Article

2006-10-08 Europe

Merkel: EU's Door Closing for Near Future

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 While I understand the idea that it may be important to get supposedly secular Turkey into the EU fold, maybe it's better for Europe to begin turning a cold shoulder to Muslim-majority nations in general. It would certainly make sense as part of a more comprehensive plan to begin ousting Muslims from the European continent.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-08 00:47|| 2006-10-08 00:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Zenster, you foolish foolish boy, that would mean that the EuroElites would have to give up their not-so-subtle JUDENHASS and butt out of the Arab-Israeli fracas.

Not gonna happen.

Posted by Ernest Brown">Ernest Brown 2006-10-08 00:50|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2006-10-08 00:50|| Front Page Top

#3 Silly me. I knew it sounded too logical.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-08 01:46|| 2006-10-08 01:46|| Front Page Top

#4 As I've remarked to snooty Europeans who've upbraided me over GWOT: there's a reason world wars keep happening on European rather than American soil. Europeans' ingrained passivity causes them to do nothing, react too late, and wind up using a hammer for what could have been fixed with tweezers.

This is why I predict that Europe's "more comprehensive plan to begin ousting Muslims from the European continent" will come, eventually, in the form of renewed fascism. Europe prances about now with its nose in the air, too good for us cowboys, but in 5 or 10 years I bet they'll seriously discuss firing up the gas chambers again. I'm not saying I approve; I'm just observing that, at that point, they'll have few options left.

And when that breaking point comes, I think Europe will react a lot like their sports cars: they'll go from powdered-wig diplomacy to cattle-car fascism in about 4 seconds flat. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to decide which is worse: Islamic fascism or European fascism? And hope we can live with the answer.

Posted by exJAG 2006-10-08 08:56|| 2006-10-08 08:56|| Front Page Top

#5 If the door is closed, how whould those inside get out?

Posted by gromgoru 2006-10-08 09:43|| 2006-10-08 09:43|| Front Page Top

#6 exJag - more like the break-up of Yugoslavia, except all over Western Europe. I predict outright civil war between Muslim populations trying to establish a European caliphate and the remainder of the European population that hasn't already fled. Not clear who will win. If it comes to this point, we'd be wise to keep out of it.

Posted by DMFD 2006-10-08 10:33|| 2006-10-08 10:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Many Turks are already members of the EU, they just happen to have already taken up residence in Germany and other EU countries.

Posted by Perfesser 2006-10-08 11:27|| 2006-10-08 11:27|| Front Page Top

#8 DMFD, I'd considered the same scenario, because vigilantism escalating to civil war is likely how it would go down in the US.

But Europeans aren't Americans, either in their attitudes or means. For myriad historical reasons, Europeans on the whole are astonishingly passive, while European governments have equally astonishing power.

Further, gun ownership is prohibited just about everywhere, and guns thoroughly demonized. But more importantly, defending oneself against intruders is also prohibited; the attitude is, that's what the police are for. Clock a burglar with a brass lamp and you're as likely to get prosecuted as the burglar -- and get the same sentence.

Things like this reinforce the cycle of passivity. Europeans' options are psychologically, as well as materially, limited. Leaving is about the only good one -- but Europeans don't just pick up and move as much as Americans do, and so many won't see that as a realistic option either.

I think the point we differ on here is who will do the responding: European governments or European citizens. I think it will be -- has to be -- governments. And what is fascism, but institutionalized vigilantism? Either way, it will get ugly, and there I don't disagree at all.

Posted by exJAG 2006-10-08 11:33|| 2006-10-08 11:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Not clear who will win. If it comes to this point, we'd be wise to keep out of it.

No, it wouldn't be wise to keep out of it because a Muslim Europe is not in your interest given that you'd probably be next. Better to have it out on somebody else's front yard than your own, ain't that right? If you despise the Europeans and Muslims that much, you can do what the Russians have been fond of doing and wait until one side is almost dead before entering the fray. Then you can finish off the Muslim horde, if you wish, or spare whatever is left of the Europeans.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 11:39|| 2006-10-08 11:39|| Front Page Top

#10 Americans tend not to realize how unique we and the Australians and a few others are. Those who settled here could *own land* and make their own fortunes. They could, like Ben Franklin, start their own businesses and thrive.

For most of Europe's history, most landed property belonged to the state or to a few feudal landowners. Through the middle ages and into the Renaissance, over 95% of the population were peasants who never travelled more than 5 or 10 miles from home their entire lives. They knew perhaps 200 other people, 400 if there was a market town nearby. If they lived in an urban area, their choice of profession was determined by the guilds, and guild membership tended to be limited to the sons of guild members.

On the other hand, it was the feudal lord's responsibility to fight wars, protect his domain and shelter peasants during wars. They didn't always do it well or effectively and peasants suffered horribly -- famine, plague, wars. Estimates by historians based on detailed records of crops etc. are that over 75% of Europeans went hungry every day of their lives from 1100 through 1500 and later.

There simply is not the deep historical experience of either personal freedom and opportunity or personal responsibility in Europe, at least not to the degree and of the sort that formed the US and Australia. Passive indeed -- and sad to say, the US encouraged that passivity during the cold war. It served us well to demand they fall in line with our leadership of NATO, in the UN and elsewhere. It prevented another Hitler and it eventually brought down the successors to Stalin.

But it came at a price.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 11:41|| 2006-10-08 11:41|| Front Page Top

#11 exJAG you are so full of shit, but it's entertaining reading your opinion nonetheless.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 11:42|| 2006-10-08 11:42|| Front Page Top

#12 You're going to have to say a little more than that to be taken seriously, GH.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 11:45|| 2006-10-08 11:45|| Front Page Top

#13 lotp, that's exactly what I meant -- thanks for elaborating.

Posted by exJAG 2006-10-08 11:45|| 2006-10-08 11:45|| Front Page Top

#14 Passive indeed

In your American interpretation, of course.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 11:51|| 2006-10-08 11:51|| Front Page Top

#15 In our judgement. And judgement is called for here IMO.

By the way, ex-JAG is *living* in Europe, GH. I've done business there for extended periods of time. Other regulars here have similar experience that underlies our judgements.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 11:53|| 2006-10-08 11:53|| Front Page Top

#16 You're going to have to say a little more than that to be taken seriously

Well, let's start from this: What do you mean by passivity? In what context? How do you reach the conclusion that Europeans are not responsible?

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 11:57|| 2006-10-08 11:57|| Front Page Top

#17 ex-Jag,
I think you're pretty much on target again. The power is strongly retained by the ruling elite/governments in Eurabia. Citizenry remains fairly passive. Certainly,in France, the only real response must come from the government/ military. The police are already outmanned. The elite sentiment has not turned yet in Britain, as they still allow all sorts of outrages by their Muzzie population. I have the opinion that the populist sentiment carries a bit more weight in the germanic areas,ie; Germany and Denmark. You're there, do you see unrest among the Germans yet ?

Posted by SpecOp35 2006-10-08 12:00|| 2006-10-08 12:00|| Front Page Top

#18 GH, there are hundreds of ways in which continental Europeans (and increasingly, British as well) are taught to yield responsibility and initiative to the state and/or state-controlled "enterprises".

Americans wouldn't put up with months-long waits to have telephones installed. But then, we have a legal and economic system in which the state-controlled monopoly was forced into a competitive marketplace. Markets have limitations, especially when they are distorted either by oligopolies or by bad regulation. But they do have the advantage of presenting alternatives to consumers.

The welfare states in Europe encourage economic passivity as producers, too. It is possible to live ones' whole life without ever contributing to the society economically. But -- and this is telling -- it is extraordinarily difficult to start a small business in order to improve your circumstances beyond the bare minimum of the dole. Just ask the older generation living in the banlieus outside of Paris, who found it difficult to get decent paying jobs in established companies and impossible to create their own.

Others here have pointed out the most egregious passivity inculcated by the state: that of personal defense. The official guidance in the UK, which has been enforced in court, is that if one is attacked one must curl into a ball and hope that the attacker leaves off before doing serious harm.

NO state or other authority IMO has the right to demand that a person not protect his or her person against physical attack. The right of self defense is as central a human right as may be claimed to exist. And yet millions of Europeans passively accept deep limitations on that right -- and get lousy protection from the state in return, as in the violence and intimidation that has spread out from the banlieus in France, for instance.

I could go on at great length, but those are some starting points.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 12:12|| 2006-10-08 12:12|| Front Page Top

#19 Other regulars here have similar experience that underlies our judgements.

But it is, still, an American judgement. Europeans do the same thing. They are completely bewildered about the American way. Neither side is capable of understanding the other.
When looked at objectively, it's useless to claim one side is better.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 12:17|| 2006-10-08 12:17|| Front Page Top

#20 On the contrary, it is CRITICAL that we each make careful judgements and evaluations. I understand the European perspective -- I've interacted with Europeans for long periods of time, am married to a man most of whose family lives in Europe and whose American relatives spend a good deal of time there.

What is useless is to think that the fact of differing perspectives makes judgements invalid. Failure to evaluate carefully and decide for yourself is the most passive stance of all.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 12:19|| 2006-10-08 12:19|| Front Page Top

#21 *zing* lotp. Well done.

A note: I almost married a German. Almost. I bailed and broke his heart at the last minute, and I'll feel like shit about it forever. But he knew, too, that our union was doomed. He was a decent man, like most Europeans I know, and taught me a lot.

It's hard to assess how much unrest there is in Germany -- it varies by region, by generation, etc. The first thing I'd note is that the level of Islamic violence isn't out of control yet; there's the occasional rape or honor killing (and one attempted train bombing). I feel fortunate to be here, instead of France or the UK.

But. Privately, many Germans I know are outraged, and scared. A few months ago, I saw political posters that declared bluntly, "Islamisten Raus." And the NPD makes gains in every election cycle (mainly in the former east, but then, Berlin is where most of the Muslims are).

Germans tend to keep their heads down and stay in their lane. Go to work, tend the garden, wash the car, walk the dog, drink beer with friends, and gripe only privately. At least where I am, there isn't anything close to a mutiny brewing. Yet.

Posted by exJAG 2006-10-08 12:38|| 2006-10-08 12:38|| Front Page Top

#22 What is crystal clear is that one's own self-interest demands that an individual take responsibility for his own self defense. Anyone who delegates that responsibility to someone else (who will almost certainly take that responsibility less seriously) deserves what they get.

Euros get robbed, beaten and raped in job lots because they foolishly trust their inefficient and politically-correct police to protect them. Most Americans (except for the idiot blue-state lefties) know better and have guns in their homes. Difference: criminals in America very seldom try breaking into occupied homes because they know that they stand a damned high likelihood of running into an armed homeowner who will kill them if he gets half a chance--and who will walk away scott-free if he does. In Europe there are more robberies of occupied residences than of unoccupied ones. Euro criminals know they don't have to worry about armed resistance from the Euro sheeple and they act accordingly.

Americans never understand how the Jews could just get on the trains to the death camps so quietly and peacefully. Euros understand it all too well. They're conditioned to submit to violence because the idea of fighting back is so strongly discouraged by their culture. Euros have two choices. They'll either change that attitude or they'll be taken over by the Islamic horde. It's that simple.

Posted by mac 2006-10-08 12:57|| 2006-10-08 12:57|| Front Page Top

#23 lotp, all of what you state is true to some degree, but there's a flaw in your argument. You are talking about state passivity and how the state imposes itself on the people. Are the people intrinsically passive, to the extent that you believe? Take away the welfare state, the state safety net, and will these people perish under your assumption? I doubt it.

For example, it's true that the welfare state discourages the creation of small businesses. Does that mean that small businesses do not exist? Or that people don't try? Evidence of this is most readily seen in Eastern Europe, a region that is now mostly a social copy of Western Europe, but where I'd say passivity is not the norm.

Now, as far as personal safety goes, I'm afraid that is a bit of an American exaggeration borne out of your bias toward gun ownership and the environment in which you live. For instance, I bet someone who curls up into a ball has a much greater chance of survival in Europe than if they did it in the US. For the sake of argument (and only that) is this really such bad advice in Europe?

Honestly, I think your (unfair) criticism of Europeans stems from your biasedness. You think they're weird because you come from an entirely different background. Any person who is objective on this matter will find it extremely difficult to claim one side is better. Or at least, they wouldn't do it in a condescending manner.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 13:12|| 2006-10-08 13:12|| Front Page Top

#24 Americans never understand how the Jews could just get on the trains to the death camps so quietly and peacefully.

Put yourself in the Jews' perspective. They were outnumbered. Do you revolt and risk certain defeat and certain death, or do you stay quiet in the belief that you have a good chance of surviving? Make your decision in an environment of chaos.

Not everyone shares your penchant for death, European, Jewish, or other.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 13:26|| 2006-10-08 13:26|| Front Page Top

#25 On the contrary, it is CRITICAL that we each make careful judgements and evaluations.

Sure it is. That's not to say we don't have our biases which affect our judgements.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 13:31|| 2006-10-08 13:31|| Front Page Top

#26 "intrinsically"???

It's a matter of socialization, not of genetics, if that's what you mean. The question isn't whether the Europeans would perish without the welfare state, it's whether they would consider abolishing it of their own accord or reforming it. And the clear evidence of the last few election cycles has been "No".

You are kidding yourself when you suppose you are "objective" in refusing to make judgements. Humans are, above all, the beings who can and must make judgements and take moral stances. And cultural differences become *moral* issues when they result in deep effects on the lives of others.

The welfare state in Europe is a Ponzi scheme. The current older generations are irresponsibly siphoning off overly generous benefits while leaving the younger generation to bear an impossible burden to fund those benefits -- impossible not only because of the unaffordability of the benefits which have been promised, but also because so many Europeans could not be bothered to take on the inconvenience of having and raising children to join that younger generation workforce.

When one's choice to siphon off personal comfort comes at the cost of damning a younger generation, that is not a matter of cultural difference that "objective" observers are unable to evaluate.

That is a *moral* choice for which the choosers bear responsibility.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 13:32|| 2006-10-08 13:32|| Front Page Top

#27 The same argument holds, even more strongly, for self defense. I will be more impressed by your reasoning when you explain to me why it is acceptable for the "curl into a ball" Europeans to look the other way as forceable rapes have skyrocketed in Malmo and similar cities, as violence and intimidation against very young and very old Jews becomes increasingly overt in France, as a 15 year old boy in Scotland is kidnapped, burned and stabbed to death by a man with an immigrant background because someone else from the boy's neighborhood threw a bottle at the man the night before.

When one's choice of passivity in the face of violence encourages violence against those who have no choice in the matter, then it becomes a *moral* issue for which the choosers bear responsibility.

And it is OUR responsibility to pass judgement on such choices.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 13:35|| 2006-10-08 13:35|| Front Page Top

#28 That's not to say we don't have our biases which affect our judgements.

Of course. But it is our responsibility to do our best to transcend those biases in order to make good judgements and live by them.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 13:37|| 2006-10-08 13:37|| Front Page Top

#29 "Are the people intrinsically passive, to the extent that you believe?"

GH is arguing that inside of every Eurpopean is an American struggling to get out...

"Put yourself in the Jews' perspective. They were outnumbered. Do you revolt and risk certain defeat and certain death, or do you stay quiet in the belief that you have a good chance of surviving? Make your decision in an environment of chaos.

Not everyone shares your penchant for death, European, Jewish, or other."

Oh, my. Did you just say that? I think you just made the case for the opposite side. At the time, European Jews and those sympathetic with them (I know several of them, Jews and non jews who lived in Germany before the war) would rather just stay quiet and hope the trouble passes. And if the neighbors shop is burnt or they disappear, they won't do anything.

As Rick said in Casablanca, "There are parts of New York I wouldn't advise on invading." Contrairily, There is no part or Europe that would defend itself. Hell, cops there won't even stop kids from burning cars. If someone tried to set cars on fire in my neighborhood, they'd probably be shot anonymously from a window. And that isnt' an exaggeration. But get a couple of teenagers on a train travelling in Europe, and nobody will stop them from raping and stealing, not even the police.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-08 13:54|| 2006-10-08 13:54|| Front Page Top

#30 The right of self defense is as central a human right as may be claimed to exist.

Not according to the United Nations. (Which is yet another reason to kick those despot-coddlers out of the US).

Posted by DMFD 2006-10-08 13:54|| 2006-10-08 13:54|| Front Page Top

#31 Further, gun ownership is prohibited just about everywhere

Not true until the 1930's or so IIUC.
Until then, gun ownership was rather common in most of Europe, I even think it was encouraged in France right until WWI (JFM the historian will know better than porn-addict me), so to avoid the small arms shortage of the 1871 war.
Honest citizens could pack some heat, if you want, and that included army issue rifles (I've seen early 20th "Manufrance" mail-order catalogs where the lay froggie could buy a Lebel, order a 11mm revolver, etc, etc...).

And weapons were still available on a reasonable basis until late in the 20th, at least for long arms.
My grandmother mailorder catalog "La Redoute" or "Les 3 suisses" (quite the mainstream for middle class hicks, with a circulation of maybe 2 millions copies a year) carried perhaps 5 pages of shotguns, rifles, gunpodwer cans, ammo-reloading tools,... and there was a weapon rack in the supermarket, again with pump-action shotguns, hunting double-barreled shotguns, ad "carabines" (IE hunting rifles in 7mm Remington, 7,62, .243, etc, etc...), which were avaialble for every adult customer... my 10 000 souls province town used to have two gunshops.

BUT, I agree, access to firearms has become stricter with time (for example when Charles Pasqua was interior minister back in 1993 I think, shotguns were first limited in capacity, no more than 3 shots, and then only with a permit), especially with each "big" shooting, like the... 1998? 1999? 2000? Richard Durn shooting, which caused the socialist gvt to even further restrict the access to handguns (if one wishes to become a recreational sport shootist with actual guns, not .22 LR match pistols, probation is about 1 year of regular attendance and control at a gun club).
And France isn't even the strictest one (one may still own long guns with an hunting permit), compared to Germany I think, or to UK for sure.

"Europe" didn't restrict the RTKBA and the right to self-defense, the nanny State did.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-08 13:57|| 2006-10-08 13:57|| Front Page Top

#32 Bullshit.

The Jews revolted in the concentration camps, they revolted in the Warsaw Ghetto, holding off the Nazi army consideragly longer than the rest of the country, formed their own Partisan units when they discovered the locals would rather murder them or turn them over for the reward than allow them to join the fight. My mother's father, while in hiding in Amsterdam not far from Anne Frank and her family, forged documents, advised the young Dutch Resistance members who were protecting them of targets of opportunity and how best not to get caught, based on his own experiences in WWI, for which he was awarded an Iron Cross, and facilitated the hiding of numerous other Jews and Underground members from the Nazis. Other members of my family were involved -- and killed -- in numerous other acts of resistance across Europe. The "Passive Jew" is a stereotype preferred by those who prefer not to see the Jewish reality.

A small part of that history can be read in my grandmother's war memoir, archived at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and about to be added to the curriculum of the high schools in her home county in Germany.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-08 14:07|| 2006-10-08 14:07|| Front Page Top

#33 Damn, Ms. Trailing wife using cuss word.
So, that's what cold fury looks like?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-08 14:19|| 2006-10-08 14:19|| Front Page Top

#34 TW, I agree with you about specific individual cases, but I bet you that in each case, those fighing were wondering where everyone else was...

"formed their own Partisan units when they discovered the locals would rather murder them or turn them over for the reward than allow them to join the fight."

Precisely. They were probably thinking, "If we keep out heads down and simply turn over the Jews, the Nazis will leave us alone." That is, if they weren't in outright sympathy with the Nazi goal of Judenfrei. Individual cases of heroism are trumped by the general lack of resistance to the Nazis throughout much of Europe.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-08 14:22|| 2006-10-08 14:22|| Front Page Top

#35 They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew; they came for the Gypsies, but I wasn't a gypsy........

That saying didn't just get invented for no reason.

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2006-10-08 15:36|| 2006-10-08 15:36|| Front Page Top

#36 Mark E, in many cases these were organized. Not enough to forstall the murder of 1/3 of the Jews on the planet, but outside help nonetheless.

Partisan units -- quite a few of these were eventually connected to the Jewish Haganah (which morphed into the Israeli Army in 1948) in British Mandate Palestine. The poet Hannah Senesh was sent in to help them, amongst others. The rebellions in the camps were organized by groups of various sizes, some with outside help (there was a constant flow of people being transferred from one camp to another for various reasons, and they brought their planning and connections with them). Small but ongoing sabotage by the workers in the camp-connected factories was partly individual, but mostly organized by experts amongst the captives. The Warsaw Uprising actually had some outside help, Poles who looked past religion to see humanity, even if the governments refused to bestir themselves. My grandparents -- and my mother separately -- were hidden by the Dutch Underground organization, and the document forgeries my grandfather did were at their service, as were my mother's little errands as an Underground runner.

Much of Europe, and many Europeans, did passively accept the Nazi government. And in the post-WWII world most law abiding Europeans have accepted the increasingly restrictive laws on possession and use of weapons for self-defence, leaving that to the professionals, along with so much else.

Gettin back to the GH's original point, that European ways and American ways are merely equally benign alternatives, I beg to differ. When we lived in Brussels, the trailing daughters went to the American-style international school there (and we do appreciate that Mr. Wife's corporation paid the outrageous fees). Our neighbors, a lovely Danish family, sent their daughters to the same school. One day the wife came to me in a fury -- it appeared that her daughter could not learn her letters because the previous years at that school she had never learnt to draw a face properly; apparently without learning to place the eyes, noes and mouth in proper relationship, the concept of letters cannot be mastered. This lovely lady, who adored her children, had never sat down with her children to draw with them, had never read to them, had never played with them. She was now furious not only that the child hadn't learnt what was necessary, but that she was going to have to find a tutor to hire. Why didn't she just sit down and draw with the girl until she mastered faces, I asked. She was paying the school to teach her children, and neither working with them on the side, nor checking their progress were her responsibility. This lady was no prole dole collector, but the wife of the chief financial officer of a significant European corporation.

In this case a young child's education was delayed, at the risk of her learning to see herself as stupid. When defence is reserved to the professionals, people get hurt and killed if they happen to get into situations when the police are occupied elsewhere -- which is most of the time. Unfortunately, passively leaving things to the professionals is not an equal alternative, but leads to a significantly less functional society.

a5089 dear, that was simply efficient communication. Cold fury is a bit... more intense.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-08 15:56|| 2006-10-08 15:56|| Front Page Top

#37 Oh, my. Did you just say that? I think you just made the case for the opposite side.

What case? Which side? I wasn't arguing that Jews during WW2 weren't passive (and TW has just proven otherwise). But Jews were not the whole of Europe.

I really don't understand this American (or Republican) reasoning. Are you not demanding a little too much of others? Or is this some form of insincerity? If there is a 90% chance of failure vs 50%, which action would you take? It's reasonable to assume a rational person would take the 50%. So are you now faulting people for acting rationally?

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 16:08|| 2006-10-08 16:08|| Front Page Top

#38 Well, decision theory says you should start by identifying the option with the greatest "expected value" -- which for each option is calculated by multiplying the likelihood of the event times the payoff if that event happens.

If what is at stake is avoiding negative results rather than gaining postivie ones, then payoffs are negative and you still want the larger expected value - i.e. the least negative number.

So your analysis is meaningless as it stands. 90% chance of WHAT occurring, with what consequences, vs. 50% chance of WHAT OTHER alternative??

However, simple calculation of expected value is not sufficient either. The final piece of decision theory has to do with value or utility functions, i.e. how much is an increase in payoff worth to you? This is where each decisionmaker will vary. Value curves simply capture incremental value as payoff increases. Utility curves also capture the risk preference/aversion of the decisionmaker.

Decision theory is a well-established, objective discipline, by the way, and has nothing to do with politics of any sort.

In business, decision trees are drawn up with one measure of value: money. In most other areas of life, decisions are difficult decisions when we have multiple things we care about at once, i.e. when there are tradeoffs to be made.

In this case one uses multiple attribute (or criteria) decision analysis.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 16:19|| 2006-10-08 16:19|| Front Page Top

#39 As I've remarked to snooty Europeans who've upbraided me over GWOT: there's a reason world wars keep happening on European rather than American soil. Europeans' ingrained passivity causes them to do nothing, react too late, and wind up using a hammer for what could have been fixed with tweezers.

exJAG, everything in your post # 4 is absolutely spot on and encapsulates nearly all of the points being made later in this thread.

GH, I can drive a truck through the majority of your ill-informed crap.

lotp, thank you so much for doing most of the ~~truck driving~~, heavy lifting in this thread. I really wasn't up to another round of hosing off the sidewalks today.

trailing wife, thank you so much for making sure that people never forget how the Holocaust wasn't just quietly accepted by all involved. My mother's family fought in the Danish resistance and some of her relatives paid with their very lives. It is almost heartbreaking to see what was once the brave Dutch people go like sheep into an era of Islamic domination.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-08 16:39|| 2006-10-08 16:39|| Front Page Top

#40 So your analysis is meaningless as it stands. 90% chance of WHAT occurring, vs. 50% chance of WHAT OTHER alternative??

90% chance of being killed by taking part in a revolt, vs. 50% chance of being killed otherwise. It's the relativity that matters, not the numbers, unless you dispute that as well.

I'm working on the assumption of your standard Cobb-Douglas indifference curves, or, where the utility functions give rise to convex sets. Typical human behaviour, in other words.

Now, are my eyes playing tricks on me, or did you just edit your comment, #38? Ah, the privileges of being a mod.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 16:43|| 2006-10-08 16:43|| Front Page Top

#41 "What case? Which side? I wasn't arguing that Jews during WW2 weren't passive (and TW has just proven otherwise). But Jews were not the whole of Europe."

Yes...that case. People in Europe in general are sheep when it comes to gov't action. Not in the individual, particularly when someone's boot is on their neck, but in general.

"I really don't understand this American (or Republican) reasoning. Are you not demanding a little too much of others? Or is this some form of insincerity? If there is a 90% chance of failure vs 50%, which action would you take? It's reasonable to assume a rational person would take the 50%. So are you now faulting people for acting rationally?"

Ok...two points. Republican, huh? Now I know what your issue is; Do you just hate Bush, or all Americans?

Second, am I demanding too much of others? No more than I am willing to give of myself. Or my Father was willing to give. Or his Father. We Americans are like that; How about you?

Going off to die with some level of great certainty, or taking some with me and certianly dying. Should I board the train willingly, just on the off chance the train will derail and I will dodge the machine gun bullets and escape into the forest. I wouldn't, but I can guess from what you said which you would choose; I'm hopeful that what you said was rhetoric. But that decision is weak, in more ways than one.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-08 16:45|| 2006-10-08 16:45|| Front Page Top

#42 To be less formal and objective about it, your comment about "acting rationally" contains a multitude of assumptions regarding possible outcomes, their value and their likelihood.

You may not be clear or explicit about those assumptions. Many people aren't. And some who are clear nevertheless have difficulty when faced with complex decisions in which there are multiple goals in tension with one another.

Hence the usefulness of decision analysis techniques even if applied informally. When I think about self-defense, for instance, I find that my choice of action must address several goals at once. I want to protect myself from immediate harm, but I also want to deter attacks on myself and others in the future. These goals may be in tension with one another, or they may be complementary -- it matters a lot how prepared I am (mentally, physically and otherwise) to fight back.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 16:47|| 2006-10-08 16:47|| Front Page Top

#43 No, I didn't edit any comments of mine (or anyone else) GH.

But since you are familiar with decision analysis, then you surely should at least address the issue of other functions in your value model. Or are you saying the ONLY thing that matters to you is minimizing your perceived chance of dying -- i.e. that there is nothing worth taking risks for in your opinion?

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 16:49|| 2006-10-08 16:49|| Front Page Top

#44 What is missing in your analysis, GH, is a recognition that choices of action or inaction change future risks. Failing to fight back against violence today often emboldens perpetrators, raising risks in the future.

Rudy Giuliani demonstrated the value of pushing back on small things when he was mayor of NY City. He cracked down on smaller acts of violence, aggressive panhandling, graffiti. The result was a significant and lasting drop in SERIOUS crimes as well.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 16:53|| 2006-10-08 16:53|| Front Page Top

#45 That should have read:

~~What~~ Another thing that is missing in your analysis

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 16:55|| 2006-10-08 16:55|| Front Page Top

#46 lotp: Or are you saying the ONLY thing that matters to you is minimizing your perceived chance of dying

Yes, in this context I kept everything else exogenous. Given the chaos that I think would have existed at the time, I thought this was a reasonable simplification (lack of complete information etc). Just trying to put myself in their shoes. But admittedly I'm not a historian, to say anything more complicated than that basic assumption.

Mark E.: Now I know what your issue is; Do you just hate Bush, or all Americans?

Another assumption I made is that Democrats tend not to have a problem with the European way. Is that not reasonable?

Mark E.: Second, am I demanding too much of others? No more than I am willing to give of myself....We Americans are like that; How about you?

Then you just made my point. How much would you demand from a Buddhist, then? Some people are not willing to give more, and for completely rational reasons. I certainly can't fault them for that.

Should I board the train willingly...I wouldn't, but I can guess from what you said which you would choose

You'd probably be wrong, as I'm sure you already assumed I'm a pacifist. I've been thinking about this since this debate started, and honestly, it would depend on what information I had at the time, and a myriad of other factors.

One thing is for certain though, I don't feel I'm in any position to judge those that did board the train willingly (passively, I'm sure no one went willingly, no matter what they were told or promised). I'm sure they were acting in what they thought was their best interest.

Back to the topic of the EU closing the door: I think Pope Benedict deserves some credit here. That was one slick move, Pope. Nice work.

BTW exJAG, sorry for my comment #11.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 18:24|| 2006-10-08 18:24|| Front Page Top

#47 Yes, in this context I kept everything else exogenous. Given the chaos that I think would have existed at the time, I thought this was a reasonable simplification (lack of complete information etc).

But these sorts of decisions are seldome if ever that simple. Does your value model not include some weight for matters of honor? Of potential service to your fellow citizens who might not be able to defend themselves if you don't speak up for them? Of sacrifice for a cause bigger than yourself?

Most people's value models do. And many who have written about their experiences underscore the point, as they describe the guilt and shame they felt at surviving by laying low, whether in the camps or outside.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-08 18:39|| 2006-10-08 18:39|| Front Page Top

#48 lotp - If Americans and Australians are truly different (and I'm not completely convinced that is the case) - perhaps it's due to the fact that both cultures are based on frontier societies. On the frontier you don't wait around for the authorities to do things for you, you must act for yourself. Though, the frontier may be gone, the frontier culture lives on.

Posted by DMFD 2006-10-08 20:27|| 2006-10-08 20:27|| Front Page Top

#49 Another assumption I made is that Democrats tend not to have a problem with the European way. Is "that not reasonable?"

Sorry...no it isn't a fair assumption. My father and mother are registered democrats, and they think Europe is fucked. That's a quote. Anecdotal, but still true. What the Europeans generally want with Democrats being in control, is their desire to control the US diplomatically, making us their powerful, djinn-like servants. Good luck with that.

"Then you just made my point. How much would you demand from a Buddhist, then? Some people are not willing to give more, and for completely rational reasons. I certainly can't fault them for that."

Fault them? You are kidding, right? Yes, I fault them for that. If you aren't willing to defend yourself and act for yourself, what do you expect to happen? This is the world, not fantasy fairy land. Tibet getting stepped on by the Chinese? Well, I guess they shoulda armed themselves; unfortunately that is the way the world works. Didn't they know how nasty China was? Were they just hoping that China wouldn't gobble them up? Did their pacifism protect them, their families, theri culture, or their religion? Perhaps next time they can be reincarnated in the US where other people can ensure their security. Pacifists are fools, and are objectively on the other side (c.f. http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw .) I'm a Jew, but I understand that Jesus beat the money changers and harrowed hell. The Centurian said to Him, "I too am a man set here under authority." And He once said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars". Violence in the protection of the just and righteous and innocent is fine. And those who don't think so are fools, doomed to be slaves to someone. Unless, of course, someone strong comes to their rescue.

"One thing is for certain though, I don't feel I'm in any position to judge those that did board the train willingly (passively, I'm sure no one went willingly, no matter what they were told or promised). I'm sure they were acting in what they thought was their best interest."

Um...this no judgement thing is silly and is weak minded thinking. Without talking about the holocaust directly, I will judge those who prefer to be weak as weaklings. In general, those who rely on charity or others to straighten out their problems will always be at the mercy of chance and the action of those who are stronger, and I will judge them stupid for thinking that that inaction would work (at the same time as we go about saving their bacon yet again. And by "we", I don't mean Europeans.).

As far as the holocaust goes, I don't judge those old ladies and men and children who got on the trains without fighting; they were old, infirm, etc....But I'll judge the hell out of the thinking and society that led to people acting like cattle in the face of government action; and because of that thinking were led like cattle to the slaughter, and whole countries to be gobbled up. I'll judge the German citizens (and others) who either collaborated or put their collective heads down because they thought Hitler would pass as cowards and opportunists. I'll judge those who fought back with no hope of winning and certain death as their reward, as heroes to be remembered and honored, and I will say, "Never Again!"

But to bring this back to the current discussion, I'll judge current European society as a bunch of weaklings, unwilling to think and act for themselves, even in their own best interest, even in the face of their economic and social failure, perhaps because they see a bigger, younger brother willing to do it all, and also willing to take their insults and sniping in stride.

Weakness is not the same as strength. Action is not the same as inaction. Those who are weak or don't act are doomed. To say that you cannot judge, even in a utilitarian sense, between the two....well.....whatever.

You euros can live on your knees; I prefer to live on my feet, even if that means my life might be a little shorter.

Sorry for the rant, but this is Rantburg!

Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-08 20:46|| 2006-10-08 20:46|| Front Page Top

#50 dmfd-
I think frontier is a large part of it.... Also legal systems too.... In English common law, the law is restrictive, in that it outlaws certain conduct. Continental civil law begins with the premise that everthing is illegal unless it is authorized. But of course there are constitutions as well...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

vs.

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, THE PRESIDENT OF MALTA, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,

DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, ...."

etc, etc, etc...

One of my favorite movie lines is from "The Unforgiven," when the cowboys face English Bob talking about the Queen on July 4th and how the US should have a royal family.... "We don't need no queens whatsoever, I recon...."

Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-08 20:56|| 2006-10-08 20:56|| Front Page Top

#51 One thing is for certain though, I don't feel I'm in any position to judge those that did board the train willingly (passively, I'm sure no one went willingly, no matter what they were told or promised). I'm sure they were acting in what they thought was their best interest.

You don't realize it, but you are just proving the point. You see, were I to get on a train where any of the male rantburg readers were present, I could assume that if I were attacked, that they would step forward to protect me. Any female ones as well. Can't say the same about you - unless you felt it was in your interest.

Posted by anon 2006-10-08 21:24|| 2006-10-08 21:24|| Front Page Top

#52 that came out much more rudely than I intended. I apologize. But the point I am trying to make is that through your posting, you have showcased what is a major difference between our cultures (I regret making it sound as if it was a personal statement about your bravery).

Regardless of what you or I or other readers here would actually do or not do in such a situation - your willingness to defend inaction is not something that most American men (or even women) would be willing to do.

It's impossible to know until such a situation occurs if one would act bravely or not, but most Americans believe that they would take action. Flight 93 is a good example - once they understood the situation, they took action, knowing the personal danger. I don't know anyone here in the US who would make the argument that you are making.

Posted by anon 2006-10-08 21:52|| 2006-10-08 21:52|| Front Page Top

#53 If there is a 90% chance of failure vs 50%, which action would you take? It's reasonable to assume a rational person would take the 50%. So are you now faulting people for acting rationally? I know this was addressed above, but this is simply one side of a two-sided equation that can therefore produce no rational result.

Americans (and Aussies) are, by nature and culture, risk-takers. That is why Americans have done so well. We take everything else in the world, find out what is best and implement it, building something new.

We ('mericans) are also a nation with a long and proud history of warriors who sacrifices yesterday and efforts today allow us to live the life we do. Most of Europe has that history, but no desire to continue producing that history. America carries the overwhelming combat load for Western Civilization.

Someday the Europeans will have to decide whether they will fight for their nations and history and culture, GH. If they fight, it will need to be a merciless battle of 'Accept, go o or die'.

GH, I live in Texas, liberal Austin actually. However, I can honestly say that the neighborhood I live, one of families, probably has 80% of the homes armed, many with multiple weapons (You mean you only have a .45, .357 and a .308 and no 12 gauge). If 'the shit hit the fan' here, there would be at least 50 men out there, blocking out the 'hood and heavily armed.

Bottom line, GH, yeah, 'mericans think differently in terms of risk-reward, freedom and weapons. The founders of our nation understood that the last barrier against tyranny is an armed citizenry and enshrined the right of the 'merican prople, themselves as individuals, to keep and bear arms.

Posted by Brett 2006-10-08 22:08|| 2006-10-08 22:08|| Front Page Top

#54 Does your value model not include some weight for matters of honor?

Admittedly not. The reason being is that it gets too complicated (yes, I'm covering up for my lack of knowledge here). I just assume that everyone is selfish, and that life is preferable to death above all else (in order to stay consistent). Unrealistic? In most cases yes. But it's not as if this is totally useless in this particular debate.

Yes, I fault them for that. If you aren't willing to defend yourself and act for yourself, what do you expect to happen?

To be clear, I don't fault them for acting rationally. That's the only demand I place on people, is for people to behave rationally. You otoh, go beyond that. Which is fine and very honourable depending on the circumstances. But that's not what I was arguing about. I wouldn't blame someone for choosing life over death because my model of people's behaviour (for this particular case) does not account for statements such as: Failing to fight back against violence today often emboldens perpetrators, raising risks in the future.

the thinking and society that led to people acting like cattle in the face of government action; and because of that thinking were led like cattle to the slaughter

I doubt very much that any sort of cattle mentality led to people being slaughtered.

How do you know that your way would have produced a better outcome?

I'll judge current European society as a bunch of weaklings, unwilling to think and act for themselves, even in their own best interest, even in the face of their economic and social failure

Wow. You must've discovered the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Lucky you.

You euros can live on your knees

I'm an ex-euro. And I'm not an American. That's why I can claim to be objective, which I am, btw.

I could assume that if I were attacked, that they would step forward to protect me. Any female ones as well. Can't say the same about you - unless you felt it was in your interest

I never claimed anything else other than people acting in their own self interest, albeit within the context of a life and death situation. Simply put, I can understand why someone would choose life over death. BTW, it's not what I would do. It's not in my nature to stand and watch while others suffer.

perhaps it's due to the fact that both cultures are based on frontier societies. On the frontier you don't wait around for the authorities to do things for you, you must act for yourself.

That's an excellent point and one that I've found some Europeans have a hard time grasping. They're spatial thinking is different. The average cop out in the boonies has to put in, what, 100 miles every day on patrol? Compare that to European distances.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 23:09|| 2006-10-08 23:09|| Front Page Top

#55 that came out much more rudely than I intended. I apologize.

You didn't have to apologize :-)

I don't know anyone here in the US who would make the argument that you are making.

But the people on those planes other than flight 93 were passive. Do you think any differently of them? Do you blame them for making the choice to stay quiet? Of course not. At least I hope not. Despite the mayhem, murder and hijacking they all had hopes that all would end well. Flight 93 was the reverse of the other flights.

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 23:35|| 2006-10-08 23:35|| Front Page Top

#56 GH, the people on the other flights didn't know what was going on outside their flight; they thought it was just a normal hijacking, ie a fancy kidnap for ransom. The people on Flight 93 understood they were being used to cause something radically different, that if they remained passive many more than themselves were at risk. Knowing that they were dead already, they took the weapon from their killers' hands. I strongly suspect that had the passengers on the other airplanes known what was planned, at least half the planes would have been crashed before reaching the target.

Do I judge those who didn't know and so did nothing? No. But I would have judged those who knew and chose to allow themselves to be the instrument of murdering unknown numbers of others.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-08 23:49|| 2006-10-08 23:49|| Front Page Top

#57 the others were unaware of their fate and thought that the planes were landing.

Thanks for an interesting discussion. I think it does indeed highlight the differences in our cultures.

Posted by anon 2006-10-08 23:50|| 2006-10-08 23:50|| Front Page Top

#58 GH, individuals may survive a bit longer by being utterly selfish. In that sense such behaviour could be considered rational. However, communities so arranged do not survive long. And where the community does not survive, the survival of the offspring are placed seriously at risk. Thus, individual selfishness of the kind you seem to be advocating is actually contra-survival for the individual's decendents, that is his/her participation in the future of his species. To put it bluntly, 100 years from now there will be plenty of trailing wife genes in the future population of homo sapians. If you act as you are advocating, you'll be the last of the GH line.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-08 23:59|| 2006-10-08 23:59|| Front Page Top

#59 Indeed it does :-)

Posted by GH 2006-10-08 23:59|| 2006-10-08 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:59 GH
23:59 trailing wife
23:58 Zhang Fei
23:57 Alaska Paul
23:54 Zenster
23:52 Zenster
23:51 Zenster
23:50 DMFD
23:50 Zhang Fei
23:50 anon
23:49 trailing wife
23:47 Zenster
23:44 Mike
23:42 Thoth
23:39 Angie Schultz
23:38 3dc
23:37 DanNY
23:35 3dc
23:35 GH
23:35 Thoth
23:27 Zenster
23:24 DanNY
23:23 .com