How does one know someone has "the concepts of another person and the thought objects constituted by them"? Apparently by agreeing with them. It is open for the theist to say, of anyone who disagrees with their argument, that they have not spent sufficient time "to go through the same long meditative process that the theist did in building up his own concept of God".

All rather sequestered and distasteful, really. "Mutual understanding" here means "agreeing with me". — Banno

This is precisely the sort of cynicism that is problematic, and which leads to you being written off as an unserious poster. You take this passage from Klima:

So what seems to be required from the theist to understand the atheist in the first place is to realize how the atheist can look at the world without a God and still be able to conceive of God in a non-committed, parasitic manner, as being an object of the theist’s beliefs, but bearing no relevance to his own beliefs. On the other hand, to understand perfectly the theist, the atheist has to be able to think of God as the theist does, as bearing utmost relevance to everything thinkable. But for this, he would have to go through the same long meditative process that the theist did in building up his own concept of God. — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 5

...and you reduce it to, "Anyone who disagrees with the argument has not spent sufficient time." :roll: Klima doesn't say that at all. You are projecting your own eristics into the paper and diminishing the thread with these petty imputations of bad motives.

I can understand why you would be frustrated with a stubborn argument like Anselm's, but ad hominem misrepresentation is not a great way to deal with that frustration.

Note how Roark critiques the argument instead of resorting to ad hominem or reading things into the paper that simply are not there.

Klima anticipates your sophistry:

[we] should not seek sheer “winning” in a debate (for that is the concern of sophists) — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 5

Someone like yourself who is motivated primarily by the fear that Klima might "win" a "debate," and who reads everything he writes through that petty, childish lens, simply does not understand philosophy. And I should think you also do a disservice to atheists, who are not all so petty, fearful, and closed-minded.

At this point, I'm told that there are no such arguments, because the thesis that Jesus is God is a revealed truth. My counter-point to that is that the thesis that God exists is also a revealed truth. — Arcane Sandwich

For Catholics neither are purely revealed truths, even though both can be (and have been) revealed (although one could argue with me on whether Jesus' divinity is purely revealed if they wanted to).

In any case, it would be a small minority which does not think natural reason can do a lot of work on such questions. For example, those who met Jesus during his Earthly life and came to believe that he is divine were not working apart from their natural reason.

The concept of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. — Arcane Sandwich

Participation in a philosophy forum is not a formal science. Premises which no one believes, such as FTI1, are useless. Their highest level of function is as a strawman.

Not quite. I haven't started a thread on the topic because I know that the moon is not made of lasagna. So does everyone else. — Arcane Sandwich

But you're skipping around the question. What if you didn't know it is not, but you didn't believe it is. And you knew that no one else believed it is. Would you start a thread on the topic?

(Lack of belief is sufficient; recourse to knowledge is a different issue. The concept of knowledge is arguably as foreign to the formal sciences as the concept of belief.)

- I spoke to the question at some length , namely to the dispute between Roark and Klima on the proper conclusion of the proof.

Beyond that, what I said to you stands.

We could go back to Banno's claim:

This is also very similar to the question-begging atheist:

1. All valid ontological arguments beg the question
2. This is a valid ontological argument
3. Therefore, this begs the question

But how does the inductive (1) get to be so strong? And even beyond that, what is "an ontological argument"? As the very first sentence of Klima's introduction implies, that whole label is anachronistic. Certainly Anselm would wonder how one can know that a whole bundle of loosely-affiliated arguments are known to be faulty a priori. — Leontiskos

Then contrasting Aquinas:

Aquinas’ response to Anselm in the Summa Contra Gentiles is quite interesting. On the one hand, it is of the weaker “question-begging” form that we spoke about earlier, given that it does not directly address Anselm’s proof. On the other hand, it is quite different from the other similarly weaker replies that we have seen. In particular, Aquinas’ approach takes the dialogical nature of the exchange as being fundamental, as opposed to the idea that Anselm has simply transgressed an inferential law (e.g. “no-existence-from-words,” which is reminiscent of “no-ought-from-is”). — Leontiskos

Now one can take Banno's question-begging approach. There's not a great deal of shame in that. But I don't want to do that. The only objection that I might offer is that constitutive reference to God is not possible, at least in the strict sense required for Anselm's definition (and Klima or Aquinas might object in a similar way). But I don't really know that such an objection succeeds. In a more general way the island objection seems like the best readily-available objection.

So given that I don't have any close objections, I am forced to admit that it is sound. But I think Klima's analysis is apt, which is to say that the argument will not be persuasive without the requisite kinds of concept-acquisition. Gaunilo's own retort in section 5 is also quite good (having to do with the way that concepts and assent interrelate).

In one sense this is odd, ergo:

3. Does this mean that Anselm’s proof can be sound for the theist while being unsound for the atheist? — Leontiskos

But on the other hand it is not odd that an argument could be sound in itself but yet inaccessible and therefore unpersuasive to some. The odd thing about this argument is that the further work lies in concept-acquisition rather than the further defense of some premise.

And what about the atheist who agrees with Klima, if that is possible? They would say that the opposite of concept-acquisition is required, namely shearing away the relevant thought object from Anselm's universe of thought objects, which would entail establishing criteria for what counts as an incoherent thought in a way that falls short of contradiction.

What's interesting in any case is how Klima has created commensurability over what is usually seen to be an incommensurable gulf.

---

Edit: It should go without saying that Klima does not see the atheist as irrational, and I agree. But I think we want to ask whether it is unfair that the atheist cannot adequately respond to the proof in the way of a close objection. In the first place, not necessarily, unless we are to say that all sound proofs are unfair to those who dislike their conclusions. In the second place, perhaps, in a way that Gaunilo's point about words could shed light on. If there is a place where John Henry Newman addresses this proof he might have a very worthy objection that develops Gaunilo's thought in section 5.

Yet Einstein's conceptualization of spacetime is based on the development of non-Euclidean geometries, particularly Riemann's ideas. — Arcane Sandwich

But Einstein believed in non-Euclidean geometries, so the premise fails. No one is objecting to Einstein talking about something he believes in, but after all, Einstein did not talk about the moon being made of lasagna.

No, I don't believe FTI1. And even if I did, what I believe (and what anyone else believes) is irrelevant to the truth value of that premise. — Arcane Sandwich

Truths that no one believes are irrelevant to a philosophy forum, for they cannot be spoken of.

It doesn't matter if we believe that the moon is made of lasagna or not. — Arcane Sandwich

Then why haven't you started a thread on the topic? (Hint: it's because the topic is irrelevant. Why? Because it does not bear on anyone's beliefs.)

Note that this is why there are good arguments and bad arguments: because premises which do not touch on someone's beliefs cannot persuade, and it is the job of an argument to persuade.

Yawn. — Banno

Yes, you're lazy. We know. It's written all over.

No one believed in non-Euclidean geometries during the 19th Century, not even their own pioneers. — Arcane Sandwich

And that's why it didn't make any sense to talk about them.

Shorter: math and logic don't care about our beliefs. So we should feel free to explore their uncharted territories, and to do so with whatever beliefs we would like to have in mind while doing so. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you saying that you believe FTI1? Because again, if not and no one else believes it, then it looks to approximate a strawman rather than something fit for discussion.

For example, should we conduct a dialogue on the question of whether the moon is made of lasagna? No, of course not. Why? Because no one believes such a thing. And using "the moon is made of lasagna" as a premise in an argument would be equally pointless, given that it has no bearing on anyone's beliefs.

Interesting reference, I'll try to read it tomorrow. — Arcane Sandwich

No worries. I haven't read it and I don't really plan to. I was just offering an example of how common this sort of argument is.

And here again is the closing off of the argument to critique by those who disagree. — Banno

A great deal of provision is made for disagreements. One disagrees with a proof by showing a premise false or an inference invalid. When one has neither shown a premise false nor an inference invalid, they haven't disagreed except in the manner of begging the question.

It's not an either/or type of deal. — Arcane Sandwich

Right.

Doesn't matter. The way I see it, logic has nothing to do with belief, just as math doesn't have anything to do with belief. The notion of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. Mathematical truths are still truths even if no one believes in them. The same goes for logical truths. — Arcane Sandwich

What use is there in asking people to consider a proposition that no one believes, not even oneself? It seems like putting something on the food menu that isn't edible.

Indeed, but my opinion is that throughout the centuries, Christian philosophers have been solely preoccupied with proving that God exists, without being equally preoccupied with proving that God is Jesus Christ. And they should, because otherwise, what makes them Christian philosophers, instead of theistic philosophers in general? — Arcane Sandwich

I think you'll find that Christians make relevant arguments. In Aquinas' day they argued against Islam, because Islam was popular. In the Enlightenment period they argued against Rationalism. Nowadays there are a lot of people claiming that Jesus was not divine, and so Christians tend to argue in that direction. Here is an example from two days ago.

- Sure, but a different conclusion requires a different argument. There is no single argument that proves both FTI2 and FTI3, considered as propositions. Anselm's is arguing for FTI2.

And another way to critique your FTI1 is to say that essentially no one believes it. At least I don't know of any group that believes God is necessarily identical to Jesus (even ignoring the problematic Trinitarian theology here). Christians themselves do not generally claim that the Incarnation was theologically necessary. Or else think about the fact that everyone without exception would agree that FTI1 was false before Jesus was born, and that if God existed before Jesus of Nazareth was born then strict identity cannot obtain.

The difficulty here is that the existence of God is a very modern preoccupation, whereas the divinity of Jesus has been a perennial question. In a perennial sense the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus are two quite separate questions. No one really thinks that one cannot believe in God's existence without believing in Jesus' divinity, or that one cannot abandon Jesus' divinity without abandoning God's existence.

I'd call it something like "logical reductionism", or something along those lines, something that sounds more "politically correct" but without losing too much bite. — Arcane Sandwich

That's fair. The point for me is that it is one theory among many, which must be expected to compete with other theories without any special privileges.

In any case, I agree that Anselm's argument becomes more difficult to dismiss when one cannot simply appeal to one's own quantificational preferences in a question-begging manner.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sky_daddy, if preferred. — Banno

Another failure to read, for your own source testifies against you:

Noun
1. (slang) A god, especially (derogatory, offensive) God the Father.
Synonyms: sky fairy; — Wiktionary

You are the one who is posting about me. — Banno

Many others point out the same sorts of problems:

It might help if you would sketch the argument that you take McDowell to be misapprehending. — Pierre-Normand

While I appreciate many of your observations, the arrogance of this remark is not a benefit. — Paine

How about we start by analyzing these completely irrational themes that underlie these sorts of discussions, instead of digging our heels and just blurting out nonsensical accusations such as "You don't really understand Quine's point." — Arcane Sandwich

Treat this as an invitation to engage with the thread topic on its own terms...
If you want to use this style of analysis, and see the thread through its terms entirely, you're going to remain confused. — fdrake

Of course you are not displeased that your trolling has garnered traffick. — Lionino

If you are only interested in arguing that Austin (or Wittgenstein, or anyone else) never advanced this theory, I have already accepted as much. I just want to discuss the theory as it has been described. — cherryorchard

You are falling into yet another ignoratio elenchus, for Klima tells us explicitly that the intentional theory and the causal or historical* theory agree on this: — Leontiskos

This theory agrees with the recent “historical explanation”[19]—as opposed to the Russellian—theory of reference on the fundamental insight that speakers may successfully refer to objects by descriptions that do not apply to these objects. — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 4

(So Banno didn't read the paper. A lesson we have learned too many times by now. What drives him is his fanatical anti-religious creed.)

Again:

Those who have read the paper carefully already recognize Banno’s absurd misrepresentations. I invite them to engage with the paper thoughtfully and to avoid falling into the sort of trolling that Banno's whole persona has been reduced to. Engaging those who are not serious and do not have the capacity to authentically interact with the paper is a waste of time. There is no need to waste our time with such people. Tony Roark is a great example of someone who engaged the paper thoughtfully and with intellectual honesty. He is the sort of person we should imitate. — Leontiskos

So let's make this thread about me, too. What fun. — Banno

Fun indeed. You derail all the threads you participate in to be about you, because you can't engage OPs and topics on their own terms. This has been going on for some time.

Good thing you'd never engage in anything so rude, then. — Banno

Slurs against an entire class of people in order to "cleanse" the forum of their participation and ethos? Nope, I haven't. Digital eugenics isn't my thing. And I'm not seeing what digital eugenicists like yourself add to the forum (apart from the ongoing suppression of philosophical discourse).

Banno has shown with each of his posts that he simply lacks any real skills of reading comprehension. All of his posts are full of weird shit that does not come from Klima or the paper, and when it is pointed out to him over and over, he just buries his head in the sand and moves on as if nothing has occurred. — Leontiskos

To give another example, namely the long tangent regarding Kripke:

You are hung up on that word "description," and you want to say that Kripke differs from Russell on descriptions. Sure, but Klima already noted that. "Description" is a common word. Klima is quite reasonably reading "designator" as a description, given the belief about the semantic referent condition.

So using Kripke's own example that Klima picks up, consider the referent, "Her husband," in the sentence, "Her husband is kind to her." For Kripke the speaker must believe that the man fulfills the conditions for being the semantic referent of the designator, "Her husband." For Kripke, even though he is mistaken, his reference succeeds in virtue of his belief. Klima riffs on that very same example and shows how one can use parasitic reference even without the belief that Kripke requires. If Klima can say, "'Her husband' happens to be her kind boss," (or Roark can say, "The most significant British composer in history is a hack"), without involving the belief that Kripke claims is required, then obviously the theory of reference is different from Kripke's. And that's the point here: the intentional theory of reference differs from Kripke's theory of reference. — Leontiskos

1. Banno claims that Kripke is being misrepresented
2. Banno is proven wrong, at length over a number of posts by two different users
3. Banno buries his head in the sand

Banno has enough time on his hands to repeat this sort of nonsense ad nauseum. I don't.

but also to see who bites... — Banno

A troll trolling.

The forums periodically suffer a rash of god bothering. — Banno

The troll's emotional needs require excising the forum of any talk of God, and his tools are misrepresentation and slurs. Argument and philosophy are beyond his pay grade.

Maybe we need more plumbers:

You say it yourself. You've got old. Brittle and senescent, to use the technical terms. That you would have Genesis on the turntable, rather than Black Midi or Connan Mockasin, speaks to your reduced capacity to deal with environmental novelty (even if you have the other side of the trade-off in the conviction of your certainties, the wisdom of a lifetime of evermore entrenched habit.) — apokrisis

I'm glad we've all agreed that "sky daddy" is a slur, but the point here is that sophistical dismissals and emotional mis-readings are not a great look for those who want to claim the intellectual high ground.

If someone like Banno is willing to put in the time to understand and then critique an argument in fairness, then they should do that. If they are not willing to put in that time, then they should hold their tongue rather than try to "win" with slurs and aspersions. Time and again we have seen Banno unwilling to put in the time and effort for a fair assessment, but nevertheless running his tongue with slurs and aspersions.

(This is my, "This is why I'm putting Banno back on ignore" speech.)

Calling the Sky Father a Sky "Daddy" is like saying that it's a Sugar Daddy but in the sky — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, and I am heartened to know that even someone who speaks Spanish as their first language sees this. Of course, Banno's "Google AI" is not a source at all for this sort of matter.

The upshot is that understanding the argument as a proof of god's existence requires a commitment to the existence of god. — Banno

Banno has shown with each of his posts that he simply lacks any real skills of reading comprehension. All of his posts are full of weird shit that does not come from Klima or the paper, and when it is pointed out to him over and over, he just buries his head in the sand and moves on as if nothing has occurred. Probably the most absurd case occurred here, but the occurrences are constant:

Even if we admit (1), why shouldn't we just suppose that the greatest thing can be conceived of, but not be real? Why could it not be the case that the greatest thing can be imagined, and yet might not exist? — Banno

.. :lol: Anyone who has read Klima's argument knows that this is precisely what (2) does.

Why does Banno persist in this sort of behavior, here and elsewhere? Because he is a troll. He uses the forum to try to address his emotional needs, and here he is emotionally invested in the idea that Klima or his paper must be dismissed. He has engaged in this sort of emotion-driven nonsense from his very first post in the thread. That he has not managed to read or comprehend the paper is no surprise, for reading the paper would get in the way of his emotional needs. Banno is a hack who has no real desire for philosophical discourse or authentic dialogue. He just goes around shitting on everything he fails to understand, and his capacity for said failure is unparalleled.*

After Banno tried to overtly hijack the thread I just put him back on ignore, where he belongs. I have since responded to posts of his that others have picked up, but I think most people on TPF recognize that Banno is in large part a bored troll who is merely engaged in emotional, knee-jerk gainsaying.

Those who have read the paper carefully already recognize Banno’s absurd misrepresentations. I invite them to engage with the paper thoughtfully and to avoid falling into the sort of trolling that Banno's whole persona has been reduced to. Engaging those who are not serious and do not have the capacity to authentically interact with the paper is a waste of time. There is no need to waste our time with such people. Tony Roark is a great example of someone who engaged the paper thoughtfully and with intellectual honesty. He is the sort of person we should imitate.


* And that is the great irony. Klima is trying to build a bridge to mutual understanding, and Banno is intent on destroying the bridge before it is built, lest light come into his solipsistic cave. Banno is the Logical Positivist who refuses to admit that the project has failed, and who closes his eyes tightly whenever anyone presents him with the obvious evidence.

I did intend it as a slur. — Banno

Of course you did. Because it's a slur.

And again to my original point: you resort to that sort of thing because you're too dumb to square off with rationality and argument.

Fair enough. I've been pinned to the matt on that one. — Moliere

:up:

How do you feel about ↪Arcane Sandwich 's term? — Moliere

Sure, particularly if you're speaking of a religion that uses that phrase.

- So you agree it's pejorative, you agree it's insulting. Now go read the definition of slur.

- I don't know, maybe, "Our Father, who art in Heaven"?

Do you literally believe the words coming out of your mouth when you claim that "sky daddy" is not a pejorative slur?

- double post - server stutter -

- The idea that "sky daddy" is not a slur is too dumb for me to argue with. I just don't know what to say at this point.

And yes, of course atheists at the bar will use slurs to speak of religion. That's not strange at all.

It's not a slur because... — Moliere

No, it's a slur. Get real, Moliere. :roll:

- It strikes me as accurate. A handful of 20th century logicians think up a very new (and as it turns out, very bad) way of approaching existence, and they declare that anyone who thinks otherwise is an untouchable. So it is a strange form of imperialism.

As Bunge himself says: — Arcane Sandwich

Hence the atheist will have to propose serious arguments against it [Anselm's argument] instead of the sophistry of the logical imperialist. (...) In short, Anselm was far less wrong than his modern critics would have it. — Bunge (2012: 175)

That sort of "logical imperialist sophistry" is pretty common here on TPF, as the thread on Anselm's proof shows.

But problems happen when folk think they can prove that their sky daddy exists using the ontological argument, and so that anyone who says otherwise is anathema. — Banno

Or does the problem occur when atheist trolls can't manage to refute an argument, so anyone who uses it is anathema? They resort to slurs like "sky daddy" because they are too dumb to mount a coherent argument.

But Dawkins and his ilk are in their 80's and the irrational fad has passed. Once the hangers-on die out completely it will be back to inter-religious dialogue, particularly with the burgeoning forms of neo-paganism.

I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle. — Number2018

I don't see why the "digital medium" gives every system of values a populist mode of expression. For example, when the incumbent uses that same digital media to promote the reigning values, what is at stake is not poplism.

Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier refers to a vague and transient, yet potent and dynamic, sense of solidarity. — Number2018

Okay.

MAGA is not just about concentrating executive power. But the logic behind its implementation takes on a dynamic of its own, one that eludes pre-existing discursive or ideological frameworks. Take, for example, the latest executive orders on tariffs that the Trump administration is set to impose on Canada and Mexico. — Number2018

Trump has touted tariffs for a long time, so I don't see this as "the logic taking on a dynamic of its own." Tariffs are basically a simplistic approach to the "America first" mentality that is inevitably bound up with MAGA.

If populism requires a shift from pre-election promises to post-election actions, then it's not so clear that it fits Trump, because he has a surprising tendency to fulfill his promises. Or at least to try. And maybe that's a problem with Laclau: populism can function fine even when the signifier is not empty. Sometimes the people know what they want, and there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in the signifier. Sometimes the desired change has a clear direction.

Many have been especially interested in the proof itself and section 2. Such people may be interested in another paper of Klima's where he spends much more time on objections to the argument. That paper may be an alternative version of the book chapter of the OP, and it uses a slightly different formalization of Anselm's proof:

"Anselm’s Proof for God’s Existence in the Proslogion," by Gyula Klima

- Okay, thanks kazan.

- :up:

- I agree that Musk does not have the authority to abolish USAID, but the video from Rubio makes it fairly clear that USAID has not been abolished. And "notice" is a fair bit different than "approval." We can agree that it was in violation of the requirement for "substantive rationale," which my link speaks to in detail. :up:

- Well, you're always welcome to produce some arguments or some sources. It would be especially helpful if you produced support for your views that appointing Rubio administrator of the USAID was illegal, or that removing an IG without congressional approval was illegal. Those are pretty big claims, and they formed the backbone of your consternation. I would suggest doing some research before making accusations like that. I think Australians would be surprised at how different the Overton window is in the U.S. as compared with Australia.

Like many Americans, I believe we need to make cuts to address the national debt. I don't expect such cuts will come easy.

Biden had more popular votes than Trump and a bigger mandate — BC

There you go, and you've unwittingly admitted that Trump has a mandate. :up:
The point here is that trimming government agencies is not an undemocratic move by a rogue Musk.

But Rubio was confirmed as Secretary of State. — Wayfarer

So what? Is there some reason you think Rubio cannot serve as both? Or are you concerned about the rumor that USAID will be merged? Note that USAID is already closely tied to the Secretary of State:

As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the guidance of the president, secretary of state, and the National Security Council. — USAID | Wikipedia

And you're OK with that? — Wayfarer

I think you've been caught up in the sensationalism. From what I have seen Musk did not do anything without approval from the White House. I mean, what is the objection, here? That USAID has "some of the most sensitive offices in the government"? That doesn't seem true. That Musk had a team of young techies helping him? What's wrong with that? And sure, I wish Musk wouldn't talk that way about the wood-chipper, but that's Musk. He's always been like that. And what if it's as bad as he says? I am seeing a lot of hearsay online intended to whip people up into a frenzy.

So, your opinion piece says one thing — Wayfarer

It's not an opinion piece, it's from an American legal scholar. You merely linked to a Google search. Do you have a concrete source for your view? Namely for your claim that the act of firing an inspector general requires congressional approval?

Right - cuts are perfectly understandable. Had the debate been had, USAID been informed that it was to be merged with State, staff told that it was happened and had a chance to respond and wind up operations, it wouldn't be a story, and I wouldn't be complaining about it. — Wayfarer

Fair enough, but it would probably still be a story.

And the whole point of Inspectors General is that they're not political appointees — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. The President can remove IGs. Their "point" is not to be above the head executive.

- That's good to hear, jgill. :up:
My father has a similar story with cancer and Medicare.

Two of my grandchildren are American. Their father is a dual citizen. — Wayfarer

Okay, fair enough.

An illegal appointment. — Wayfarer

Except that's not true at all. The President appoints the administrator of USAID (and other executive agencies). The Senate approves the appointment. And of course it has not been dissolved.

Or does it? Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice. — Wayfarer

Are you just making things up? USAID is a government agency of the executive branch, and like other executive agencies was originally created by Congress. It is in no way illegal for the President to fire and replace officials in executive agencies (link).

So, question: do you support the right of Trump to act illegally in such cases, and the right of the Executive to ignore Congress and established law? — Wayfarer

It sounds like you don't understand the U.S. government very well. The Democrats have pushed for a strong executive branch over time, in order to circumvent the gridlock that our system is designed to produce (especially in the legislative and judicial branches). Trump has inherited that strong executive branch, and is using it.

Put yourself in the position of a USAID staffer — Wayfarer

Cuts are cuts. If the American people didn't want cuts they shouldn't have asked for them. It's not like you make cuts without cutting jobs, and in many cases it seems that benefit packages have been provided, or offered for those who wish to leave. The goal is to move a significant percentage of the government workforce into the private sector.

I'm sort of surprised to see Australians with a bookmark in the New York Times expressing such strong opinions on U.S. politics. If I read a single news outlet from Australia and opined strongly on Australian policies, how would I be viewed?

The Trump-Musk team is inevitably a brake-gas team, and even your NYT article says that Trump has pumped the brakes at times (Trump himself has said that Musk requires authorization from the White House for any moves he makes in this capacity). But given that the mainstream media hates Musk for helping Trump get re-elected, and that anyone who makes cuts is going to be demonized, these sorts of stories are very much to be expected. No agency is going to take a cut laying down, and that's why Musk may be just the right man for the job, aggressive as he is. The Pew Research Center reports fairly often on the debt, and recently had a piece on the federal workforce.

There is a basic tendency among citizens to say they want the deficit addressed, but then to object whenever anything gets cut. Or to say they want illegal immigrants deported, but then to object whenever illegal immigrants are deported.

Regarding USAID, here is Senator Rubio, who is now the acting head of USAID and is an elected official:



As Rubio says, "There are a lot of functions of the USAID that are going to continue, that are going to be part of American foreign policy." So the idea that everything within USAID is being cut seems like scare-mongering. Here is the White House Press Secretary on the strange USAID expenditures. As I understand it, the argument from the right is that USAID was created to provide aid and promote U.S. interests abroad, and it is now largely failing in that charter due to ideological capture. It is not being shut down but it is being reorganized to accomplish its purpose.