.
  • scotty79 13y ago
    Maybe it's because women put greater value in stability and religion is old so it gives illusion of stability.
  • test-it 13y ago
    >> religion is partially to blame for them being marginalized in society Completely not true. It's the nature of work and power in human societies since the Neolithic revolution, that put man in control.
    • willvarfar 13y ago
      Were not the Celts very equal, and it was the Romans who put an end to that?
  • rayiner 13y ago
    Women have usually been more strongly religious then men. Religion is historically a major part of family life, and women are historically the ones charged with socializing children and giving structure to families. As an aside, I find your reaction amusing. Why should anyone be ashamed that Americans think it's necessary to use force to preserve order in the world, or that Americans believe our culture to be superior? We are coming off a 60 year run in which: 1) The U.S. subsidized the military defense of Europe through NATO against the Soviet Union; 2) America dominated nearly every major field of technological development; 3) Europe, after economic dysfunction in the 1970's and 1980s, took pages out of the American playbook and enjoyed resurgent economies in the 1990's and 2000's as a result of economic liberalization and deregulation. Over the last 60 years, America has given the world: peace, the transistor, computers, the cell phone, and the internet. People in France watch American media (Hollywood) on an American platform (Youtube), then talk about it all on an American website (Facebook). America has reshaped world culture and technology to a degree that only a few countries can claim: Great Britain and Rome. There is nothing to be ashamed of in taking a little credit for that.
    • moocowduckquack 13y ago
      "that Americans believe our culture to be superior?" Well, for people outside America it does seem both arrogant and amusing in fairly equal parts. By the way, about your list. Peace - bwahahahaha Transistor - The Canadian Julius Edgar Lilienfeld first patented the FET. Computer - The first programmable electronic computer was built by Tommy Flowers in the UK for WWII codebreaking. Cell phone - Yep, american's built the first cell phones. Internet - Certainly a hell of a lot of the initial work was done in the States, but the protocols were knocked out between groups in Stanford and University College London and the bit of it that most people use was designed by Tim Berners-Lee while at CERN.
      • kec 13y ago
        >Peace - bwahahahaha how many global conflicts, or even local conflicts between any two major powers, have there been in the past 60 years? While "Pax Americana" obviously isn't perfect, it's hard to deny that it doesn't exist. >Transistor - The Canadian Julius Edgar Lilienfeld first patented the FET. He was actually Hungarian, (and emigrated to the US shortly afterward) but that's besides the point. He never actually created his design, only patented it. It took another 20 years for a design to actually be implemented by Shockley and others at Bell labs. >Computer - The first programmable electronic computer was built by Tommy Flowers in the UK for WWII code breaking. Fair... Although it was IBM, Intel, RCA, DEC and eventually Apple which made computing what it is today. >Internet - Certainly a hell of a lot of the initial work was done in the States, but the protocols were knocked out between groups in Stanford and University College London and the bit of it that most people use was designed by Tim Berners-Lee while at CERN. Fair
  • pionar 13y ago
    What is there to feel shame about? Opinions are just that - opinions. You shouldn't feel ashamed for people that have different opinions than yourself. That seems overly judgmental and elitist, especially the "relatively rural" nonsense. I for one am glad that we don't share the same views on the whole as Western Europe, especially the self-reliance and choose-your-own-adventure. It's the over-reliance on the government that has Western Europe in the terrible economic shape that it is. While we have gone a bit overboard in letting corporations dictate so much of our rules and regulations, all in all, the capitalist system we have gives people more opportunities than our European counterparts. Our culture may not be superior (how could it be when we've only been around for ~250 years), but our economics most certainly are. I think the Europeans' smugness and looking down their noses at the "upstarts" in the colonies has gotten to you.
    • omd 13y ago
      Talk about smugness. >Opinions are just that - opinions. Except when they're not in line with yours apparently. wow.
    • EiZei 13y ago
      "I think the Europeans' smugness and looking down their noses at the "upstarts" in the colonies has gotten to you." That's kind of funny when you consider this graph: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/11/2011-VALUES0010.png http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/11/2011-VALUES0010.png
  • sigkill 13y ago
    There was a post on reddit where abused women have higher levels of oxytocin. Maybe that has something to do with it. Abused/brainwashed is pretty much similar, except one might have physical traces.
    • lifeformed 13y ago
      That's a pretty wild claim. Being religious is not similar at all to being abused. Growing up with a certain worldview doesn't affect that. Your body doesn't know you are learning the "wrong" worldview. "Brainwashing" is a term too lightly used - although it can happen, the average religious person is not brainwashed. They simply just grow up with a certain cultural mindset.
      • sigkill 13y ago
        You're probably right that 'brainwashed' is a term used lightly, yet with some people if you challenge their views, they go flat out into denial so that their world doesn't shatter. I probably should call them brainwashed even though it's just simply the way they grew up.
        • lifeformed 13y ago
          Well, you could say the same about a non-religious person. Tell them about God, and they would flat out deny it. Why? Because they believe their own worldview to be correct, and that God is incompatible with it. It's fair for them, so it should be fair for religious people to do the same. To them, religious reality is as axiomatic as scientific fact is to non-religious people. It doesn't matter which side is technically correct - they both believe their own point to be true, based on the very complex cultural and social factors in their upbringing. I don't think a religious and non-religious person are physiologically any different, they just make different choices about their beliefs. I'm not saying science is equivalent to a religion, but rather that a religious worldview is just as unshakable as a non-religious worldview.
          • sigkill 13y ago
  • Sharlin 13y ago
    AFAIK, it's the community aspect of religion women are often attracted to.
  • arethuza 13y ago
    "the US is relatively rural" Not really - 82.4% of the US population lives in urban areas, which is a bit higher than the UK (79.6%) and quite a bit higher than Germany (73.9%), Italy (68.4%) or Ireland (62.2%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country [NB France, Sweden and Finland are even more urban that the US]
  • qw 13y ago
    In local news media where I live (Oslo, Norway), there have been stories about the "muslem morality police". These are people who use social control to make sure girls dress properly and don't have too much contact with outsiders. Although a family may be relatively liberal, they feel pressured by neighbors to control their daughters. In some cases they even are shamed by neighbors calling their more conservative families back home. The interesting fact is that this "morality police" is driven by more women than men.
  • agilebyte 13y ago
    A couple years back I have heard an idea in a psychology class that this has to do with risk assessment. If women are less likely to take risks, they are less likely to "take their chances" in an afterlife.
  • davidw 13y ago
    > feel a deep amount of shame for my country (US) Get over it. As an American living in Western Europe, there are plenty of things to be ashamed about everywhere. And there is a lot of good stuff in the US, too. Forget about this so quickly? http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html The important thing is to try and identify things that your country doesn't do so well, and try and import the good stuff from elsewhere. This is a long and slow process that requires lots of hard work. And it's also complicated, because sometimes the good things are mixed up with the bad things.
    • bluthru 13y ago
      We're talking about culture as a whole, not outlying tasks performed by few. Part of the delusion is people believing they have anything to do with the success of NASA.
  • gadders 13y ago
    I look at those answers and find a deep amount of shame for my country, the UK. Especially on the role of the state and the fact that many people feel their life is outside of their control. It's no wonder that the U.S. is a more successful country.
  • goggles99 13y ago
    I know that you are all about equality but I think you missed the idea. All people are treated differently because drum roll... They are different. Men, women, musicians, mathematicians, authors, doctors. Humans are not evil because when people are different, they tend to group them all together. This is human nature. This affects everyone's decision making (including yours). If you were in a game of deadly roulette where you had to pick the outcome of certain peoples lives, how certain people would react to certain challenges or situations, how well certain people would do in certain jobs - you would go with the numbers too. You would not treat these people equally. Therefore you yourself are sexist, bigoted, and stereotype people just as those you criticize. Just knowing this this fact means that these probabilities do have an affect on you. I am not condoning the mistreatment of anyone - I am merely saying that blindly ignoring peoples strengths and weaknesses is foolishness. Also, giving resources or opportunity which was not earned or deserved to someone will not usually result in a better outcome. Negative side effects create more problems to this scenario than the original solution was meant to solve (and it too fails).
• sillysaurus 13y ago
  I'd be interested to see the exact phrasing of each question.
  • SkittlesNTwix 13y ago
    I've taken a Pew Research Poll before. What struck me immediately was the inane and terrible format of the questions. I actually said to the individual giving the poll, "None of these questions really allow me to confer how I feel about the issues that I know you're asking me about. They're basically nonsense."
    • cinquemb 13y ago
      Is it because it sets up a situation where there are only two sides? That thought crossed my mind when it was the state or religion, and excluding a possible third option that could describe the way people feel.
    • AndrewKemendo 13y ago
      I wonder if there is room in the market to disrupt polling then. I have never been part of a poll but have heard similar bad things about their structure, so I wonder if anyone is out there trying to make it more accurate.
      • pgeorgi 13y ago
        On the technical side you need two things for disruption: 1. A sane test design. Before trying to pull an MVP here, please take some psychology classes on that topic since there's already a huge body of work on how to design a test in a way that lets you infer reliable data, even if participants think the test is nuts (and try to sabotage it), or if they try to second-guess "desired" answers ("Of course I'm not racist"). 2. Comparable data sets over time/regions. People are interested in how things change. That's the incumbent advantage in this market, they have all that stuff. #2 also helps to get _some_ useful information out of insane questions (since they're consistently insane over the years).
  • wtvanhest 13y ago
• tomhschmidt 13y ago
  Interesting that the US believes they shape their own destiny or that they are the product of their own work, yet the 'cultural superiority' question seems to indicate that they don't necessarily value what they have produced.
  • polemic 13y ago
    The death of Manifest Destiny... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny)
• copx 13y ago
  Many of the questions are so stupid that I would refuse to answer them.
• rayiner 13y ago
  > About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others. The French only say that because they disagree with the "our culture is not perfect" bit.
  • lotharbot 13y ago
    There's an unstated assumption that could be clarified: - our culture is superior to some others - our culture is superior to most others - our culture is superior to all others My answer would change depending on which of these I thought the question was asking. Would a native French speaker make a different assumption from a native English speaker? Would linguistic differences make all three equally possible in Spanish but only one possible in German? In other words, is it possible that language difference is significantly distorting our ability to spot attitude difference on this question?
    • asperous 13y ago
      Also remember that most people don't study culture and might think that means along the lines of "well my friends / people in my area are generally nice but I heard people in other countries are raping and killing each other". What I'm trying to say is that as part of the study, asking people who responded what they thought culture meant might be really valuable to gauging the value of this question.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Oh look, French bashing, how very avant-garde.
    • vmarsy 13y ago
      rayiner's joke is aimed at this category of people : >3. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD in this article : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6037848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6037848 So, for people who only know France through Pepé le Pew, that is a good joke !
• mmanfrin 13y ago
  The age difference in the cultural superiority question is really eye opening. It went from 60% of 50+ Americans saying 'yes', to 37% for 18-29 -- second lowest after France. Glad to know that my generation has a sprinkling of modesty.
• hrktb 13y ago
  This 'study' reaks of bias and hand waved conclusions...the list would be so long, perhaps the extensive use of 'Americans' as a short hand for US citizens in an international opinion survey is the most blatant give away ? It comes from the Pew Reasearch Center, an US think tank chaired by former Bill Clinton's secretary of States, funded by a very wealthy conservative entity, and scanning the other surveys I get the same feeling of being very transparent on the methodology while strongly aiming for a given output. Like this one the NSA for instance: http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph... PS: even for a selected target, what does questions like 'Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others' point to ? They surveyed that short of half of the Christinans think themself as Christian first and citizen of a country second. For these people, what does 'our culture' even point to ?
• iuguy 13y ago
  One possible reason for the British response in the Religious vs National Identity question is that British identity can be a very fractious thing. The UK is made up of constituent kingdoms, but not all of these are on the island of Great Britain. Thus you can be technically British (i.e. of the UK) without being British (i.e. of the island of Great Britain). This most notably manifests itself amongst the Northern Irish, some of whom see themselves as Irish (ethnicity, or wanting to be of a united Irish state) or British (of the United Kingdom, but of island of Ireland). To confuse things further, there's a debate going on over whether or not Scotland should stay part of the United Kingdom or become a separate country. Scottish nationalism is a very strange creature. Thus some people may identify with being Scottish first, or solely as Scottish. This occurs to a lesser extent in Wales and in England (being Welsh and English, not Scottish, that would just be silly). Additionally there are many people who are first or second generation British with foreign parents or grandparents, particularly from former colonial territories. I have friends who identify with being both British and Indian, despite being born and raised on the island of Great Britain. It all makes for a big, typically British mess. Finally, my wife was born in Turkey, moved to England and became a British citizen, but she can never become English because there's no English citizenship status.
  • arethuza 13y ago
    "Scottish nationalism is a very strange creature." Why? We already have seperate legal, educational and health systems and a government that deals with a lot of domestic policies. We have a clear national identity and seem to be immune to the swing towards the far right that seems to be happening in England. Personally, I would far rather be in a Scotland that is independent, free of Trident and part of the EU than left as an appendage to London in the Former UK. [Sadly, I suspect we won't get indepedence, but I rankle a bit at this being described as "strange"]
    • gadders 13y ago
      You'd rather be an appendage of the EU, than the UK? And don't forget you'd need to re-apply for membership.
• perfunctory 13y ago
  I find it interesting that Americans have so little trust in their democratic government, yet have so much faith in authoritarian phenomenon of religion.
  • newnewnew 13y ago
    Religion is a far more decentralized, organic, community-based institution (at least in America). In contrast the American government is a distant faceless bureaucracy, and even if a small subset of its employees are elected that doesn't make Americans feel better about it telling them what to do. But Americans are perfectly happy teaming up with their neighbors to help the elderly in the community once a week with their church groups. Religion as it is practiced is not the bogeyman of liberals' dreams.
• archildress 13y ago
  Unfortunately, my experience with corporate America aligns strongly with this post.
• coldtea 13y ago
  A lot of the questions are misleading -- placed with an American bias as to what they meant. Eg the first table measures whether people value: (a) "freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference." vs (b) "State guarantees nobody is in need". The formulation shows an American understanding/bias on the issue. For a lot of Europeans (a) is not about real freedom, because it translates to big corporations and private interests shaping your life and be given free pass to exploit people. That is, we don't see "state" as an enemy that restricts us, but as the (imperfect of course) embodiment of our collective will, as stated through democracy, that helps set the stage for our personal freedom. So those same questions are also read as: (a) Do you want to forgo a lot of democratic procedures, and have society be a jungle where you are supposedly "free" but in practice the "big fish" can crush you at will, or have you starve to work for them cheaper? vs (b) You want people to vote and use the state power to restrict exploitation and need in the interests of the majority, and thus be able to enjoy your individual freedom better. So it's not really about valuing "freedom" vs "state", it's about how different peoples see how freedom works and what state does.
  • Gormo 13y ago
    What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert power over other human beings. The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and assertion of power. So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most optimal? Do you prefer option (a), which admits at most a haphazard and ad hoc system of institutional control - one which can, with some effort, be evaded - or option (b), which establishes a universal and de jure system of institutional control, evading which requires resources inaccessible to most? I've always found it odd that so many think the solution to the concentration of power in the hands of a plurality organized institutions is to concentrate all power in the hands of a single organized institution.
    • tripzilch 13y ago
      The obvious difference is that corporations are not democratically governed by the people whose lives they affect. Or are even required to pay attention to those people. Yes there are exceptions when the reverse is true. (but note that I am calling large corporations) I'm pretty sure there is no large corporation whose management is democratically elected by all the people it employs and whose life they affect, with each vote counting the same, be it a janitor or a CEO. I know the above idealistic view of a democratic government is also not true in the real world, but governments do get a lot closer to that ideal than giant corporations ever have.
• jkldotio 13y ago
  "Western Europe" is an odd and outdated term as it is the EU that is acquiring political and economic powers and which some seek to federate. Leaving out the most religious EU countries like Malta, Cyprus, Romania, Poland and Italy you will get a very skewed picture if you are mentally equating Western Europe with the European Union (which is a term often conflated itself with the ambiguous "Europe"). Large portions of legislation in "Western Europe" are decided upon by Southern European politicians in the European Council and the European Parliament where representation is weighted by population in various ways (QMV and MEP caps). Some "North Eastern America" with a selection of blue states would give you pretty different results to the USA mean as well. The question people would ask though is: what justification do you have for putting that geographical constraint on your study?
  • bitwize 13y ago
    "Western Europe" is a sort of Americanism historically used to distinguish European NATO states and allies from Soviet-bloc states ("Eastern Europe"). Many states to the south and even far to the east (e.g., Greece) fall under the geopolitical concept of Western Europe in this context.
• ArkyBeagle 13y ago
  Arnold Kling has developed his "three-axis model." The three axes are: - Civilization/barbarism - Oppressor/oppressed - Freedom/coercion The idea is that people will have different attitudes on issues and that these attitudes can be "plotted" on these three axes. It is only a model, but I think it is a good one.