Sulppoze Napolein had not existed, or had not been as succesful as he had been; there would not have been compulsory schooling, resulting from the Battle for Jena (Prussia), the history of the (western) world would have been so different would have been so different: https://fee.org/articles/logans-slashing-attack-on-war-and-demographic-planning/
So then there would not have been the conditioning of pupils to respond with delight to the Pavlovian bell at the end of every hour. Only a population conditioned as such would be good soldiers, or at least good (quiet, obedient) citizens.
Napoleon only had amateur soldiers, not professionals, but he used so any of them that Wellington, who was aware of Napoleons successes on the battlefields and had expected/hoped for a “worthy adversary” was dismayed when he discovered Napoleon’s tactics were those of a “mere pounder”
BTW, if you can find a video by Matt Carthy MEP, view it, the guy’s brilliant, #UKIP has found a worthy spiritual successor. This is a very good one by @mattcarthy https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/915600381924790277?s=09
Spain had no moral right to declare this expression of the people illegal. They certainly had no democratic right to do so; a government (even a #junta) only ever has the right to listen to the people. Never any other right.
#Referendums in #Europe are a tragic cause: just look at the last 3 referendums held in the Netherlands.
- European constitution: rejected by a majority, so it was renamed and imposed anyway.
- IJburg (an artificial island in a river at Amsterdam to create more housing), rejected by 60%, but by way of a dirty trick (an advisory, not a binding referendum), the regime managed to have its way and cause all the environmental damage that 60% voted against.
- association treaty with the Ukrayne: the majority voted against, a blow to the prestige of PM Mark Rutte who was the serving president at the time (a rolling fuction, the person & country gets changed), so they desperately went searching for an underhanded means to,push it through anywau.
So, to sum up: #referendums (a #democratic tool) have no place in Europe, because there is no #democracy here.
Further proof: when, much to the displeasure of the political caste, the people had gathered enough autographs to enforce a referendum about the association treaty with the Ukrayne, the scumbags took to campaigning to influence the outcome of the referendum. That failed, so they did the next best thing and igored the outcone, tried to weasel their way anyway.
Basically, what Paul Krugman is saying in that column, is, that it’s silly to rely on government for social services for the elderly. But instead of yanking the problem out by the root, and letting citizens arrange their own entitlements, Krugman calls for desperate patching of the demographic problems, by inviting more people into the country. I’m not opposed to people moving into an area (even if that area is in a different city, or even country), but Krugman’s approach is just to push the problem forward, causing future generations to having to handle their own (much worse?) demographic issues. This demonstrates the problem innate to Krugman’s economical theory: Keynesianism, which does the exqct same thing, but not with people, but with the economy (so: yes, with people).
Surely, there’s an easy argument to be made for curing the problem right now and removing government from this equation (statelessness would be ideal, but simply banning government from this role will perform miracles)