there is [no] geographic obstacle that would give a natural border for Russia...other than the goddam Pacific ocean. — ssu

Or neutral (double emphasis) border states - what Ukraine was and threatened to no longer be as a result of continued United States foreign policy.

The error you seem to think is that somehow the Russian security goals and imperialism couldn't coexist. — ssu

I never said was the case. I never even said that Russia wasn't imperialist. Rather, there is no evidence for it, so why would I believe it when there is a lot of evidence pointing towards the fact that Russia did indeed view the matter of Ukraine as a very serious security issue. In fact, there's 15 years of evidence to back that up.

Even just in the Russian Federation there are 35 regional semi-official languages and about 100 minority languages. There is something like 199 ethnic groups in the country. It's not actually something that you would call a clear nation state. — ssu

So? Is this a problem to you? Proof that Russia "must" be imperialist? I don't see where you're going with this.

Why would it be impossible for a nation to seek to acquire territory in pursuit of a national security goal?

You keep making the leap to "imperialism", pretending that it is the only explanation when it clearly isn't. Why?

Still no shred of evidence.

Annexations of many parts of Ukraine are quite obvious evidence if this for all to see. — ssu

In what world is that evidence for imperial ambitions?

The Kremlin has never been shy about their motivations - it's a matter of national security for them. Basically what you're doing is saying they're lying, and then taking your own statement as evidence.

NATO membership, yes, because NATO membership could be and was easily thwarted like Turkey's long standing EU application. — ssu

Easily thwarted? What makes you say that?

It's taken repeated "red line" warnings by Russia for nearly a decade, then a coup d'etat in 2013 and an invasion in 2014, and all those red flags still weren't not enough to thwart Ukraine's fast track to NATO membership that the United States pursued.

Ukraine's NATO membership wasn't "easily thwarted" - it took all-out war. Had these things not taken place, and had Russia simply accepted US ambitions to incorporate Ukraine, then it would have surely happened.

What your error is the idea that reason for the war is singular, NATO enlargement, ... — ssu

Putting words in my mouth.

NATO membership for Ukraine and Ukraine's incorporation into the American sphere of influence is the primary reason this conflict takes place.

I never said it was the only reason.

...and that the imperial aspirations are unimportant/fake. — ssu

I've said there is no evidence for it, and you have yet to present any.

You really respond to what Mearsheimer said last November 2022 with a lecture that he has given in 2015 as a refutation? (The latter video isn't working) — ssu

Of course, because it proves your argument stems from a decade prior, and it didn't hold any water then, and it doesn't hold any water now.

The second video is called "The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war, a lecture by John J. Mearsheimer" and comes from 2022, in which the same arguments are once again debunked.

You see, Mearsheimer has been at this for over a decade. That's why I value his opinion.

Hence talking about "de facto NATO membership" is wrong. Far better would be to talk about Ukraine as a "US/NATO proxy"... — ssu

And you think calling Ukraine a US/NATO proxy would have eased the Russians' minds?

You've been claiming Ukrainian NATO membership was not the reason the Russians invaded. You think it would have mattered to the Russians whether Ukraine became NATO member or became, your own words, a US/NATO proxy? You don't think those two amount to basically the same thing in the minds of the Russians and perhaps in general?

My argument is that whichever one you choose, they're clearly a massive provocation towards Russia and that's what the United States has aggressively pursued for 15 years.

You have one expert, I take experts in plural ... — ssu

Here's Noam Chomsky, an intellectual of some caliber, making a comparable argument and highlighting the American role in the Ukrainian conflict:





We could play this game where you pretend the experts I base my views on aren't good enough for you, or that there aren't enough of them, but I'm under no illusion that this is nothing other than you not wanting to face the fact that there are other valid viewpoints than the one you've chosen.

When you are saying that Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict, US can solely decide what countries join or not NATO when it's charter say something else etc. I think there's no use to engage in a discussion where you have things so wrong. — ssu

You're just deliberately twisting my words at this point. The United States clearly decides what happens in NATO, and even if NATO member states stop NATO membership, nothing stops and nothing did stop the United States from turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, which it did. The Europeans had no say.

And btw, you fail to give any reasons why you assume that " Ukrainian victory, obviously, which is going to involve NATO boots on the ground" even if asked several times, this discussion isn't really not worth wile. — ssu

I gave you exactly the reason why I believe that, so stop making things up.


And as for Mearsheimer and his points regarding alledged "Russian imperialism", for which again there is no evidence whatsoever:

(time stamp 27:55 onward)



(time stamp 15:10 onward)




Note Mearsheimer has been making a consistent argument for over 7 years, and during all that time and before it, no evidence whatsoever exists of your theory about "Russian imperalism".

If you want to disagree with Mearsheimer and claim there is evidence for Russian imperial ambitions, then go ahead and post that evidence here.

So your only "truth teller" ... — ssu

A sad attempt at discrediting a well-respected scholar.

I'm not sure what to say about this. If you're not interested in the views of experts, wallow in your ignorance I guess?

It's much harder to see how censoring a Nazi spreading Holocaust denial is quite so unsavory in motive. — Isaac

On certain topics like holocaust denial it's not the motives I question, but censorship as a means.

If topics are banned from public discourse, the sentiments that underlie them won't disappear. They will move underground to echo chambers where, without the presence of a healthy debate, they might actually gain traction (I'm pretty sure that's how radicalization tends to work). Further, the use of force to silence these groups may affirm them in their ideas and create more resentment.

Of course, when societies are presented with repulsive ideas, the first reaction tends to be to ostracize the people who express these ideas. That's where the impulse of censorship comes from. I think that is a fundamental mistake, because we do not live in the Middle Ages anymore, and we cannot chase people out of the village. They stay in the "village", likely a little more extremist and resentful as a result of our own actions.

I stand by the idea that the best way to deradicalize extremists is through engagement and making them part of the discussion.

Secondly, a bit off topic, but I'd add a point zero to your description of the process. The government's censorship has tracked precisely the enrichment of those industries with the deepest lobbying pockets (pharmaceuticals and arms). It's their drive for profit which initiates the whole thing. Governments don't just decide to have an agenda out of the blue that just so happens to support their biggest donors. They're paid to do it. — Isaac

Great point.

Personally, I feel free speech in the way I described it is under pressure, and the pollution of the information environment is a result of that, and not a direct result of free speech itself.

What I believe is happening is that governments have stopped being reliable information brokers.

Not only have they been developing and spreading their own narratives, but they seem to have been doing everything in their power to ensure their narrative is the only one you hear. Propaganda and censorship.

The most notable examples are the covid-19 response and the Ukraine war.

This is what I believe is the prime cause for the pollution of the information environment:
1. Governments develop agendas that are not in the best interest of their population.
2. To sell these agendas to their population they develop narratives.
3. These narratives cannot stand up to scrutiny, so governments avoid and discourage public debate on these issues.

And here's the kicker:
4. Because governments refuse to let their narratives be challenged in public debate, conflicting narratives receive in large parts the same preferential treatment of not being discussed publicly, creating a perfect environment for misinformation to thrive.

So in that sense I agree with the "free speech absolutists" that the remedy is more free and open discourse, and less censorship. But governments are deathly afraid what the consequences will be for the narratives they have so diligently cultivated.

Still, I don't see a single instance in which censorship had a positive impact.

To emphasize, censorship (just like free speech) to me is about ideas, and not arbitration of interpersonal disputes.

In my opinion, slandering, calls to violence, intentional deception etc. are not primarily about the sharing of ideas, and having laws against those things is not a form of censorship to me.

If people want to openly discuss nazism or racist ideas, they should be free to do so, whether they agree or disagree with those ideas. However, especially with these types of ideas the line between discussing ideas and threatening to harm people should be closely guarded.

Censoring antisemitism is actually an interesting case study. There might be reasons for why it should be censored, but at the same time there are people who will cynically abuse that censorship for their own gain.

If you want an example of that, take a look at some of the blowback John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt received for producing an extremely balanced and nuanced article and book on the Israel Lobby. Their works were well-researched and full of legitimate worries concerning the role of the Israel Lobby in American politics. The lobby then started a smear campaign against Mearsheimer and Walt to destroy their credibility and label them as antisemitic, which they obviously aren't.

Because of the two men's impeccable record this smear campaign failed, but there are many who believe the fear of being hounded by such smears is the reason why the lobby isn't investigated more.

What are we to make of this? Censorship laws which, lets assume, were adopted with the best intentions become another tool of power for the already-powerful.

In a nutshell, in my opinion people should be free to discuss any idea in the context of a civilized debate. People with extreme ideas should even be encouraged to enter the crucible of public debate. In that sense I believe free speech is absolute, and censorship should never be allowed.

Has censorship ever demonstrably produced something positive?

Individuals are perfectly capable of looking at the data and drawing their own conclusions. It's specifically this that the censor desires to circumvent, likely because they know that when the individual looks for themselves they will arrive at conclusions that are undesirable to the censor.

Censorship pollutes the information environment by eroding transparency and neutrality. It also undermines the individual's propensity for critical thought.

Furthermore, censorship and propaganda go hand in hand, and for everything you're not allowed to hear there's a convenient government narrative that you are expected to copy paste instead. Today's 'misinformation' age is case and point.

Your posts crack me up. :lol:

What may happen to some pornography users is that they become desensitized to sexual images — BC

Isn't this known to be the case scientifically? — Noble Dust

Would that desensitization persist when one abstains for a week? Somehow I doubt it.


I think the fact that everyone can get their sexual fix is mostly a good thing, and for that to go away would probably do societies more harm than good.

Pornography isn't much different from other stimulants. If anything it's more tame than alcohol and other drugs. It should go without saying that you keep those things away from young children, and that it's primarily the parents' responsibility to educate their children on such things when the time comes for experimentation. And experimentation is healthy.

I think the most philosophical problem I can present whist ethical is the objectification of women. — Shawn

To what degree do you believe it is a problem when consenting adults choose to objectify themselves for money?

Side note: it's not just women who get objectified in porn.

I recently watched this Swedish documentary on transgenderism.

What struck me as particularly interesting is the fact that teenage girls seeking "gender affirming therapy" is a group that is growing extremely rapidly, and that this demographic is also suffering from alarming rates of mental illness.

It is a suspicion of mine that in western society's quest for complete sameness between the sexes it is primarily girls that have been persuaded to become more like boys, and not the other way around. Essentially, it is "society's" view that girls ought to be more like boys, but it doesn't say that out loud. Apparently, girls weren't good enough in their previous form. Not "smart" enough, not "successful" enough, etc. - whatever those terms mean.

Human beings are sensitive creatures, and the young generation picked up on this intuitively. Where does this desire to see girls turn into boys come from? An older generation with a complex regarding femininity and its role in society, perhaps?

Wherever it comes from, it is projected onto the children who more than anything else want to please their parents.

Earlier in this thread there was this brief exchange:

It seems to me that male traits are seen in a more positive light than female ones still and that traits like nurturing, caring and kindness and forgiveness are seen as weaknesses. — Andrew4Handel

By whom? I can't think of anyone I know that doesn't value those traits highly. — Tzeentch

I think may have been correct, at least as far as influences on the younger generation are concerned, however I wonder if we agree on where this comes from.

Notice the use of the word "still" - as though society is moving towards a situation in which feminine traits will be valued higher. Given the role of "feminism" in western society one would be forgiven for believing as much, but we clearly see the opposite. In fact, feminism might aswell be re-branded masculinism in the "modern" age.

On a further note, in society's quest for complete sameness (which perhaps in the future we will look back on as society's quest for the masculinization of girls) boys haven't been faring much better.

Where society seems to have developed a hyperfocus on developing masculine traits in girls, on the side of boys we will probably encounter neglect - or perhaps even an opposite effort, for boys not to develop masculine traits. A fear of the boys out-masculinizing the girls, perhaps?

Note, conspicuously, that there is hardly any effort whatsoever to make boys develop feminine traits.

What dark pathology is our "modern" society hiding?


I thought this would be a relevant topic of discussion in a thread that was supposed to be about positive feminine traits.

It cannot. If the members oppose what the US wants, then the US has to forget the organization and go to bilateral defense agreements. — ssu

As I said:

Ukraine manoeuvred itself into a grey area where it was both almost a NATO member and almost a US ally. In both cases, what mattered is that the United States would guarantee its independence and provide a credible deterrent against Russia. — Tzeentch

___________________________________________________

The US didn't decide anything in 2008. — ssu

It decided, and I quote: "... that [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO."

Bucharest Summit Declaration

You simply have false ideas about how international organizations work — ssu

I think it's quite the opposite. You're grossly overstating the importance of countries who have no real power to speak of.

No, you miss the point. If one can stop a defense pact only with the threat of war, then you only maek the threat. Period. You don't go to war. It's called logic, Tzeentch. — ssu

I don't see any logic here.

Threats didn't work for Russia, so it used brute force.

However if you want to reconquer a country and be again a Great Power, what better way to hide your imperial aspirations than by accusing others and try to convince others that your only acting on purely defensive reasons. — ssu

A nice theory, but there's no evidence to support it - a point which Mearsheimer makes repeatedly.

Ironically, there's a lot more evidence to suggest that it is the United States who aggressively pursued incorporation of Ukraine into its sphere of influence, despite repeated warnings from Russia. So who is the fool, really?

Because why then Russia would attack? — ssu

Now you are totally making things up: the US doesn't make NATO members. — ssu

Of course it does. That's why the US decided in 2008 that Ukraine would become part of NATO even though that was against the will of Germany at the time.

And notice that despite the protests from NATO members, the United States pushed ahead with it anyway, going so far as to support a coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2013.

At the end of the line, whether Ukraine got the official label of NATO member or not was completely irrelevant (and as such the opinions of the European member states were completely irrelevant) as long as the United States was there to guarantee its independence, NATO or no.

As it happened, Russia invaded before the United States was in a position to completely commit to a Ukrainian defense, which was probably why the Russians invaded then.

Israel isn't a NATO member — ssu

You're just missing the point. Clearly had Ukrainian ties with the United States threatened to become like those of Israel, we'd be in the exact same position, with Russia invading before such a defense pact could be sealed.

The only reason we keep talking about NATO membership is because that is the most obvious way Ukraine could get its security guaranteed by the United States. However, if Ukraine gets that guarantee on a bilateral basis it leads to the same outcome.

Again, the Europeans don't play a role of signifance here. They were never going to guarantee Ukrainian security, simply because they couldn't.

Basically the Baltic States and Poland are throwing as much as possible as they can +the kitchen sink to help Ukraine. Yes, they are small, but the European commitment comes to be huge by aggregate: when you add all of the things provided by various nations together, it becomes quite substantial. — ssu

Nice list. And where is Ukraine now? On a course to defeat.

Commitments, equipment, sanctions - it's all fine and good, but when the end result stays the same it was all for naught.

Had the United States not been involved in Ukraine, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and all of Ukraine would have been Russian now. (Except perhaps that this could have prevented the conflict, but that's a different discussion). That's why I say the European involvement does not play a role of significance, and the evidence for that is crystal clear.

Just the way as the Ukrainian defense minister admits it in the article: Ukraine is not de jure member of NATO, which means that Russia didn't attack NATO, Russia attacked Ukraine. And that is my point: it is Ukraine's war. Hence it is quite expendable. NATO Ukraine is either past lies of American Presidents or now Russian propaganda: both false and only political rhetoric without any connection to reality.

Hence Ukraine's situation is, with similar reasoning, the same as was for the former (now collapsed) Afghan Republic. With that country you could argue similarly that because Afghanistan and it's Former Afghan National Army were trained by the US and NATO, armed by the US and NATO and financed by the US and NATO countries and only having the exception to Ukraine that there were ALSO troops from the US and NATO fighting in the country, that Afghanistan was a de facto NATO country.

And oh by the way, that regime collapsed. And people just forgot about it's humiliating end. — ssu

You are beating around the bush. You responded to my earlier post by stating that it's supposedly a big deal that Germany blocked NATO membership to Ukraine, and that it somehow proves that NATO membership for Ukraine wasn't the driver behind this conflict:

The Germans actually only showed that this attack (February 24th 2022) wasn't at all about NATO: because German's openly before the attack declared that they wouldn't allow Ukraine into NATO. But guess what: Putin attack and tried to capture Kyiv. — ssu

That's what we're discussing.

And what I'm arguing is that what the other NATO countries thought about NATO membership for Ukraine is completely irrelevant, because the policy that the United States pursued made Ukraine a de facto member of NATO anyway, whether the other member states liked it or not.

Coming back to my point, the Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict. It's the United States that can stand up to Russia, and the Ukrainians had no illusions about the Germans, the French or the English coming to rescue them.

Although I would like to hear just why you think Ukrainian victory will need is going to involve NATO boots on the ground, as you said here ↪Tzeentch. — ssu

Because Ukraine will run out of Ukrainians before Russia runs out of Russians.

The assistance Ukraine got...which in earnest only happened only after Russia attacked Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have had for a long time have had training exercises with NATO, had the capability to operate with NATO and did participate in NATO operations ...and didn't belong to NATO and had no guarantees from NATO. And membership wasn't going to happen.

And these were two EU countries, which Ukraine isn't.

The big difference is that they applied to NATO and vast majority of the alliance accepted in their own Parliaments and some NATO members have given security guarantees for both countries. Unlike Ukraine. Ukraine's NATO application simply was left aside. No NATO Parliament started to discuss it. You had only vague promises... because NATO couldn't accept that Russia have a veto-vote. — ssu

Your point was that EU countries blocking NATO membership was a big deal.

Then how do you explain this:

Ukraine defense minister says Kiev is a “member of NATO de facto”

Also, why do you only respond to half my post?

It's comments like these that make me take them less seriously here. (Sanctimonious indignation or something?) — jorndoe

It is what it is.

When you've got substance to bring to the table let me know.

Nonsense.

Being a member of a mutual defense pact means that other members come to your defense literally. No country has any defense agreements with Ukraine to come to help them in case of war. And Ukraine (foolishly) believed the words of Russia, the US and UK stated in the Budapest memorandum. — ssu

This is literally adressed in my post:

Even if Ukraine didn't enter formally into NATO, by the onset of the Russian invasion it was a full-fledged US ally, barring the fact that the US hadn't guaranteed its independence. — Tzeentch

______________________________________

Wrong. The biggest European country saying NO to membership, with likely a lot more countries having similar doubts was evident and means a lot in NATO. — ssu

What do you think such a statement really means, when the United States is already training and supplying Ukraine like its gearing up for another Vietnam? You need to get a sense of reality.

No one cares about what the European nations say, because they don't have any credible military deterrent. At no point did Ukraine look to Europe for defense in case of a conflict with Russia, it looked to the United States.

It is a good sign when the European nations, like Germany under Merkel, show that they understand how the game is played and don't blindly prostitute their countries to the United States agenda, but that's all it is. Germany saying no to NATO membership for Ukraine doesn't mean a thing when the United States simply circumvents NATO by turning Ukraine into an ally on a bilateral basis.

Ukraine manoeuvred itself into a grey area where it was both almost a NATO member and almost a US ally. In both cases, what mattered is that the United States would guarantee its independence and provide a credible deterrent against Russia.

Russia didn't fear the European armies. Those were non-existent anyway. It feared the United States, whether it involved itself in Ukraine through NATO or through other means. After Germany blocked Ukraine membership to NATO, the US sought those other means and the end result is the same.

Umm...nobody is committing themselves to Ukrainian defense except Ukraine itself and Germany surely isn't. If it sends Leopard 2 MBTs along all other stuff already there, it really doesn't do any difference. The US is sending Patriot missile systems and 150 Bradley IFVs to Ukraine. And they (the US) are training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 combat aircraft. So what you are saying doesn't make sense. — ssu

When I say commit, I mean commit to a Ukrainian victory, obviously, which is going to involve NATO boots on the ground.

And yes, you're right that nobody is doing that, and Germany is responding to that very fact by not doing that either.

The Germans actually only showed that this attack (February 24th 2022) wasn't at all about NATO: because German's openly before the attack declared that they wouldn't allow Ukraine into NATO. — ssu

At the onset of the Russian invasion Ukraine was already a NATO member in all but name. Statements by Germany at this point aren't worth anything, since Ukraine entering the US sphere of influence was a de facto reality.

The United States had been supplying and training the Ukrainian military overtly for at least a year, and covertly most likely since after the 2014 Crimea Crisis. Obviously any German "guarantees" at this point meant nothing to the Russians and it's a little naive to use that as "proof" the Russian invasion wasn't about Ukraine entering into NATO. Even if Ukraine didn't enter formally into NATO, by the onset of the Russian invasion it was a full-fledged US ally, barring the fact that the US hadn't guaranteed its independence.

What is people's opinion on the current situation on the frontline?

https://liveuamap.com/

It seems to me the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Soledar fell relatively fast, Krasna Hora seems next in line to further cut off Bahkmut from supplies, which in turn is getting surrounded.

Further, as the Russians advance several salients seem to be forming, most notably the urban agglomeration south of Bahkmut.

Can the Ukrainian army deal with this?

Media are relatively quiet around this issue. The emphasis is on the battle for Bahkmut, but as it stands the Russians seem to be aiming to surround and possibly siege the city.

By all means, continue believing that nuclear devices can cause tidal waves then. :lol:

Germany, for some ludicrous reason, is now waiting for the US to give tanks too before it will (could?) give Leopards too. — ssu

The reason is obvious.

The United States can not and will not commit itself to a Ukrainian defense, because getting involved in a protracted land war with Russia would basically cede world hegemony to China without a fight.

The Germans know this, and they are none to keen on getting thrown the hot potatoe of taking leadership in that protracted land war instead of the United States. In some part because it simply can't - Europe does not have the military capacity to fight Russia. In other part because Europe has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose in a land war with Russia.

Thank God the Germans have some sense of how this game works. Merkel understood it too, that's why she blocked the American efforts to stir up a conflict in Germany's backyard.

Well, had you asked me in 1944 or 1968 maybe I would have answered you differently.

Because the power of a nuclear device is dwarfed by the power required to cause tidal waves.

Totalitarianism is fundamentally different from classical dictatorships.

The most notable difference is that totalitarianism is actually a bottom-up phenomenon, arising when a subtantial part of the population (generally around one third) becomes ideologically possessed and demands the state carry out some particular ideology.

Classical dictatorships are top-down - it is only accepted by the population because of the coercive power of the ruler.

Only someone who knows absolutely nothing about military hardware would think nuclear torpedoes can cause tidal waves, so don't worry.

From what I could see, including in the Wikipedia article you linked, there are differences in opinion about how many died resulting from the inquisitions actions. I think there would be agreement that the numbers were much less than those killed in the conquest of the new world, which was taking place at about the same time. — T Clark

It is perhaps the fanaticism, emphasis on terror and the paranoid, intentional nature of the Inquisition that makes it somewhat similar to totalitarian systems.

The closest historical parallel to it would be perhaps the Crusades and other religious wars. Institutionalized religion tends to feature the same belief in singular truths.

However, in most of history there was some form of seperation between state and church. The ideology of the church was (usually) counterbalanced by the pragmatism of those in power. There is no seperation between state and ideology in totalitarian regimes. The state is the ideology.

The advances in information technology allowed states to brainwash their populations with propaganda in ways that simply weren't available before. This probably also played a role in the emergence of totalitarian states, since it allowed states to centralize and enforce uniformity to a much greater degree.

There might also be a link between industrialization and the systematic way these states carried out their mass atrocities.

Totalitarianism was a completely new phenomenon in the beginning of the 20th century, so it was not "business as usual" - something clearly changed.

Scientism may have played a role with its promise of final answers and singular truths. It is a way of thinking which is apparent in especially the Soviet system, where society as a whole was treated literally as a scientific equation with their planned economy.

While I never particularly liked her, Merkel did a good job at providing a political counterbalance towards United States influence in Europe, and even veto'd Ukraine membership to NATO (or threatened to?).

The current German government doesn't seem to possess the same backbone, nor insight into international politics. But even they seem to understand that forcing Russia to build up its armed forces whilst simultaneously giving away their own seems like an odd strategy.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that Germany ousted their last defense minister and appointed a new one yesterday.

You seem to avoid naming concrete examples of liberal ideas that were implemented and how they led to the problems you describe. "Just look at Chile and Kansas" obviously won't do if you're trying to make a convincing point, just like it wouldn't do for me to criticize socialism and end with "Just look at the Soviet Union".

Simultaneously, you ignore my point that we live in highly collectivist societies, as evidenced for example by high tax rates, big government, etc. Again, the idea that we have ever lived in some form of liberal utopia, and that we can blame the liberal utopia for the situation we are in, does not seem to hold much ground.

I’m not scapegoating either. They’re useful covers for the anti-democratic, anti-new deal ruling class. — Mikie

Maybe so. But why then take issue with the ideas of genuine liberals? This is sort of like blaming Nietzsche for Hitler.

But the bottom line here is whether government truly is the problem, and if so what the alternative is. The decisions need to be made one way or another; the entire theory basically transfers decision making to private enterprise, with predictable results. Despite all the pleasant phrases about freedom. — Mikie

The first thing that needs to change is for government to stop being an instrument for big cooperations to achieve special positions in the market - something which is happening today at alarming levels and can only happen because governments have powers they shouldn't have.

One reason for this is the fact that western governments have started to use propaganda on a large scale against their own populations to further their own agendas. To create domestic support, to support political candidates, to promote certain corporate interests, etc.

In this war against the common man information is the primary weapon. Censorship, ommiting truth, and downright spreading lies are everyday activities for the modern western government, and a great deal of this is done wherever big corporate interests meet the interests of the political elite.

If you ask what the alternative is: my first step would be complete government transparency. Every document, every recording, every word uttered by a politician in power or government official should be available to the public from day one. If the truth can't stand the light of day, then the writing is already on the wall.

If there is no transparency, there are no checks and balances, and without those an upright government is pure fantasy.

I’ve yet to see Hellenistic analyses of the self. — Mikie

Plato's concept of the tripartite soul, for example. Homer's sophrosyne, that went on to inspire many thinkers after him like Zeno, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, etc.

The words "Know thyself" were inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Delphi.

The ancient Greeks did plenty of thinking on that subject.

If we look at how families function, most of these ideas about individualism, collectivism, etc, completely break down. — Mikie

How so? Would you say the individual that is made profoundly unhappy by their family still owes them their loyalty?

As with government, it only becomes a problem when the relations become defunct, and I think what you're describing only makes sense in a family that functions properly.

Surely. I'll assume your question isn't disingenuous.

The era of neoliberalism, which we're still living in (as you know), was advocated for years prior to their implementation (in the late late 70s -- Carter but mostly Reagan, Thatcher, most directly under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys) mostly from the Austrian school. You can look to the Mont Pelerin Society, the University of Chicago, and others for examples. They were in the background throughout the New Deal era and had always been against those policies. They came in to fashion during the crises of the 70s. — Mikie

The reason I asked is because I do not believe their ideas have ever been truly implemented. Maybe small snippets here and there, to varying degrees of success. It's, in my opinion, is a mistake to believe there recently has been an era of rampant economic freedom. Such freedom hasn't been seen for a hundred years, perhaps more. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the modern age.

That's why I asked what beliefs of these people have been turned into policy, and how did those policies translate into the problems you perceive.

The underlying assumption, as repeated again and again, is that government is the problem. Plenty of evidence for this claim, of course -- and plenty to blame the government about. But notice what's advocated and what the result has been: globalization, destruction of unions, tax cuts, privatization. We see the results all around us. Wealth inequality is a major one, but there's plenty of others: environmental destruction; defunding of public schools; real wage stagnation; greater corporate concentration; etc. — Mikie

While it's true that many of the thinkers you listed named government as the problem, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a substantial decrease in government spending in the western world? I don't think that has ever happened. There has never been a sincere move towards smaller government.

While today's situation is far from ideal - that much we agree on - I think appointing liberalism or individualism as the scapegoat is far too easy, and not supported by much evidence. The fact of the matter is we live in highly collectivist societies. Over a THIRD of our income goes directly into the pockets of the state. That's not a liberal utopia. That's a liberal nightmare.


On the topic of globalization; I do not believe globalization is a problem caused by liberalism. I think it is a phenomenon all its own, caused primarily by technological advances, and no country liberal or otherwise (except maybe North Korea?) can escape it.


If you ask me, today's biggest issues can be summarized as follows: governments have grown too large, all sorts of unsavory lobby groups have seeped into the cracks - large cooperations, ideologues, foreign agents, etc.

The result is governments that are incapable of carrying out their primary tasks towards their citizens, while simultaneously having forged an unholy alliance with big business against the ordinary man.

However, the problem is not that governments are too weak, it is that they are too strong! While at the same time too corrupt to leverage that power towards the advantage of citizens.

A corrupt political system will never do anything but benefit the powerful, and it is infinitely better to live under a weak but upright system, than under one that is strong and corrupt (and those often go hand in hand).

No, more like the last 400. Probably less. At least today's conception. — Mikie

As far as I know, elaborate conceptions of the self are common in some of the oldest philosophical texts known to man, like those stemming from the ancient Indian and Hellenistic periods.

The default state of a human being? Care. But that's Heidegger-heavy and probably more appropriate for another thread. I have no doubt that people have desires and needs and so forth. So do all animals. But it's not the whole story, and it's not (in my view) fundamental. The interpretation of it as fundamental, the belief that it's the "true" and default state of a human being, is flawed -- it's incomplete and secondary. — Mikie

Actually, I think this is highly relevant, and I would like to explore it more.

If we suppose that the human being desires something to care about (presumably other people) and this is vitally important for the human being's happiness, how can caring not be in his self-interest? And doesn't that confirm what I stated earlier, that pursuing one's self-interest often times involves the well-being of others around us?

Turns out most people who talk about “self interest” (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs. — Mikie

Is that so? Please explain when their ideas were adopted, and how it led to the problems you describe. But before you do that, perhaps you might also want to explain how exactly individualism relates to liberal economic theory, because that link isn't immediately apparent to me.

It’s taking “I should have the right to own slaves” and making a theory of it. — Mikie

Ironically, that's a much closer description of collectivism than it is of individualism. After all, it's the collectivists who claim the state has a right to the individual's cooperation.

The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention. — Mikie

Recent meaning invented within the last three-thousand years?

It’s not the most natural and it’s not the “default.” — Mikie

Then what would you argue is the default state?

Yes— the motto of Ayn Rand and other self-absorbed persons. — Mikie

Pursuing self-interest and being selfish are not the same.

The well-being of others can be and often is a part of our own sense of happiness.

Man spends the vast majority of his life pursuing self-interest, and luckily so, because there's no one else who will do it for him, or has a better sense of what constitutes that self-interest. It is man's default state. The fact that is equated to selfishness or sociopathy is very suspect. Why this resentment towards the most natural drive imaginable?

In the past crimes against civilians were denied at all levels, however implausibly. Now, while the Russian MoD hypocritically claims that the strikes are aimed against "military control centers and energy infrastructure linked to them," state media and lower-level officials are openly acknowledging and even praising the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure. — SophistiCat

Destroying critical infrastructure, civilian or otherwise, is not a crime under IHL. You'd be surprised at how much is permitted under IHL as long as the use of force is proportional to the military advantage gained.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is clearly forbidden, however when non-combatants are injured or killed during attacks on military targets (again, critical infrastructure is a legitimate military target) this is still not a crime and assuming the criterium of proportionality is adhered to is considered collateral damage. This applies even if civilian casualties were expected beforehand.

Ironically, a lot of IHL is written through a military lens. For example, while it is not allowed to purposefully undertake actions to starve a civilian population, it says nothing about freezing a population as a result of destruction of the power grid.

The likely reason for this is because civilian food stockpiles are by and large not interesting military targets, whereas the power grid is an important military target.

In short, doing things on the battlefield that are considered criminal under IHL is a complicated matter.

It's perhaps more accurate to say power uncovers and frees up the corrupt parts of one's nature - parts that one might not even be aware of.

The great dilemma of power is that ultimately the only counterbalance to it is the character of the wielder, which is why many myths deal with the quest for virtue, wisdom and what it means to wield power responsibly.

I'd say the fear of losing, which I will instead characterize as the drive for power to consolidate itself, is a manifestation of corruption (note power, not wealth!), as the desire to control others is inherently corrupt.

I see no reason why power would breed nobility. If anything we see that the elite of society have a much greater tendency to misbehave and abuse power, though this might simply be due to the fact that they're in a position in which they can. Historical instances have proven that it doesn't take much for the common man to devolve into atrocity when given power either.

On the rare occasions that a virtuous individual comes to power and uses it to do good, that is a product of the character they cultivated beforehand.

It’s just dressed up Ayn Rand — i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. — Mikie

You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals.


The "selfish asshole" trope seems to be very popular here - a testament to a dark view of humanity under which, apparently, we are all secretly selfish assholes, and our selfish nature is only kept in check by the power of the state and those wise and benevolent enough to support it.

This, of course, is all projection. The state is and always has been the instrument of the most powerful, and most selfish, and its ideologically-driven supporters are no less selfish! In the state these powerless wretches found a surrogate for their will to power.