We can think about how things might have been different. That's what "could" does in "Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?" — Banno

You're saying free will and determinism both come down to the way we think rather than metaphysics? I agree.

It's all fixable.

Well, I'm pretty sure if someone asks you a question, they just want to know how YOU look at it, not all the other ways it could be looked at lol. — flannel jesus

Why not look at all the possible answers?

l
Yes. I think it's part of having Asperger's that I notice all the ways a question can be looked at.

that's how questions work, that's right — flannel jesus

Yea.

Simple application of modality. Time perceptions and quantum multiple universes are irrelevant. — Banno

I don't think modal logic has any metaphysical import though. It's just about the way we think.

That can be answered with yes or no, depending on how you look at it.

What's your answer?

From what little I've seen not much of the "aid" part has been cut from the program, — NOS4A2

Oh. I thought they stopped almost all foreign aid. They didn't?

Hidden beneath the facade of humanitarian benevolence is routine imperialism — NOS4A2

That's true. But Americans are still giant do-gooders, so the flow of private aid will continue.

I disagree with this. We're all adults here. Let's learn to roll with the punches.

I've been thinking lately about how Stalin took over. He started by quietly making lists of people to target.

But where the comparison ends (for now) is that Trump and Musk haven't done anything that hasn't been wildly popular with voters, and frankly, I like it.

I think they should have left the tariffs on Mexico to discourage American industries from having their manufacturing done right across the border, for instance in Juarez.

Do you believe in God?

:up:

The agencies and bureaus are established through law whereas DOGE has sprung directly from Trump's forehead. — Paine

However it was established, the CIA was part of the executive branch and under the authority of the president.

I guess if there's something unconstitutional about DOGE, somebody will bring a case to the SCOTUS and sort it out.

And again: I said absolutely nothing about efficiency. Look up the difference between efficiency and effectiveness.

Would you grant that your example of willful unaccountability of an agency, which is supposed be overseen by Congress, is different than the motives behind the formation of DOGE? — Paine

Different in what way?

How does your question relate to my assertion that monarchy will not provide the efficiency you suggest it could provide? — Paine

I didn't say anything about efficiency. It's the effectiveness of monarchy that caused every ancient democracy to transition into monarchy.

In this case, Hamilton is addressing decisions that the Executive makes and does not want to own. — Paine

Ok. Eisenhower told the CIA to fight communism and don't tell him anything about their actions. People associated with the issue warned Eisenhower that the CIA was getting out of control. And they were. This sort of thing happens, right?

Yea. Sometimes leaders openly take responsibility for the disasters caused by their subordinates, but it always sounds like some sort of formality to me. Everyone knows the cause of the pain has been fired.

You may be right. I think Musk is working under Trump's authority, so there isn't any official plurality.

Hamilton was a monarchist.
— frank

On what basis do you say that? — Paine

An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs had sufficient power domestically to resist foreign corruption, yet there was enough domestic control over their behavior to prevent tyranny at home.[44] His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection. — Wikipedia

The American democracy exists because of this fascinating guy: Thomas Jefferson:

Read the Federalist Papers I linked to. Hamilton constantly contrasts the character of the Executive against the nature of the English monarch. — Paine

They were breaking away from England, but many of the founders thought they should try to reproduce the British government as closely as possible. It made sense. They basically wanted to be England, so why not make their government English?

The opposing view was more daring and precarious. It meant creating something that had never existed: a giant Athens with no slaves, while in the middle of nowhere without a clue as to how they would fend off future attacks from the French. And they were all keenly aware that the British aristocracy had proclaimed that democracy was impossible, especially if conducted by a bunch of riff raff.

What followed is expressed by the title of a book by this awesome historian. It's a great book and the introduction is some amazing insights about the work of a historian:

The context of #70 is that a number of groups were arguing that the office of President should be a plurality of some kind. The Constitution was written only recognizing a single occupant. Hamilton's comparison with the British Monarchy is to note that the Monarch does not have the checks on his power that the President has so the role of councils should not be seen in the same light. — Paine

Ok. Musk is working under Trump's authority, so there is no plurality.

Hamilton was a monarchist. I think the quote you posted is an argument for monarchy. I'm not quite getting your point.

Anytime I bang on a wall in my house my dogs go crazy. They take it as a sign that someone is at my front door. Maybe this is how communication works. My speech is an event. You take it as a sign, not just my words, but the whole scene involving me and my noises. You make inferences. There are no magic cords connecting my words to the world. As you say, reference matters to the extent that you get your dinner.

It was a lot of things, a real witches brew. The derivatives were a major issue, but it was the entire structure of the US housing and lending market that led to the explosion of derivatives in the first place. You can add in the rating agencies too. But part of the reason that the ratings agencies, pension funds, etc. didn't worry as much as they should have is the idea of the implicit state backing for loans made by the parastatals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That makes sense. I didn't think about that. I had read that there had never been a significant downturn in housing prices, so people just didn't factor in the possibility of a crash.

I am surprised by the number here who support monarchy. — Paine

There's a scene in the Bible where the people of Israel are asking their judge to name a king. Samuel tells them that in the day they have a king, they will all have become slaves. They insist though, and the Kingdom of Israel is born. They supposedly wanted a king for the sake of warfare.

In this is a recognition that monarchy has a dark side, but the desire for it is coming from the people. King-making is a deep seated drive and this has played out in American history and the presidency has evolved from a minor federal figurehead to something like a king in the sense that the whole political tone changes due to presidential agenda. This is not the result of a nefarious plot. It's because over and over, we found that an integrated, centralized authority can solve problems that the competing states simply can't.

Since the US government is widely considered by Americans to be dysfunctional, it shouldn't be too surprising that monarchy is on some people's minds.

Ah. I don't think Fannie and Freddie caused the 2008 crisis, though. It was derivatives, right?

But at least part of the 2008 financial crisis was due to the perverse incentives faced by massive government run banks, — Count Timothy von Icarus

What massive government run banks? The only government run bank is the Fed.

Let’s see what comes of it. — NOS4A2

They could build a golf course through the graveyards where 70% of the dead are women and children.

Out of all his pie-in-the-skies this is Trump’s worst idea ever, sure to set the region on fire and send all involved into a spiral of evil. The only way he can redeem himself is if this turns out to be some negotiating tactic. — NOS4A2

That is the craziest shit I have ever heard. Let's do it!!

When you're cost cutting, that's also a good time to eliminate entities that may have harassed you in the past, and those who might one day. They have a list of good guys to put in slots. Just sayin.

Canada is a fine place, and may it continue as a sovereign nation forever. Even so, I don't quite see Canada as the escape hatch for anyone's existential threat. Even less so Greenland. Besides, Trump and his allies will be dead long before much more ice melts off of Greenland's chilly shores. — BC

What's your theory on why he wants Canada and Greenland? I just assumed somebody told him that both those areas will be prime real estate in the future.

Perverse visionaries! — BC

He didn't have any ideology the first time around. He does now. That was my point. But you know the European aristocracy said the same thing about the founders of the Enlightenment. Perverse! History is written by the...

I'd suggest rather that Davidson would say reference has a function only within broader theories of truth (or meaning), and there can be no coherent theory of reference per se. Reference is not free-standing. — Banno

I'll have to think about that.

I was thinking along these lines (imagine Quine and Davidson discussing reference):

Quine: Because differing conceptual schemes could be in play, reference is inscrutable.

Davidson: But if there were really differing conceptual schemes, they would have to be incommensurate, because otherwise they would be translatable. And if they were truly incommensurate, you wouldn't be able to detect that.

Quine. I don't disagree with that. I didn't say anything about detecting differing conceptual schemes, I was saying that they could exist. It's the mere possibility of it that makes reference inscrutable.

Davidson: Oh. But you have to assume that reference is fixable in order to communicate at all.

Quine. That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that you don't really know. The appearance of knowing is coming from familiarity with behavioral cues.

Davidson: And this convinces you of behaviorism?

Quine. Sort of, not exactly?

The notion of god is inconsistent.

Anything follows from an inconsistency.

Therefore Jesus is God. — Banno

:lol: He's also not God.

This and other examples of “humanitarian aid” has proven a wasteful and corrupt system. — NOS4A2

:up:

When you said that your old world had disappeared, you sounded excited by the prospect of a new one. — Paine

I loved what I thought the USA stood for. I'm broken hearted. This isn't really the place for that kind of expression though. It would be like crying into a pool of fucking sharks.

Does this dream of Manifest Destiny promise to bring the old USA back? — Paine

Step back and try to understand what's happening as if you're reading a history book. Be the psychologist, the anthropologist, the philosopher, etc...

Issues in Philosophy of Religion and issues in theology are not mutually exclusive, at least not necessarily. Can you prove that they are? — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not inclined to debate the issue.

It's Philosophy of Religion. — Arcane Sandwich

No, it isn't. It's a theological issue.

It's Philosophy of Religion. — Arcane Sandwich

No, it isn't. It's a theological issue related to fact that some early Christians were Neoplatonists.

It is therefore in the interest of Christian philosophers to argue that God and Jesus are indeed identical. — Arcane Sandwich

There were Christian sects that didn't believe that Jesus was God, the Arians, for instance. Those groups died out and the Catholic view became standard. There are Christians today who don't think Jesus is divine, like the Jehovah's Witnesses. So it's a sectarian issue, not a philosophical one.

You guys are still not convinced climate change is an existential threat? Well I guess we'll find out the hard way if there are limits or not. — unenlightened

Why do you think he wants Greenland and Canada?