Hungarian Politics

[Valmy]

Not really. It just shows that within your society, Orban is right. And if he is right and the tribe/family is everything, then indeed he is right to effectively destroy the highly individualistic personal pension accounts and use it for the betterment of the community, because this money is not needed and you are expected to rely on your family and tribe instead (the fruits of your labour belong to the tribe, not you).

It's actually quite funny because you now bemoan how Orban is destroying your freedom and property, but your political views are really in line with what he preaches. He is a racist, you are a racist (against gypsies for example). He has a tribalistic, family-oriented communitarian mentality and you obviously have it too. So stop moaning for being ruled by someone who shares your views, but only drawing them to their logical conclusions.

I was not aware being family oriented meant being against freedom and property

I mean while we are all born with families and in communities they are voluntary associations...at least once you become an adult

[Sheilbh]

I agree with Orban, Valmy and Tamas.

Edit:  This reminds me of a paper the Scandi governments put forward for some international conference.  They basically said that society is defined by interactions in a triangle of State-Family-Individual. 

Again I'm doing immense violence to this, I'll have a look for it because it's quite interesting.  They identified the US as a society in which the strongest tie was the Family-Individual; the state takes a smaller role, but family and individuality are tied.  Germany on the other hand has a system that emphasises State-Family ties; the state plays a large role in encouraging family, there's tax sharing for couples, all sorts of generous child benefits, whereas there's far less support available for individuals from either - the emphasis is on the family together.  They argued that Scandinavia was generally State-Individuals; their policy is a strong state that supports individuals to do anything and, if they want, break away from their family or not have one.

As I say I'll try and find the report because it's interesting and I'm really not doing it justice.

[Tamas]

Make a fiery speech on an opposition rally, destroy your son's career?

IIRC, I mentioned after the big demonstration on the 2nd of January, that a well-known lawtalker, former ombudsman, made a speech on it, warning Orban that it has more honor to leave as a former PM defeated in a democratic election, than flee as a fallen dictator.

Apparently, he has a 37 years old son, who is a historian of some note, having written various books and pucblications, mostly about the Kadar-era. He has been already teaching at some colleges and universities, but won a new job application to one of the colleges.

Now, law says, that the Prime Minister must confirm every new college professor in his job. This has been a mere formality (even during communist years, altough during that time, if you weren't trusted, you never got accepted on the job app. in the first place).

Except now, this guy, Martonyi, got rejected by Orban. Well, to be more precise, his confirmation letter has not been signed. There has been no comment on the reason.
But it is not hard to imagine, falls in perfectly with how Orban and his cronies has been fighting their "enemies" at every level, from the top of country-wide politics, to small town councils.

[Martinus]

I agree with Orban, Valmy and Tamas.

Edit:  This reminds me of a paper the Scandi governments put forward for some international conference.  They basically said that society is defined by interactions in a triangle of State-Family-Individual. 

Again I'm doing immense violence to this, I'll have a look for it because it's quite interesting.  They identified the US as a society in which the strongest tie was the Family-Individual; the state takes a smaller role, but family and individuality are tied.  Germany on the other hand has a system that emphasises State-Family ties; the state plays a large role in encouraging family, there's tax sharing for couples, all sorts of generous child benefits, whereas there's far less support available for individuals from either - the emphasis is on the family together.  They argued that Scandinavia was generally State-Individuals; their policy is a strong state that supports individuals to do anything and, if they want, break away from their family or not have one.

As I say I'll try and find the report because it's interesting and I'm really not doing it justice.

So you are essentially agreeing with what I said - i.e. that the social progress e.g. in countries like Scandinavia makes the family unnecessary.

I believe Tamas (not sure about Valmy) is arguing that you cannot replace the family or make it obsolete.

[Valmy]

I believe Tamas (not sure about Valmy) is arguing that you cannot replace the family or make it obsolete.

If it requires massive government intervention to do so I am pretty cool with it being irreplaceable (not saying it is, I do not know, I just know I have no interest in replacing mine).  Are we talking about on a massive society wide scale?  Because I am pretty sure it is not that hard for individuals to decide their family is not working for them and I am pretty sure there are still lots of tight knit families in Scandinavia.

[Tamas]

I am arguing that there are certain things which are beyond our total rational control. Sex, agression, etc. You can control them but control rather means chanelling it to socially acceptable venues (do note that I think we do that for survival instincts, not to please society. ie. you don't hit an annoying guy because you fear the legal reprecussions, not because it would make Mrs. Margery at the next table upset).

The "need for a tribe", or a family, the need to belong is one such thing. You of all people on this forum should not deny that, with your passionate waving of the gay issue's flag.

Family comes as a natural, instinctive "prime loyalty" for most. Then later, one way or the other, their relationship to this family becomes a matter of an irrational individual decision - like almost anything in life.

Now, you may like or dislike that certain individuals decide that there are other individuals whose health and happiness are more important to them than their own. But so it happens, that the family is still the prime unit of our social construct, and for a lot, their personal identities.

If anything, this aspect must be INCREASING with the so called "atomization" of society, with the noticable decline of importance of the larger community (you have the TV and Internet to replace that), the nation, or religion (in the developed world at least).

[Tamas]

I believe Tamas (not sure about Valmy) is arguing that you cannot replace the family or make it obsolete.

If it requires massive government intervention to do so I am pretty cool with it being irreplaceable (not saying it is, I do not know, I just know I have no interest in replacing mine).  Are we talking about on a massive society wide scale?  Because I am pretty sure it is not that hard for individuals to decide their family is not working for them and I am pretty sure there are still lots of tight knit families in Scandinavia.

I think his argument is that modern people ought to cut ties of loyalty and love. Or something.

[Sheilbh]

So you are essentially agreeing with what I said - i.e. that the social progress e.g. in countries like Scandinavia makes the family unnecessary.

I believe Tamas (not sure about Valmy) is arguing that you cannot replace the family or make it obsolete.

I still think you're wrong.  I don't think atomisation has gone to that extent - and I think the process may now be reversing - but also the State-Individual axis requires society.  It can't work in your radically atomised vision.  Also I don't think there is a set route of 'social progress' which leads to any necessary conclusions.  These are all valid options and different societies will advance in different ways.

Here's the paper:
http://www.scribd.com/Davos-The-nordic-way-final/d/47937407
The relevant bit is the essay 'Social trust and radical individualism'.  It's effectively the Pippi Longstocking state.

Edit: 
Relevant bits:

This emphasis on social solidarity hides the strong, not to say extreme, individualism that denes social relations andpolitical institutions in the Nordic countries. In-deed, it is precisely the fundamental harmony between the Nordic social contract and the basicprinciples of the market – that the basic unit of society is the individual and a central purpose of policy should be to maximize individual autono-my and social mobility – that we see as the key to the vitality of Nordic capitalism.
...
Though the path hasn't always beenstraight, one can discernover the course of the twen-tieth century an overarch-ing ambition in the Nordiccountries not to socialize theeconomy but to liberate theindividual citizen from allforms of subordination anddependency within the fam-ily and in civil society: the poor from charity, the workers from their employers, wives from theirhusbands, children from parents – and vice versa when the parents become elderly.
...
All in all this legislation has made the Nordiccountries into the least family-dependent andmost individualized societies on the face of theearth. To be sure, the family remains a centralsocial institution in the Nordic countries, but ittoo is infused with the same moral logic stressing autonomy and equality. The ideal family is madeup of adults who work and are not nancially dependent on the other, and children who areencouraged to be as independent as early as pos-sible. Rather than undermining "family values"this could be interpreted as a modernization of the family as a social institution.
...
There an emphasis on individualautonomy coincides with a positive view of the state as an ally of not only weaker andmore vulnerable citizens, but the citizenry atlarge. This is coupled with a negative view of unequal power relations between individualsin general and hierarchical institutions in par-ticular, such as the traditional patriarchal fam-ily and demeaning charitable organizations incivil society. In this regard, the Nordic modeldiffers from both their Anglo-American andcontinental European counterparts.
...
In the U.S., individual (rights) andfamily (values) trump the state (always seenas threat to liberty). In Germany, nally, thecentral axis is the one connecting state andfamily, with a much smaller role of eitherU.S.-style individual rights or a Nordic em-phasis on individual autonomy.
...
According to what we have called "a Swedishtheory of love", authentic relationships of loveand friendship are only possible between in-dividuals who do not depend on each other orstand in unequal power relations. Thus auton-omy, equality and (statist) individualism areinextricably linked to each other. Whateverpolitical and cultural drawbacks there mightbe to this commitment to per-sonal autonomy, a strong stateand social equality – the usualcriticisms are conformity, lone-liness and an intrusive bureau-cracy – one should note the upside: citizens, who feel empowered, accept the demands of modernity and are willing to make compro-mises to achieve economic efciency and ra-tional decision-making.
...
Specic British and American experi-ences of modernization have been generalizedinto historical truths that have been appliedto other cultures, sometimes with great suc-cess but also with astounding failures. Thepoint is not that it is wrong in principal to try to emulate other successful cultures (how else is mankind to learn anything?), but ratherthat we should do so with great deliberationand – most importantly – not assume a priorithat only one kind of capitalism is relevant asa source of inspiration.
...
1.
Nordic capitalism shows that individualismneed not lead to social fragmentation, dis-trust and short-term maximization of material interests. Promoting individual autonomy through policy can, on the contrary, lead togreater social cohesion if it is done in an egali-tarian way. Less dependence and weaker patri-archal structures means that more people feelempowered and satised with their lives. Thisis especially relevant for women, who want toparticipate in the labor market without relin-quishing the possibility of becoming moth-ers.

[Valmy]

I think his argument is that modern people ought to cut ties of loyalty and love. Or something.

Ok.  For what purpose?

[Zanza]

I would say family is still the basic unit of society except that family does no longer mean married couple with two children, but can take different forms too. It seems natural that humans have close emotional bonds to their relatives.

Our social system is geared towards that too. They will always make the family pay first and only then society at-large. My grandmother had to pay for the elderly care of her father for a year or two before he died despite not having seen him for decades before that.

[MadImmortalMan]

Now, law says, that the Prime Minister must confirm every new college professor in his job.

lolwut?

[Tamas]

Now, law says, that the Prime Minister must confirm every new college professor in his job.

lolwut?

don't look at me, that was the way by the time I was born here

[HVC]

How many new proffessors do you have in a year?

[Tamas]

How many new proffessors do you have in a year?

no idea

[Sheilbh]

lolwut?

Weird

Still the PM here appoints Bishops.  It's mostly just him approving the Church's choice (he actually does about the Archbishop of Canterbury).  It only looks odd when the convention's broken, as Orban has.