• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

The need for a State?


Spinelli

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
373
Given Ireland's position, so deeply entrenched within the EU, and so deeply entrenched in a neo-liberal market economy, is there really a need for the Irish State? Do people support the State? Why is it important? What sacrifices (if any) are we, as a nation, willing to make to deliver upon the Irish State for the next generation?

These are questions that genuinely interest me. I would love to hear the sincere and considered thoughts of others on these matters.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
Of course there f*cking well is :)
But Ireland is not technically a state any more since its critical decision making powers in the area of finance are being exercized by non Irish people in other countries.

The Oireachtas could be removed entirely in the morning and it would make shag all difference.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
But Ireland is not technically a state any more since its critical decision making powers in the area of finance are being exercized by non Irish people in other countries.

The Oireachtas could be removed entirely in the morning and it would make shag all difference.
We still make our own decisions in the area of finance. We could default, but we don't. We could introduce a different tax instead of the property tax, but we don't.

Even when we are finished with the troika, we will be borrowing money from the international markets, and this money will have to be repaid. If we default, this will have consequences; does that mean that we won't have economic independence then?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
We still make our own decisions in the area of finance. We could default, but we don't. We could introduce a different tax instead of the property tax, but we don't.

Even when we are finished with the troika, we will be borrowing money from the international markets, and this money will have to be repaid. If we default, this will have consequences; does that mean that we won't have economic independence then?
The Irish govt past and present have destroyed all concept on independent statehood by transferring billions in private debt onto every citizen.
The sheer amount of money involved can never be repaid.

The consequence is the perpetual enslavement of the Irish people to non Irish financial interests.

Add on the massive dependence on EU handouts and foreign multinational companies operating in Ireland and you will then understand that the 26 counties is now composed of helots controlled exclusively by non Irish interests.
 

Honecker

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
4,777
To surrender whatever little democracy we have would be a massive mistake. The Irish state is the last defence against being completely dominated by the German jackboot. The ECB in Frankfurt is the greatest danger to European freedom since the panzers broke through at Sedan in 1940.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,073
If we go down that road we could be oppressed/starved/colonised etc. again so I say no.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
The Irish govt past and present have destroyed all concept on independent statehood by transferring billions in private debt onto every citizen.
The sheer amount of money involved can never be repaid.

The consequence is the perpetual enslavement of the Irish people to non Irish financial interests.

Add on the massive dependence on EU handouts and foreign multinational companies operating in Ireland and you will then understand that the 26 counties is now composed of helots controlled exclusively by non Irish interests.
Who currently decides our abortion laws?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
To surrender whatever little democracy we have would be a massive mistake. The Irish state is the last defence we have of being completely dominated by the German jackboot. The ECB in Frankfurt is the greatest danger to European freedom since the panzers broke through at Sedan in 1940.
Its too late.

The state has already surrendered all moral authority once it decided to unjustly transfer massive private debts onto every citizen.

The transfer of most economic power to non Irish centres has already occurred and is increasing daily.

The sum total of sovereign debt can now never be repaid unless a default occurs.

The vampire scumbag politicians that have Ireland under a penal taxation jackboot will never do this as it would affect their own massive and corrupt levels of personal enrichment at the taxpayers expense.

---
 

forest

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
3,363
Its the social policy of the country that makes the difference as far as I am concerned
Laws on drugs, abortion age of consent etc etc they are the laws that make a country what it is
(I disagree on nearly all the laws in Ireland and therefore will not defend it)
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,294
obviously we need a state , how else would we compete in the six nations, you haven't thought any of this through at all.
 

Honecker

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
4,777
Its the social policy of the country that makes the difference as far as I am concerned
Laws on drugs, abortion age of consent etc etc they are the laws that make a country what it is
(I disagree on nearly all the laws in Ireland and therefore will not defend it)
Increasing the numbers of abortions and gay orgies won't put bread on families' tables.
 

seabhac siulach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
415
Given Ireland's position, so deeply entrenched within the EU, and so deeply entrenched in a neo-liberal market economy, is there really a need for the Irish State? Do people support the State? Why is it important? What sacrifices (if any) are we, as a nation, willing to make to deliver upon the Irish State for the next generation?

These are questions that genuinely interest me. I would love to hear the sincere and considered thoughts of others on these matters.
By a state, I presume you mean a nation state. This form of state was historically meant to encompass those people sharing a common history, language, ethnicity, etc. within a defined border. With the coming of the EU and other supranational bodies, we have been told that the free movement of people is laudable, that ethnicity is not exclusive, that history is bunk, etc. These are largely lessons from the 2nd World War, where ethnic exclusivity was taken to extremes, bundled up with neo-liberal economic theory.

If one accepts that free movement of people is valid, that ethnicity or historical links to our fellow residents on this land is not important, then the ability to argue for a separate nation state becomes much more difficult. If every state in the world allows, say, free movement of peoples into it (even in our case only from the 27 EU countries), very shortly that state no longer has a population identified by links of history, ethnicity or language. What point then a nation state if it is, in terms of its make-up, identical to any other state in the EU or the world? In this situation, separate states become meaningless and new identities will have to be created (or will those identities merely revolve around consumption?). One could argue that nation states are an unhappy invention of the 19th Century, largely shoehorning people into geographical areas and imposing a dominant language on them, e.g. Spain, France in the 18th-19th Centuries. Perhaps, an era beyond the state would mean less war? This (the decline of the state) is, I feel, something that needs to be debated, considering the declining power of the state. I mean, how twee some of our national symbols look when more and more power is held, not here, but in the counting houses of bondholders, etc. and when the whole idea of nationality becomes more and more irrelevant due to large-scale population movements. For example, what does the whole of 1916 mean to the approx. 20% of our population that are foreign-born? Does it have any resonance, whatsoever? Should the idea of a nation state be changed to take account of population change, becoming less obsessed with national symbols and more interested, merely, in the welfare of whoever happens to reside within its arbitrary borders?
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
By a state, I presume you mean a nation state. This form of state was historically meant to encompass those people sharing a common history, language, ethnicity, etc. within a defined border. With the coming of the EU and other supranational bodies, we have been told that the free movement of people is laudable, that ethnicity is not exclusive, that history is bunk, etc. These are largely lessons from the 2nd World War, where ethnic exclusivity was taken to extremes, bundled up with neo-liberal economic theory.

If one accepts that free movement of people is valid, that ethnicity or historical links to our fellow residents on this land is not important, then the ability to argue for a separate nation state becomes much more difficult. If every state in the world allows, say, free movement of peoples into it (even in our case only from the 27 EU countries), very shortly that state no longer has a population identified by links of history, ethnicity or language. What point then a nation state if it is, in terms of its make-up, identical to any other state in the EU or the world? In this situation, separate states become meaningless and new identities will have to be created (or will those identities merely revolve around consumption?). One could argue that nation states are an unhappy invention of the 19th Century, largely shoehorning people into geographical areas and imposing a dominant language on them, e.g. Spain, France in the 18th-19th Centuries. Perhaps, an era beyond the state would mean less war? This (the decline of the state) is, I feel, something that needs to be debated, considering the declining power of the state. I mean, how twee some of our national symbols look when more and more power is held, not here, but in the counting houses of bondholders, etc. and when the whole idea of nationality becomes more and more irrelevant due to large-scale population movements. For example, what does the whole of 1916 mean to the approx. 20% of our population that are foreign-born? Does it have any resonance, whatsoever? Should the idea of a nation state be changed to take account of population change, becoming less obsessed with national symbols and more interested, merely, in the welfare of whoever happens to reside within its arbitrary borders?
It could be argued that an all powerful state is detrimental to traditional values.

take the paleolibertarian position Paleolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
Increasing the numbers of abortions and gay orgies won't put bread on families' tables.
Your socialism would ensure they starve to death having never got that bread in the first place, or if they are lucky enough, they'll have to stand inline for a few hours to get their hands on a few morsels.
 

Honecker

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
4,777
Your socialism would ensure they starve to death having never got that bread in the first place, or if they are lucky enough, they'll have to stand inline for a few hours to get their hands on a few morsels.
It's liberalism that starves people to death. It the liberal world that has the perverse scenario of people dying from obesity in the west and people in African and Asian dying from lack of food.
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
It's liberalism that starves people to death. It the liberal world that has the perverse scenario of people dying from obesity in the west and people in African and Asian dying from lack of food.
If that why so many people are starving to death in South Korea, while North Korea has all the food it needs?
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
By a state, I presume you mean a nation state. This form of state was historically meant to encompass those people sharing a common history, language, ethnicity, etc. within a defined border. With the coming of the EU and other supranational bodies, we have been told that the free movement of people is laudable, that ethnicity is not exclusive, that history is bunk, etc. These are largely lessons from the 2nd World War, where ethnic exclusivity was taken to extremes, bundled up with neo-liberal economic theory.

If one accepts that free movement of people is valid, that ethnicity or historical links to our fellow residents on this land is not important, then the ability to argue for a separate nation state becomes much more difficult. If every state in the world allows, say, free movement of peoples into it (even in our case only from the 27 EU countries), very shortly that state no longer has a population identified by links of history, ethnicity or language. What point then a nation state if it is, in terms of its make-up, identical to any other state in the EU or the world? In this situation, separate states become meaningless and new identities will have to be created (or will those identities merely revolve around consumption?). One could argue that nation states are an unhappy invention of the 19th Century, largely shoehorning people into geographical areas and imposing a dominant language on them, e.g. Spain, France in the 18th-19th Centuries. Perhaps, an era beyond the state would mean less war? This (the decline of the state) is, I feel, something that needs to be debated, considering the declining power of the state. I mean, how twee some of our national symbols look when more and more power is held, not here, but in the counting houses of bondholders, etc. and when the whole idea of nationality becomes more and more irrelevant due to large-scale population movements. For example, what does the whole of 1916 mean to the approx. 20% of our population that are foreign-born? Does it have any resonance, whatsoever? Should the idea of a nation state be changed to take account of population change, becoming less obsessed with national symbols and more interested, merely, in the welfare of whoever happens to reside within its arbitrary borders?
I'd agree that "nation states are an unhappy invention of the 19th Century, largely shoehorning people into geographical areas and imposing a dominant language on them", along with a single "patriotic mythology" and "national narrative". I do think that the nation state in that form should be a dead concept, and will probably die of its own accord, because it was primarily a creation needed for successful military/industrial competition in an era of mass unskilled warfare and mass unskilled labour. Now that warfare is again a skilled and technically sophisticated business, and competition is increasingly conducted through innovation, diversity and inquiry are increasingly replacing uniformity as the necessary supporting environment - while on the flip side, the evolution of massive economic and military superpowers also renders the compact nineteenth-century nation-states unable to compete.

Having said all that, the more local control is, the better for diversity. While a degree of regulatory uniformity is necessary to create something like the single market, and to allow the EU to negotiate as a bloc, no such uniformity is necessary outside trade, and is only desirable where it offers an improvement over localised regulation. In that sense, the nation-states, while they've lost most of their original competitive raison d'etre, remain better units for most exercises of popular preference than any kind of European federation, although they would, of course, be better replaced with more local units in turn.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,616
We still make our own decisions in the area of finance. We could default, but we don't. We could introduce a different tax instead of the property tax, but we don't.

Even when we are finished with the troika, we will be borrowing money from the international markets, and this money will have to be repaid. If we default, this will have consequences; does that mean that we won't have economic independence then?
Successive governments have done an abysmal job of managing the state's finances, and government after government have used tax payers money to buy the next election and to make themselves and their close supporters very, very wealthy.

I don't believe having no government could possibly have had a worse outcome - at least there would have been no-one to decide to guarantee/bailout the banks and assume private debt into the "sovereign" .

I for one wouldn't mind the country being run as a remote outpost of Germany for the next decade and outsource our national governance to the Bundestag - at least they seem to be concerned about their citizens wealth.
 
Top