The thing about Europe: it’s the actual land of the free now
-
The thing about Europe is its economy is permanently stuck in the doldrums, a global cautionary tale. And no wonder. Europeans enjoy August off, retire in their prime and spend more time eating and socialising with their families than inhabitants of any other region. Oddly, surveys show people in countries both rich and poor value such leisure time; somehow Europeans managed to squeeze their employers into giving them more of it. Even as they were depressing GDP by wasting time playing with their kids, the denizens of Europe also managed to keep inequality relatively low while it ballooned elsewhere in the past 20 years. Nobody in Europe has spent the past week looking at their stock portfolio, wondering if they could still afford to send their kids to university. Europeans have no idea what “medical bankruptcy” is. Oh, and no EU leader has ever launched their own cryptocurrency.
This whole paragraph had me on edge, a little unsure of whether The Economist, an American publication, legitimately thought these were good things or not.
I kind of got both that impression and its exact opposite, like the whole paragraph feels like a long wink and a nudge, like the author would like to say "maybe fixating on 'line go up' distracts you from all that is good in life" but that would negate The Economist's entire raison d'être.
It's like Schrodinger's argument.
-
The thing about Europe is its economy is permanently stuck in the doldrums, a global cautionary tale. And no wonder. Europeans enjoy August off, retire in their prime and spend more time eating and socialising with their families than inhabitants of any other region. Oddly, surveys show people in countries both rich and poor value such leisure time; somehow Europeans managed to squeeze their employers into giving them more of it. Even as they were depressing GDP by wasting time playing with their kids, the denizens of Europe also managed to keep inequality relatively low while it ballooned elsewhere in the past 20 years. Nobody in Europe has spent the past week looking at their stock portfolio, wondering if they could still afford to send their kids to university. Europeans have no idea what “medical bankruptcy” is. Oh, and no EU leader has ever launched their own cryptocurrency.
This whole paragraph had me on edge, a little unsure of whether The Economist, an American publication, legitimately thought these were good things or not.
The Economist is British. This is absolutely about ridiculing Americans and their ridiculous ideas of being the envy of the world.
-
Paywall? https://archive.is/Tq3KD
Now? Always has been
-
Paywall? https://archive.is/Tq3KD
Already was. While the us was occupied with cosplaying as freedom freaks and destroying countless democracies for the sake of freedom, europe actually became free.
-
Now? Always has been
Uh, we historically had some rather repressive regimes, and some countries were ruled by dictators until the 90s. People like Franco and Ceausescu and Tito weren't that long ago.
But it's generally been pretty good in the millennial lifetime.
-
Uh, we historically had some rather repressive regimes, and some countries were ruled by dictators until the 90s. People like Franco and Ceausescu and Tito weren't that long ago.
But it's generally been pretty good in the millennial lifetime.
This guy thinks stuff happened before the war.
-
The Economist is British. This is absolutely about ridiculing Americans and their ridiculous ideas of being the envy of the world.
The tongue is firmly in the cheek.
-
Paywall? https://archive.is/Tq3KD
Europe has had the ability to change one’s station in life - what people might equate to the “American Dream” - for a long time now, and has had it better than America has. You can go from poor to a middle class life more easily. However going from rags-to-riches is far more rare. Unfortunately, here in America we’ve equated the Dream and Freedom to mean going from middle class to Fuck You Money, having a personal arsenal, and breaking every social contract we possibly can. The only ones trotting out The American Dream
️ as still existing are politicians and the people fighting any restrictions on getting richer while the rest of us are crabs in a bucket all stepping on each other trying to keep from drowning. Now, with trump, we have the basic Constitution under attack and what few freedoms we had left being eroded.Yeah, Europe has absolutely been “free-er” and better in multiple ways for a long while now. The only reason most Americans don’t understand this is because guns and chasing fuck you money.
-
Yeah... For now. It's a fatal mistake to think what's going on here in the US hasn't already been spreading.
I disagree. Hungary and Poland going utterly authoritarian came before America. If anything, they are parallel processes going on in Europe and the US.
-
There's no need for a criminal conviction because "threat to public safety", which is what's necessary to deport a EU citizen, does not require a crime to be committed the first place. You can be, say, homeless, which is not a crime, and get deported over that, "go apply for welfare in your home country". On the flipside, you can be convicted of a crime but still not be considered a threat to public safety, say, fare evasion.
There is a word for that. It is called despotism. The separation of power mandates that a legislative makes laws, a judiciary interprets the laws and the executive enforces them based on the interpretation of the judiciary. Bypassing the judiciary is despotism and it is certainly beyond the capacity of the executive to interpret if someone is a "threat to public safety".
And in particular in this case the branch of the executive that was obliged to make the deportation notice has objected as these deportations are unlawful. For which the interior ministry of the state of Berlin replied with what amounts to "I dont give a fuck, deport them!" if translating into normal words. The more literal translation of the mail was "It is unusual that an order by the head of house is disagreed with in such a way. I interpret your E-Mail as a remonstration, which i repel. I don't share the legal of opinion of <blackened>."
https://fragdenstaat.de/artikel/exklusiv/2025/04/proteste-berlin-ausweisung/
-
The last dictatorship in Western Europe was 50 years ago. Eastern Europe was between 35 years ago and today.
Germany is not Eastern Europe. The GDR ended 35 years ago. Geographically the center of Europe is somewhere around Eastern Poland, Belarus, Ukraine or Western Russia depending on the method used.
-
There is a word for that. It is called despotism. The separation of power mandates that a legislative makes laws, a judiciary interprets the laws and the executive enforces them based on the interpretation of the judiciary. Bypassing the judiciary is despotism and it is certainly beyond the capacity of the executive to interpret if someone is a "threat to public safety".
And in particular in this case the branch of the executive that was obliged to make the deportation notice has objected as these deportations are unlawful. For which the interior ministry of the state of Berlin replied with what amounts to "I dont give a fuck, deport them!" if translating into normal words. The more literal translation of the mail was "It is unusual that an order by the head of house is disagreed with in such a way. I interpret your E-Mail as a remonstration, which i repel. I don't share the legal of opinion of <blackened>."
https://fragdenstaat.de/artikel/exklusiv/2025/04/proteste-berlin-ausweisung/
There's no bypassing the judiciary any action or non-action of the administration can be challenged before court. And the affected people here did exactly that.
Not all laws that exist are criminal in nature. Not all courts deal with criminal matters. The minister who overrode the opinion of the lower-ranking staff is not a separate branch, they are that branch. Their opinion is the opinion of that branch.
You won't see me defend the Berlin administration in any way, they're a failed state after all, have been since the Weimar Republic at least, but what they did not break any law and the affected people still can resort to the courts to overrule the administration.
You, standing here, saying "Germany is a despotic regime" is echoing Nazi talking points. Think about what you're doing.
-
There's no bypassing the judiciary any action or non-action of the administration can be challenged before court. And the affected people here did exactly that.
Not all laws that exist are criminal in nature. Not all courts deal with criminal matters. The minister who overrode the opinion of the lower-ranking staff is not a separate branch, they are that branch. Their opinion is the opinion of that branch.
You won't see me defend the Berlin administration in any way, they're a failed state after all, have been since the Weimar Republic at least, but what they did not break any law and the affected people still can resort to the courts to overrule the administration.
You, standing here, saying "Germany is a despotic regime" is echoing Nazi talking points. Think about what you're doing.
I said that acting in such a way is despotism and given the development of Germany over the past years, especially looking at the plans of the new government coalition likely to be, dismantling civil rights and giving more authority to the executive that previously required an approval by the judiciary, Germany is making more and more steps towards making despotism a prevalent way of the government to act. In particular in Berlin in regards to activities being critical of Israels actions or in support of Palestinian rights there have been many despotic decisions.
Blanket bans on protests that had to be overturned by courts, influencing a state bank to freeze the account of a jewish antizionist organization to jeopardize them organizing a discussion panel, arbitrarily revoking funding for cultural spaces because they allowed events discussing the situation of Palestinians to hold place, arbitrarily revoking entry to internationaly renowned doctors so they could not give testimony of the horrors they witnessed in Gaza, arbitrarily storming and breaking up events with police force. Countless cases of police violence, especially against women and minors. Exerting pressure on event places to cancel events last minutes. Having the far-right Axel-Springer media target Professors who demanded the observation of constitutional rights in cooperation with the federal ministry for education and research. Having the education minister demand funding to be revoked for the scientists in questions and subsequently wiggling out by firing her secretary and forbidding the secretary from speaking out about what happened...
In a larger scope the federal parliament passed two resolutions demanding an end to academic freedom and involvement of the interior intelligence in assessing which scientists are "not without a doubt not antisemitic". Despite strong criticism of Scientists these resolutions were passed without even listening to the Scientists. Of course the Fascists from the AfD were cheering as they passed these resolutions together with supposed parties of the center of politics. While these resolutions are technically non binding they are used by administrative bodies and sometimes even courts to interpret laws.
When it comes to Palestine Germany and in particular Berlin are using every dirty trick of the despotic arsenal. And the problem is that even if the decision are later overruled by courts, the damage is already done. And the responsible people in the administration and police face no repercussion.
-
I said that acting in such a way is despotism and given the development of Germany over the past years, especially looking at the plans of the new government coalition likely to be, dismantling civil rights and giving more authority to the executive that previously required an approval by the judiciary, Germany is making more and more steps towards making despotism a prevalent way of the government to act. In particular in Berlin in regards to activities being critical of Israels actions or in support of Palestinian rights there have been many despotic decisions.
Blanket bans on protests that had to be overturned by courts, influencing a state bank to freeze the account of a jewish antizionist organization to jeopardize them organizing a discussion panel, arbitrarily revoking funding for cultural spaces because they allowed events discussing the situation of Palestinians to hold place, arbitrarily revoking entry to internationaly renowned doctors so they could not give testimony of the horrors they witnessed in Gaza, arbitrarily storming and breaking up events with police force. Countless cases of police violence, especially against women and minors. Exerting pressure on event places to cancel events last minutes. Having the far-right Axel-Springer media target Professors who demanded the observation of constitutional rights in cooperation with the federal ministry for education and research. Having the education minister demand funding to be revoked for the scientists in questions and subsequently wiggling out by firing her secretary and forbidding the secretary from speaking out about what happened...
In a larger scope the federal parliament passed two resolutions demanding an end to academic freedom and involvement of the interior intelligence in assessing which scientists are "not without a doubt not antisemitic". Despite strong criticism of Scientists these resolutions were passed without even listening to the Scientists. Of course the Fascists from the AfD were cheering as they passed these resolutions together with supposed parties of the center of politics. While these resolutions are technically non binding they are used by administrative bodies and sometimes even courts to interpret laws.
When it comes to Palestine Germany and in particular Berlin are using every dirty trick of the despotic arsenal. And the problem is that even if the decision are later overruled by courts, the damage is already done. And the responsible people in the administration and police face no repercussion.
I said that acting in such a way is despotism
And I explained to you how you're dead wrong. How the judiciary is absolutely still involved.
The rest, thus, is nonsense I won't even read.
-
I said that acting in such a way is despotism
And I explained to you how you're dead wrong. How the judiciary is absolutely still involved.
The rest, thus, is nonsense I won't even read.
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism. But then you also should not be surprised, when it develops to its more blatant forms.
-
Germany is not Eastern Europe. The GDR ended 35 years ago. Geographically the center of Europe is somewhere around Eastern Poland, Belarus, Ukraine or Western Russia depending on the method used.
Yep, we agree. In Western Europe I was thinking of Portugal and Eastern Europe the Baltics etc.
-
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism. But then you also should not be surprised, when it develops to its more blatant forms.
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism.
Precursors of despotism like, *checks notes*, the rule of law being adhered to.
Touch grass.
You know, like deporting non binary people to be persecuted in Hungary, despite a court order to the contrary.
that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions
Of Berlins executive actions. The federation has nothing to do with it. And yes there's plenty of rotten parts in the executive. May I remind you that I already called Berlin a failed state.
Palestine
Narrowing things down to Palestine doesn't help your overall case. If you care about the rule of law, then the issue is broader. If all you care about is Palestine then don't get into the rule of law, you're damaging it by instrumentalising the topic politically.
As if this case would even be close to the Hungary case in terms of denial of rights, or what happened to Oury Jalloh. In this case, the administration didn't create irreversible facts. Reign in your campism.
-
Paywall? https://archive.is/Tq3KD
American obsession with money is weird when you think about it. Money is only useful when the human creativity, ingenuity, effort, etc. you want is for sale. Billionaires think their bunkers will save them after they make the world go to shit, but nobody is going to take care of these helpless bastards when there is nothing for their money to buy. Then there is the fact that money often ruins intrinsic motivation, which is why, for example, looking at the work of great artists and composers from the past, it’s clearly evident which works were commissioned vs. which ones were truly inspired work. A lot of open source software is inspired work that can be used without the limitations of paid software. Anyone using the arr stack with Jellyfin, for example, knows there’s no paid service that offers a superior experience. People with a loving and supportive family are wealthier than Elon Musk, who despite his net worth reeks of desperation for any superficial attention he can get. America is supposedly a “wealthy” country, but any country with a government that actually cares about its people and ensures they have a social safety net, clean food to eat without 1000 toxic additives, etc. is infinitely more wealthy than the USA.
-
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism.
Precursors of despotism like, *checks notes*, the rule of law being adhered to.
Touch grass.
You know, like deporting non binary people to be persecuted in Hungary, despite a court order to the contrary.
that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions
Of Berlins executive actions. The federation has nothing to do with it. And yes there's plenty of rotten parts in the executive. May I remind you that I already called Berlin a failed state.
Palestine
Narrowing things down to Palestine doesn't help your overall case. If you care about the rule of law, then the issue is broader. If all you care about is Palestine then don't get into the rule of law, you're damaging it by instrumentalising the topic politically.
As if this case would even be close to the Hungary case in terms of denial of rights, or what happened to Oury Jalloh. In this case, the administration didn't create irreversible facts. Reign in your campism.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
I don't understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive. And then the executive action needs to be in accordance with the court decision. If the executive acts in a way that is in violation of the court decision, or they act on matters where a court decision is necessary, without having the court decided on it, there needs to be consequences.
You are narrowing things down to protests regarding Palestine. Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive, but it is not exclusive to people standing up for Palestinian rights. We also see attacks on the right to protest in regards to climate protests for instance. Palestinian rights are merely the issue, where thanks to "Staatsräson" they are testing the waters with how far the executive can go with despotic actions. They will not stop at this issue and instead expand on to any other issue of civil society not falling in line with the authoritarian demands.
This is why it is so crucial to understand the despotism that is developed here and to oppose it now, even if you want to ignore the issue of Palestine otherwise. Because it will affect everyone in the long run that dares to speak up about any issue.
-
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
I don't understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive. And then the executive action needs to be in accordance with the court decision. If the executive acts in a way that is in violation of the court decision, or they act on matters where a court decision is necessary, without having the court decided on it, there needs to be consequences.
You are narrowing things down to protests regarding Palestine. Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive, but it is not exclusive to people standing up for Palestinian rights. We also see attacks on the right to protest in regards to climate protests for instance. Palestinian rights are merely the issue, where thanks to "Staatsräson" they are testing the waters with how far the executive can go with despotic actions. They will not stop at this issue and instead expand on to any other issue of civil society not falling in line with the authoritarian demands.
This is why it is so crucial to understand the despotism that is developed here and to oppose it now, even if you want to ignore the issue of Palestine otherwise. Because it will affect everyone in the long run that dares to speak up about any issue.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive.
And that's what's happening: Noone has been deported.
Or do you want the administration to first ask a court each time before it does anything? Like, speeding ticket, ask a court first before telling the driver they have to pay up? Someone dumps garbage on the street, ask a court before issuing a fine and billing the perpetrator for the cleanup?
All you'd do with that is grind state action to a halt. And you wouldn't change a thing, worse, you'd get courts used to rubber-stamping everything unread.
Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive,
No, they aren't, the extradition to Hungary is a way worse case. That you can't see this makes me conclude that you're blinded by campism. You're not judging the cases by what happened, legally, how big the fuck-up was, but by whether the people affected were closer to your pet political case.
