Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "The European Union is Falling Apart" video.

I know a lot of people here hate the EU and it's disfunctional for sure but I don't think Europe can return to just nation states like it was before, it would just mean being divided to be played on by other players like the USA, Russia and China. Not a good state to be in, if Europe would become a proper federation then eastern Europe would be the red states compared to western Europe which would be the blue states, if only we had a US style constitution to bind them both together.
3
Did you guys see Maltheo Salvini's plan to try and form a super group of conservative parties in the EU parlement?
1
@currymunch6097 I actually don't know but did the people of the USA ever vote on their constitution? the EU today reminds me a bit of the articles of confederations, the rules in the EU themselves are called articles so if they were to implement a EU wide constitution it should be in regards to how law works, rights people have and the divide between the federal and state level. as much as I want to support the people, they sometimes don't do what's best for them, likewise many leaders don't do what's best for their people, it's hard to get people to vote for their own self interest and have leaders that can advocate for a vision that's good for everyone.
1
@currymunch6097 yeah it's worked very well compared to other countries in the world, it has fallen apart a little bit ever since FDR's term and right now it's kinda semi in effect as the US government violates it's own constitution on certain issues but this also has to do with the power of corporations on the state. in the case of Europe though if we were to get a US style constitution it would have to be slightly different because of the nature of Europe and it's many member states, some rules should be enforced though, like the right to free speech and right to bare arms but that's just my view, most europeans don't want guns for some reason.
1
@currymunch6097 the right to bare arms has two specific purposes, one to give the citizens power both against their own government and their own safety the arguments made by people on the left that it's useless against the military is propaganda to hide the reality that it's a big amount of power that the government very much fears, which is why their main goal is to try and abolish or limit it via law and not by taking away people's guns by force. second is the national defence of the country, a country that has citizens that know how to use weapons and have many of them is a country few nations would want to invade, the jappanese army during ww2 even commented on it ''a gun behind every blade of grass'', if say Europe had a more gun heavy culture and knew how to use them properly (we have guns just not many people that know how to use them or in citizens hands) then nations like Russia would feel much more threatened against such a population to invade. the reason why the USA is divided is because it abandoned it's early american culture, it's laws and have due to becoming a global super power more international and globalistic identity, this is both a good and a bad thing, it's good for the USA to be well liked by most of the rest of the world and people enjoying it's culture and bad because it destabalizes the USA internally and makes people think the USA is not in their own interest anymore. combine this with the ever inflating currency, the corruption in government, the many wars in the middle-east, the economic crashes, race relations, the polorization within government parties and you can see why the USA seems so messed up these days. the USA overal is still doing great and many nations are going through hard times right now, not just the USA but the USA's bad policies and ideologies can and do spread to other nations which hurts them as well.
1
@currymunch6097 arms as in fire arms, nukes not having been invented at that time would mean they don't fall under that law and also have no practical personal use, it's a weapon of mass destruction for use in war only. specific laws can countredict other laws, that's the issue with laws in general, some are clear as day and night and others are open per interpretation and others still are very clear but individuals and groups want to put them into interpretation, right to bear arms for example. a culture almost always changes in one way or another but legal rules only change when people in charge change them, you can question the foundation for sure but if you can't change them it does not realy matter. there are always flaws because people are flawed in general, there will never be a perfect society, no problems with the law or with cultures because they are always changing, demografics change, nations change borders, people change religions, war and war crimes create new realities, history is full with these things and they will be present in the future.
1
@currymunch6097 well it has in many countries and the only ones who realy want to abolish them are the power hungry and the authoritarians, history has shown us plenty of examples of a nation getting a dictatorship into power and then trying to abolish gun rights, in whole or in part, I would agree however that laws should be made so clear that those who wish to abolish them would not be able to, instead of "the right to bare arms" it probably should be more like "the right to own firearms of any kind without exception and anyone who wants to change that can be legally shot by any citizen in the country regardless of status or position without punishment" then the law would have been crystal clear but the founding fathers thought "naw this is clear enough, how would people doubt how this is written?" The founding fathers put it in the constitution specifically because they know people in the future would attempt to change it, their only mistake was not making it more clear. Many laws are unclear, most in power have this "temporary solution" mentality and nothing is as permanent as a "temporary solution"
1
@currymunch6097 not that many nations can wage war, expand or settle new lands, if they did the USA would come knocking, so yeah many nations would not try and copy the USA because there are no new nations, perhaps the East african federation might consider having a US style constitution but in africa they have a lot of corrupt leaders and authoritarianism. yes i agree, the USA is the exception the rule is the powerfull people don't want citizens being able to defend themselves. it's not that the USA has bad laws, it's more so that most nations don't want to empower their citizens and citizens seem to hate the responsability.
1
@currymunch6097 the founding fathers were exceptional the people have over time due to demografics and change in wealth and culture changed that they don't reflect those values which the founding fathers made. I think Thomas Jefferson said it best when asked what have the founding fathers given them? ''a republic if you can keep it'' and the people as you say are divided between those who want to keep it and those who want to change it. it's important to note that parlementary system are most often more divided compared to the USA and the USA was created in a very special moment on a very special continent, future empires and civilizations are often based on the actions of the past which is why China is a rising power while Europe is still divided in part due to it's conflicting parlementary process. but i have to repeat the systems in Europe work good enough for those nations, while it might be better for them to adopt a more american model in terms of freedoms the people themselves don't want it and neither do the leaders and that is why they aren't the global super power, not the only reason of course but one good act make another.
1
@currymunch6097 you too, have a nice day
1