Wrong. You chose to laugh.

There's also no abuse at all if I tell my kids they're ugly little motherfuckers that will never amount to anything because it's their choice to actual listen to me and believe it. I didn't do anything.

EDIT: also the verbal contract no longer exists! Nothing to enforce because words can't cause a contract to come into existence. Wait a minute. A written contracts is just words too that form into sounds in my head upon reading so that isn't binding either! Fuck yeah!

And if so - what seems to be the issue, exactly? — Streetlight

I don't have the information to agree with it because it really depends on what it costs us, or more specifically, what it costs Ukrainians, to "increase the human, financial and military cost of this war for Moscow". I think, in any case, it's a callous approach from the comfort of not actually fighting and if making territorial concessions to negotiate a lasting peace is the right approach then one assumption often seen (but not proved in my view) is:

1. Russia has imperial ambitions. If this is the case, then territorial concessions do not lead to a lasting peace. Some here are convinced Russia has these ambitions, others don't. I haven't seen definitive proof one way or the other.

Other questions it raises with me:

2. No country sending equipment seems to have asked the question whether support in the war effort is the right balance of interests between avoiding Ukrainian casualties and bleeding the Russians.
3. The last clear example of aggression (that got condemned) was Iraq invading Kuwait with a much wider range of coalition partners than we see now. That could be political expediency, energy dependency, cynicism in light of the Western double standard or a more nuanced view than propagated in Western media about the underlying reasons why Russia attacked Ukraine.

It's not about any claim to land, obviously. The problems in South Africa had nothing to do with claims to land but a set of rules for one group of people and another set for others. The problems in Israel proper are exactly the same. And that's ignoring in its entirety the issues surrounding the occupied territories.

That clarity isn't lacking at all. It has only been obfuscated because of political reasons. The only reason the GAR 3379 was revoked was to get Israel at the table for peace conferences that still seemed hopeful. Zionism is racism. It's really that simple.

Said nobody ever during Apartheid.

1) how much more extensive? in what way are our current background checks insufficient? the texas shooter had no criminal record nor documented mental health issues. should everyone who wants to buy a gun get a psychologist sent to their homes for an evaluation? — Moses

You're asking the wrong guy since I'm not a US citizen and think widespread gun ownership is idiotic. I think only hunters and cops should own guns. Everybody else that have them for sport can leave them at the local firing range and they get to own one gun at a time. There are no reasons to own them otherwise and certainly don't need to keep them at home.

Here's some interesting statistics: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

Only about 53% thinks the rules should be stricter but then if asked about specific policy (more extensive background checks, barring guns to mentally ill) for some issues there's broad bipartisan support (85% and 90%) and (70% and 92%). Laws have been passed and presidents elected in the US with less popular support.

Meanwhile, "we should be careful about having a reflexive reaction" (some asshole in a position of power) because God knows reacting to bad shit is stupid. Nobody in the world ever does that. Nobody sells shares when a company makes a loss because it will become clear that that company "was at risk" and someone somewhere should've noticed that before it actually happened but we won't create a system allowing people to notice this earlier because we should be careful to not have a reflexive reaction.

Because if you had proof of your position I would be convinced. As simple as that.

If only you were capable of proving it but you haven't. All you have is disdain for someone who disagrees with you and confuse your feelings on the matter with actually knowing what you're talking about.

The whole point is that neither you nor I have the information necessary to tell the difference. So your childish misrepresentation of people's differing viewpoints, people who spend time and effort to explain a different viewpoint, is just the usual disrespect.

That's definitely a different tune and damning if true. We're left with no ability to tell what is true and I'm wondering what we've been doing for 250+ pages.

I'm not really talking about stakeholder capitalism though. — Xtrix

I'm afraid it's not clear to me then what you're proposing. Could you expound on it? Thanks.

The question is why would there be a ceasefire. Ceasefires happen when either one side sees the situation totally unbearable or are close to defeat and the other sees a ceasefire a far better choice than the continuation of the war. There is no imminent outside reason for the conflict to end. — ssu

You're forgetting stalemates.

I agree with all those nuances and I think it's still good to remember we really don't know all that much so shouldn't get our panties too twisted when someone disagrees. Also, we shouldn't overestimate the ability to emulate the scientific method through a thinking process - a lot is grunt work and getting enough data which we simply don't have the time for especially in areas like these: none of us our experts. But this is a sensitive topic even so and a lot of ethical feeling is associated with it, so when someone's panties are twisted, we shouldn't care too much either and at least try to listen.

I don't want to bicker on the details of how things work; it's not a field I deem myself to be sufficiently knowledgeable about. — javra

I don't want to bicker either. It was just what I hoped to be a helpful clarification.

But I am curious to know if you disagree with the overall conclusion that current markets by and large select for short-sighted / short-term interests at the expense of long-sighted / long-term interests. — javra

I'm not sure this is particular to current markets. All market transactions, even before capitalism, aim at that short term goal: profit.

What we see that in the pursuit of profit new ways of generating profit are "invented". Day trading, high frequency trading, various ways that increased risk (leveraging) etc.

I think this comes from there not really being more demand in the real economy for actual investment and resulting growth but shareholders expect financial institutions to continue to perform and preferably better than last year. So I think there's just more of it rather than that we've become more shortsighted than in the past.

the better the consensus is because all that error checking and reviewing goes through a larger set of data. So, they all work through an analysis of the information they have access to in order to reach a conclusion with high probability, which can vary based on the information. So the more experts there are, the higher the probability of reaching a truthful conclusion. — Christoffer

Surprisingly that's false. Check out this

This is inaccurate on so many levels I can only advise you to read an actual history of Europe during medieval times and the renaissance.

you mean this?

Where the French were the colonial oppressor and he defines the French as terrorists and believes it was just the Algerians kicked them out? That's not supporting terrorism.

Edit; in not saying it's not a crude way of putting it but reading support for mass murderers and terrorists even in this thread is simply not there. I still read your posts even if I think most of them are not well thought out.

So, just as an example when you think another poster is lying, probably there's some misinterpretation going on. Try being charitable.

For instance, you have 10 corporations with stocks that compete. As it currently stands in the world we have, if one of these ten corporations desires to invest some of its profits in being non-toxic to the environment, it will make less profits in the short term. Stock owners will then tend to invest in any of the other 9 corporations, resulting in this one environmentally sound corporation loosing out and, quite possibly, going out of existence. The corporations with short-sighted interest profit at the expense of those with long-sighted interests, as so too profit those investors in stocks who don’t care about long-term consequences but about their short-term profits. — javra

This suggests shares trading affects investment but that's not how it works. Share trading doesn't result in investment, that already happened when the shares were issued. Reduced profit expectations will lead to some sell off leading to a lower share price and therefore a lower market capitalisation.

No. How often have you accused others of "lying" in this thread? Why are you lying now and get aggressive when it gets called out?

So you can't prove he is what you say he is, you just like to make baseless accusations about people because they happen to disagree with you? Is that it?

Quote him. I've read every post in this thread. He's militantly anti-imperialist so support for mass murderers isn't in there.

Which he doesn't so it's weird that's your take away.

One potential consequence is that our political governance changes along with corporate governance. Externalities and foreign trade would still exist, but would be much less of a problem — because the state would be acting under different pressures from a different set of interests. It wouldn’t be “profit over everything”, there would be less short term thinking, more investment in communities and general welfare. — Xtrix

It won't be profit over everything sure. For those part of that specific corporation. But they will continue to externalise costs where they can and there's also the nimby-principle. Don't get me wrong, I think stakeholder capitalism is already an improvement but I don't think it's enough. An additional step I would include is a dynamic equity system. That way every employee becomes a capitalist.

1. George buys a car for his own use. There's no capitalism there.

2. George buys a car to sell. This is capitalism. — frank

This distinction is meaningless and pretends economic activity consist of an atomic structure instead of a web that influences and affects everything around it. There's no capitalism in the first because George can also buy a car in North Korea and there's no capitalism in the second because that's just an example of speculation, which people did well before the rise of capitalism.

Then your earlier example of financialisation misses the point. Only a profit driven system will create increasing financial abstractions to increase market efficiency (and therefore profit) without creating anything of added value - eg. only wealth but no welfare is "created" or as anti-capitalists will point out "extracted" from, at least, the real economy if not just labour. So we have complex derivatives like the"ever-rolling snowball" (until it doesn't roll) and MBS but also high speed traders that really don't add anything but a fraction of a basispoint off your mortgage but a fraction of a few billion in mortgages adds up to a tidy profit. However, it's not a service consumers need or indeed makes their lives any better because increased complexity is married to a minimum of risk controls (cost cutting) and balance sheets aimed at business continuity (dividend payments instead of buffers).

Which is unfortunate, since he's often a very knowledgeable contributor. I'd invite you to look at his post history, particularly things older than 2 years when he was more mellow.

Seems to me that the bad faith emanates from those who have to pigeonhole others as "trolls" as an excuse not to engage arguments. I've had perfectly fine discussions with ssu on this thread because he doesn't have a kindergarten understanding of international relations. We still disagree. Not the end of the world.

For others it appears very difficult to separate criticism of Western contributory negligence from Putin apologism.

The fact you cannot prove that all transactions throughout history are just does not entail you cannot prove that some transactions are just. Some can be proved, some cannot. Therefor it’s not arbitrary and not procedural. But I'm disappointed that all we are doing is quibbling about the word "historical". It's so trivial as to be irrelevant. — NOS4A2

Sigh. It's not trivial because it's definitional and goes to the core of why Nozick's theory lacks any internal coherence. What's the likelihood of any transaction not being tainted by unjust transfers? Zero if you know anything about history. The market salesman accepts money from a thief, the daughter inherits money made from slavery, a country stole resources through colonisation. All wealth, especially in Western countries, is tainted if you're stupid enough to think Nozick has anything worthwhile to say about justice. Nozick's idea is as retarded as it is simplistic.

As I said. It ain't going to happen.

Doesn’t make it not so, either. It is impossible to prove and thus nonsensical to believe every transfer of a possession is unjust. Not all of us are giving each other stolen art, colonial plunder, and blood diamonds. — NOS4A2

Without the possibility to prove it, it is arbitrary and therefor a procedural proposal and procedure has little, if anything, to do with justice, which is why Nozick is not taken seriously by philosophers in Europe. Kind of like a footnote to Rawls if he's discussed at all. It's purely cultural that Nozick is considered an important thinker in the US due to its outsized individualism and Nozick is just an excuse to shore up anti-social laws.

Come to think of it, I fully support everything you propose to be implemented as quickly as possible in the US and watch it crash and burn as a result.

Your think this based on what?

Check the facts

In 1995, the Alliance published the results of a Study on NATO Enlargement that considered the merits of admitting new members and how they should be brought in. It concluded that the end of the Cold War provided a unique opportunity to build improved security in the entire Euro-Atlantic area and that NATO enlargement would contribute to enhanced stability and security for all. It would do so, the Study further concluded, by encouraging and supporting democratic reforms, including the establishment of civilian and democratic control over military forces; fostering patterns and habits of cooperation, consultation and consensus-building characteristic of relations among members of the Alliance; and promoting good-neighbourly relations.

It would increase transparency in defence planning and military budgets, thereby reinforcing confidence among states, and would reinforce the overall tendency toward closer integration and cooperation in Europe. The Study also concluded that enlargement would strengthen the Alliance’s ability to contribute to European and international security and strengthen and broaden the transatlantic partnership.

According to the Study, countries seeking NATO membership would have to be able to demonstrate that they have fulfilled certain requirements. These include:

a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
the fair treatment of minority populations;
a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
Once admitted, new members would enjoy all the rights and assume all the obligations of membership. This would include acceptance at the time that they join of all the principles, policies and procedures previously adopted by Alliance members.

They'll be in NATO. — frank

That's not going to happen. First of all, a country has to be functional democracy, which Ukraine isn't and won't be for a very long time.

Sweden shouldn't be a problem with their excellent weapons manufacturing. Not sure what the Fins bring. :razz:

Edit: BTW, I had some older friends over one of whom was a fighter pilot in the Dutch elite squadron and worked a lot with NATO. He still has contacts and it looks like a sure win for Ukraine now.

So I think the outstanding question is whether Ukraine should push to retake the Donbass region or not. Is that going to be a long separatist war? Crimea seems a step too far considering Russia's territorial claim to it and statements on use of nuclear weapons. What do you think, @ssu?

isn't there a fundamental problem left of the perpetual nature of corporations and limited liability. Even co-ops externalise costs and risk by limiting liability and its perpetual nature means it will always have benefit over dying people. Even if IN the co-op it is now democratic and presumably fair, then it's interaction with the rest of the world isn't. The corporation will become political, there's still no limit on how big and powerful they'll become, so we'll just have incorporated miniature countries in the long run where employees have similar interests (and likely to vote similarly) but those interests still compete with other people in society who have no say whatsoever.

Historical. The question of whether a distribution is just depends upon how it came about, so one has to examine the history of the transfer and acquisition of any “holding”. — NOS4A2

Just because you call it that and Nozick did, doesn't make it so. It's one of the main criticisms that what we have today isn't the result of just transfers and therefore his proposal is both ahistorical and arbitrary. Think colonisation, wars, oppression by nobility and the church, oppression of women, etc.

Further, all historical transfers of any certain “holdings” must be just, from its initial acquisition until its most recent. — NOS4A2

Which they aren't and weren't. So his proposal is procedural rather than historical.

What it may look like now is this: either they stop pushing back the Russians at the pre-24 Feb border and allow Putin for some face saving way out, or they keep on pushing until they reconquer Crimea and Dombas. — Olivier5

These are results of the war. The question was what would a peace agreement look like. Russia and Ukraine need to settle and agree on the future or another war could arise even if Putin would be forced out of office. Ukraine stated it wanted security assurances from Canada, UK and the USA, none of them wanted to give it.

So remind me again why you want the war to continue? — Isaac

Well, I have to admit that Russia's insanely backward military command structure, Ukraine's ability to listen in on Russian communication and now the arrival of GPS-guided artillery is making it very likely Russia will fail to make any meaningful gains if at all. Aside from the fact Ukraine would be prepared to make those concessions if they got security assurances (which they're not getting and why any peace deal kept failing, including USA's absence in any talks), stopping now would strategically be stupid when they're on the cusps of nullifying any gains the Russians made.

Edit: I still think none of this answers how longlasting peace looks like.

the kind of peace Ukraine wants — Olivier5

And again, that kind of peace involves security assurances from countries not willing to give it. So what's the solution? It's not a difficult question to understand, even if its answer isn't immediately apparent. So again, what would that possibly look like.

"I have no idea" is an answer too you know. But I've offered several questions you could try to answer to help you get an idea.

Being able to trade with some Paraguay, or even China for that matter, doesn't really help Russia much. They can buy stuff from China, but they need dollars/euros first, so they need to sell stuff to Europe. — M777

China pays in yuan for Russian oil and gas. Guess where Russia spends it yuan? Nice example of pretending you know what you're taking about when you really don't.