Brexit

[Thestatusquo]

Wait, did someone seriously just cite Machiavelli in a discussion of modern government? While making an argument about democracy? Now I've seen everything.

[springlullaby]

Wait, did someone seriously just cite Machiavelli in a discussion of modern government? While making an argument about democracy? Now I've seen everything.

That's because your have seen very little, I'm afraid.
How dare JJ Rousseau (the philosopher, not the rapper) argue that Machiavelli was a republican (republican in the context of the Florentine Republic - sigh).

ps: alright, I don't really know that a rapper called JJ Rousseau actually exists.

[Majiffy]

There's a rapper named Machiavelli too but I think it's spelled alternatively.

[Majiffy]

Wait, did someone seriously just cite Machiavelli in a discussion of modern government? While making an argument about democracy? Now I've seen everything.

The Prince was satire, Machiavelli was a proponent of democracy and wrote numerous entries on the matter.

[mykonian]

or it's a way to gain favour while being in a tough spot.

It's an interesting discussion, but perhaps not one that should be held here?

[Thestatusquo]

Oh yes. As someone who majored in political science and economics in college I probably have no clue what I'm talking about.

[Thestatusquo]

Lol the Prince was not a satire. The only part of it which was not serious was the way it was addressed and to whom.

[Majiffy]

Yeah okay Shea we'll disregard everything else he ever wrote because your personal opinion is flawless.

[Thestatusquo]

Show me a serious scholarly article article arguing the Prince is satire

[Thestatusquo]

Because it would go entirely against a little class I took titled 'the Prince and modern international relations'

[springlullaby]

You assume all intelligent and educated people are on the same side.

It is very difficult to educate self-interest/selfishness out of someone.

Because you can attribute an absolute moral value to selfishness/self-interest. Because intelligent and educated people aren't self-interested. Because intelligent and educated people on the 'right side' have never failed stupid and ignorant people.

A 62 yo technician votes leave because he has zero chance of finding a new job if he gets fired, and has approx 18 years of remaining life expectancy anyway.
A 24 yo graduate in marketing (with some german thrown in) vote stays because he wants larger and more long term horizons for job opportunities.
Who is self interested?
Of course, the 24 yo may find the 62 yo xenophobic, but the 62 yo may find the 24 yo naive.

The thing with the Brexit (and if it goes through) is now we'll see just to what degree the threat of job cut, austerity measures, etc prescribed by the EU under corporate pressure is rule by fear.

If corporations absolutely can't sustain their businesses in the UK if the labor doesn't get cheaper, and the investor's share doesn't get bigger, threats will be put to execution and the UK will enter into decades long recession from which it may never recover after the exit is finalized, leading to the EU benefiting from at least some of the relocated jobs.

If the threats are to some degree empty, there will be some noises and some negative repercussions, with photos of mad looking EU representatives speaking stern speech in the papers - it will last until the exit is finalized to keep the pressure during négociations. Then, when a deal is struck, the whole affair will be quietly ushered under the carpet with some last headlines emphasizing 'historical ties' and so on. And 10 years from now the younger generation of workers and voters won't even know Brexit was a thing. In meantime, current EU representatives will renegotiate with its own people because they want to stay in power.

I bet on the later.

[springlullaby]

Show me a serious scholarly article article arguing the Prince is satire

« Leur intérêt personnel est premièrement que le Peuple soit faible, misérable,

et qu'il ne puisse jamais leur résister. J'avoue que, supposant les sujets

toujours parfaitement soumis, l'intérêt du Prince serait alors que le peuple

fût puissant, afin que cette puissance étant la sienne le rendît redoutable

à ses voisins ; mais comme cet intérêt est secondaire et subordonné,

et que les deux suppositions sont incompatibles, il est naturel que les

Princes donnent toujours la préférence à la maxime qui leur est la plus

Immédiatement utile. C'est ce que Samuel représentait fortement aux

Hébreux ; c'est ce que Machiavel a fait voir avec évidence.

(...)En feignant de donner des leçons aux Rois, il en a donné de grandes aux peuples. Le Prince de Machiavel est le livre des républicains.

(...) Machiavel était un honnête homme et un bon citoyen ; mais, attaché à la maison de Médicis, il était forcé, dans l'oppression de sa patrie, de déguiser son amour pour la liberté. Le choix seul de son exécrable héros manifeste assez son intention secrète ; et I'opposition des maximes de son livre du Prince à celles de ses Discours sur Tite-Live, et de son Histoire de Florence, démontre que ce profond politique n'a eu jusqu'ici que des lecteurs superficiels ou corrompus.»

Cue argument about JJ Rousseau in the text not being a serious scholarly article.

[Thestatusquo]

No, but perhaps English would be nice.

[springlullaby]

Because it would go entirely against a little class I took titled 'the Prince and modern international relations'

Maybe you should take a course in critical thinking.

[Thestatusquo]

What the actual fuck is wrong with you.

[Drench]

all of you shut the fuck up corbyn's getting rolled

[springlullaby]

No, but perhaps English would be nice.

French too... roll eyes

But I will translate for you. Be free to check up an English version of the Social Contract for inaccuracies/more elegant language.

"His personal interest is foremost that the People remain weak, miserable, and that they should never be able to resist his. I confess that, supposing the subjects to be always perfectly submitted, the Prince's interest would then for the people to be powerful, so that this power which is his may render him formidable to his neighbors; but as this interest is secondary and subordinate, and as the two suppositions are incompatible, it is natural for the Prince to always prefer the maxime which is most immediately useful to them. It is what Samuel vividly represented to the Israelite; it is what Machiavel has shown with clarity.

(...)By feigning to teach lessons to Kings, he has given great ones to the people. The Prince by Machiavelli is the book of the republicans.

(...)Machiavel was a honest man and a good citizen; but, bonded to the Medici house, he was forced, in the oppression of his motherland, to disguise his love of liberty. The very choice of his detestable hero is manifestation enough of his secret intention; and the juxtaposition of his book The Prince to his Discourse on Titus Livy, and his History of Florence, demonstrates that this profound politician has up until now only had superficial or corrupt readers."

[Thestatusquo]

What the fuck does that have to do with the Prince being supposed satire.

[Thestatusquo]

Rousseau is saying that he thinks this thing about the Prince and then gives literally no textual reasons why that is true. That's called an appeal to authority, it's a logical fallacy and not an argument. Maybe you should take a class in critical thinking.

[springlullaby]

... omg. You know that The Prince was banned by the Pope Clement VIII because its central figure is an avatar of Cesare Borgia, enemy of the Medicis, right?

Looks to me you took a whole course without researching the source material.

[Thestatusquo]

Amazingly, none of that is an actual textual argument for why the Prince is satire either. Please try again.

[springlullaby]

Rousseau is saying that he thinks this thing about the Prince and then gives literally no textual reasons why that is true. That's called an appeal to authority, it's a logical fallacy and not an argument. Maybe you should take a class in critical thinking.

Oh, that's how you took your course. By superficial criticisms of the provided content without engaging in neither honest reading nor personal research. I hope your professor found you to be scum.

Right. I'm not interested in continuing a sterile exchange as you contribute nothing but empty argument found in mafia 101. This is not a mafia game, I'm sorry I hurt your ego by calling on your ignorance, it wasn't my intention. I'm sorry if I aggravated the situation by mocking your 'I took an economy class' comment: I do assure you that if you show sign of providing actually interesting conversation, I will bow to your authority.

[springlullaby]

Amazingly, none of that is an actual textual argument for why the Prince is satire either. Please try again.

Noise. Please try again.

Ok, can't resist.

[Thestatusquo]

I have asked you to make a textual argument, or show me an expert making a textual argument why the prince is satire. You are either unwilling or unable to do that. Pointing out that fact is not noise.

[Killthestory]

European Union seems to be causing lots of controversy lately, indirectly, at least.

You have the February 2014 Revolution in Ukraine that resulted from President Viktor Yanukovych which ended up with him being impeached and fleeing the country, and the 'Maidan' protesters instituting a new form of government. Now, you have the Brexit resulting in David Cameron resigning while Britain leaves the European Union.

It's rather sad that trying to unify a continent is only ending up causing lots of problems and controversy.