Mark Rutte (NED) went down a similar road.

What I'd like to know is if they are a) sucking up to Germany, b) hiding behind Germany, c) true believers or d) doing this to appease certain elements of their constituency.

They demand everyone to obey the financial rules (that Germany broke most of all) and conveniently ignore the social rules alltogether.

Good parabola at the start (is it parabola.. anyway...) how to describe the levels of privacy. But the point here is, we have the right to choose what is private to us and what is not. That task is not up to security departments, it is done individually. Yes, it is a security risk. No shit sherlock. So are a lot of old social rules that we have honed during the millenias, spanning from cavemen to nerd. There would be NO crime if we would have NO privacy. And still, after tens of thousands of years, we have seemed it appropriate to allow more freedoms with small disadvantage but with a tremendous improvements on personal well being. Not to mention creativity, which often demands privacy. If you knew that someone is watching every draw of line you make, the picture turns out to be average at best, not exciting, dull, predictable. Because at those private moments, we find our selves free to take creative risks. Innovate without reprimand. You take that feeling of freedom away, force people to "behave" when at their own homes and we will live in a stagnated, boring world. We have to be allowed to break away from societal norms when private. The fact is that internet is a tool too for that inner self study.. We ask it daily questions we wont ask from our spouses. It is linked to the most private form of self. And thus, it has tremendous effect on our wellbeing and society as a whole.

Defending free market policies today is a little daft. It is quite clear that leaving equality or mutual interest to the free market doesnt work in the majority of cases. To put it simply, in theory it all sounds great, but in reality most systems are not true free markets. For instance, there usually is little to no competition keeping the wages at "almost the same level as the value of the production". This is due to sluggishness of workplace mobility. People dont want to change jobs and do so rarely. There are plenty of reasons for that such as economic downturn (less jobs), lack of knowledge or courage to change, geographical limitations and in general the hassle of finding a new job which in all cases is a major hurdle. Also, companies set wages at similar levels as other companies, preferably below them, not above. They can do this exactly due to the sluggishness of mobility. This means that wage increases grow much slower than production value, and will over time stay more and more behind.

Last but not least, wages and worker rights are usually fought over not by government but by unions, which are specifically not government-based. Naming the weakness of politics doesnt change that having no protection is also not good.

As always it is best to walk the middle road here. Free market economics has its moments to be sure but it needs to be tempered by intelligent social rules. If you take a look at the "best" countries in the world to live in, various studies show that for instance the Nordics are extremely loved, and they all have free market economies tempered by social policies.

>> ^peggedbea:
jesus, listen to yourselves.... either you guys almost exclusively deal with the sorriest, bitchiest, most spoiled, princess-complex females in the universe ... or you're really kind of dickish.
i'm using larsarus's comment as the example, but his sentiments seem to be close to the norm here.
expecting that my work and mind be valued and respected as much as yours, does not mean i don't value your existence too. and helping your neighbor reach something high, or get through the door with her hands full doesn't mean you've bowed down to feminist subjugation or were manipulated by doe-eyes. for fucks sake dudes.
social rule for all genitals: don't be a dick. (pun not intended)
>> ^LarsaruS:
My thoughts on equality
In my opinion equality is better than 17th century chivalry. The problem with equality though is that some people feel that they are more equal than others. This is, as far as I have observed, usually a female trait (unless you count the statistical outliers like the few ultra-rich and heads of states and the like) in that they demand equality in all things that benefit them yet refuse to fight for/accept equality in things that don't benefit them or is to their disadvantage. As I see it it is the old problem of living standards i.e. if you are used to having a high standard of living then lowering it is not a viable option. Giving way for a male can be seen as a lowering of their living standards in this instance.
How to deal with it
I have found that using their slogans against them and not helping them works quite well as they can't argue with you when you use their own arguments against them. Example: A female wants to reach the top shelves but can't because she is female and short. She sees a tall male and she looks at him with doe-eyes and asks with a lilt in her voice if he could help poor little her. Simply reply with a No and "Girl power!" or some other feminist slogan (In Sweden there was a slogan that went "Kvinnor kan!" which roughly means "Females can!" with [do anything males can] implied which I usually use). Some females realise the astounding irony of fighting gender inequalities and then relying on them for help but some of them get really pissed, in my opinion, because they can't get a male to do their bidding and are not used to being told 'No' by males. But hey if you want equality then you have got it. I would not help a random short male so I wont help a random female either. It is better for all to learn to improvise and solve their own tiny problems, how to get the crisps/chips from the top shelf, than to rely on the kindness/weakness of others.
In conclusion: you - right & they - wrong. Equality > Chivalry & Strength > Weakness
P.S. Wow this is a wall of text... congrats on getting through it :-D



Another wall of text is incoming... be warned (Not interested in starting a flame war but will probably derail the thread a bit but here goes...)

A couple of comments as you used my text as an example:
1) I would help my neighbours, I like them and know them... well most of them at least and the ones I don't like I probably would not help... As someone said above: chivalry and tipping is a choice not mandatory and so is helping others, especially people you don't like/care about.

2) I can't speak for all of the sift but when I write a text like mine I use broad generalizations to get the/my point across, Example: "All Iraqis and Afghanis are terrorists who want to blow up the world", even if it is "a bit" exaggerated or not true in many many many cases(I would guestimate it to ~99.99% of them or so)...

3) Female wiles are still female wiles whether there is a "feminist agenda"/"feminist subjugation" or not. To clarify my stance/point: Males tend to get their way by use of force, physical/monetary/mental and so on, whilst Females get their way by looking good and using males to do their bidding, see gold diggers/black widows and so on. Yes, females are worth as much and contribute to other stuff using their brains blah blah blah. However, it is a, in my eyes at least, simple concept as (most) Males (except asexuals, homosexuals, paraplegics and others not interested in females and/or able to procreate) will do basically anything to increase their chance of getting laid, see plastic surgery/crazy diet & workout schemes and so on, and helping a female does that, in our minds at least, (increases the chance of it, not guarantees it. Don't confuse the two as it might land you in trouble ) and they know that we, males, believe that and use it to their advantage. It is all quite Machiavellian and I applaud them for it.

4) is a bit OT but ties in with My, not everyone's, views on things. Cont. of 3).
It's simply biology in action. Every single action we (as a biological species) ever do is for the ultimate goal of securing procreation/the continuation of our lifeform. (Once again: My views, maybe not shared with some/most...) We (as in males) work out to look good and to be able to fight off sabre-toothed tigers (Providing safety & security), we study to get a job that provides money (for food and shelter, more money usually = better food & shelter) and so on. These things lead to a higher chance of the young surviving and is therefore seen as positive traits when females are looking for a mate. In general animals that play to their strengths survive, those who don't go extinct, and in general males can overpower females but females can outscheme males. Remember to keep on copying and diversifying that DNA. It is the meaning of life after all. Survival of the most adaptable and all that junk...

PS. Oh I almost forgot to say that that was an excellent pun Bea... love that finishing touch... (Seriously I do, very nice)

PPS. Extremly long wall of text... hopefully it is clear enough to be read and understood by others but I know what I mean and that means others do too right?

jesus, listen to yourselves.... either you guys almost exclusively deal with the sorriest, bitchiest, most spoiled, princess-complex females in the universe ... or you're really kind of dickish.

i'm using larsarus's comment as the example, but his sentiments seem to be close to the norm here.

expecting that my work and mind be valued and respected as much as yours, does not mean i don't value your existence too. and helping your neighbor reach something high, or get through the door with her hands full doesn't mean you've bowed down to feminist subjugation or were manipulated by doe-eyes. for fucks sake dudes.

social rule for all genitals: don't be a dick. (pun not intended)

>> ^LarsaruS:
My thoughts on equality
In my opinion equality is better than 17th century chivalry. The problem with equality though is that some people feel that they are more equal than others. This is, as far as I have observed, usually a female trait (unless you count the statistical outliers like the few ultra-rich and heads of states and the like) in that they demand equality in all things that benefit them yet refuse to fight for/accept equality in things that don't benefit them or is to their disadvantage. As I see it it is the old problem of living standards i.e. if you are used to having a high standard of living then lowering it is not a viable option. Giving way for a male can be seen as a lowering of their living standards in this instance.
How to deal with it
I have found that using their slogans against them and not helping them works quite well as they can't argue with you when you use their own arguments against them. Example: A female wants to reach the top shelves but can't because she is female and short. She sees a tall male and she looks at him with doe-eyes and asks with a lilt in her voice if he could help poor little her. Simply reply with a No and "Girl power!" or some other feminist slogan (In Sweden there was a slogan that went "Kvinnor kan!" which roughly means "Females can!" with [do anything males can] implied which I usually use). Some females realise the astounding irony of fighting gender inequalities and then relying on them for help but some of them get really pissed, in my opinion, because they can't get a male to do their bidding and are not used to being told 'No' by males. But hey if you want equality then you have got it. I would not help a random short male so I wont help a random female either. It is better for all to learn to improvise and solve their own tiny problems, how to get the crisps/chips from the top shelf, than to rely on the kindness/weakness of others.
In conclusion: you - right & they - wrong. Equality > Chivalry & Strength > Weakness
P.S. Wow this is a wall of text... congrats on getting through it :-D

This song was my introduction to Ali G. I'm Jewish, and was completely sideswiped by his ruse for the first 30 seconds, was immediately offended, then I realized how friggin brilliant that is -- not just as entertainment for everyone, but an insightful sociological documentary about what lies just below the surface.

He is so good at putting people in social situations where personal values and social rules may conflict, then he pushes it, forcing people to either make fools of themselves by sticking to the traditional social response in a situation that warrants an extraordinary response instead, or buck the system and confront him, which I've only seen happen once. Then again I don't follow the show, so I don't know jack s.