we had double digit inflation in the 70s here. Golden years. It's not very interesting if wages can keep up. — Benkei

If you don't personally lose your job (or your wealth). Otherwise recession and even economic depressions can be great!

What they surely aren't are these kind of "end of the World" events. Recessions or the oddity of stagflation and other economic "disasters" are quite normal.

In my view it accounts for very little, but it’s telling that you want to highlight this “part” over and over again — rather than COVID or the war. Why exactly I’m not sure, but it’s a right-wing talking point and cover for desired austerity. — Xtrix

To make economics part of the "culture war" is what I think will happen. People will come to learn economic words to be dog whistles and just to mention them, you are put in one political camp. And totally forget (if not even understand) that when it comes to the US, both Republicans and Democrats have had, when in power, the same economic policies. Even if the parties desperately try to mask it otherwise (which people, unfortunately, believe).

It was Trump who started the massive wealth transfers to people that finally started the inflation way before Putin attacked Ukraine. With an unprecedented two trillion. But of course, now the Republicans don't remember it.

Let's remember what Trump gave:

Couples earning up to $150,000 received $2,400, plus an additional $500 for each child.
Individuals earning up to $75,000 received $1,200, plus an additional $500 for each child.
These payments will phase out for those earning over $75,000, $112,500 for head of household filers, and $150,000 for married couples filing joint tax returns.

That wasn't "very little", when you remember that there are over 330 million Americans.

But if you genuinely think the problem of inflation can be dealt with giving more assistance (which is basically printed money) to the people who will use it, then I assume Joe Biden will be happy with you.

Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius. — Christoffer

But here's the interesting question to everyone.

Yes, it's a problem. But can we cope with it on the short-to-medium time range?

Yes.

And here do note I'm talking about coping with the problem, not solving it. Because that I think we as humanity will do. People should understand the difference between coping and solving something.

I think we can fare better than any people in history before us. Especially in the West we are so prosperous that having to make dramatic changes out of necessity will not collapse our societies. When our environment radically changes around us, we can adapt.

Southern California is one example: Even without climate change, it would be basically a desert environment just as Baja California, but moving rivers has made it what it is now. So if it, thanks to climate change, would go back to an environment like Mexico, could people still live there?

Yes.

Would the society collapse? No.

People live in Mexico. A lot of people do live in environment that basically are or would be deserts.

And this is actually quite a scary thought: even if we really fuck it up with our response to climate change, if we really don't come up with real solutions, we will surely come up with something and it's not the richest nations that are going to hell in handbasket, we will just go where things suck for us. Yet our societies aren't on the verge of collapse with threats of civil war (or those already going on). The real victims are those societies that are there already. We'll cope with our mediocre watered down solutions.

There should be assistance to senior citizens. — Xtrix

You do understand that assisting ordinary people (by printing a lot of money) was partly the cause of the inflation now?

Just giving money to people will just keep the inflation going.

The whole "price stability" has been bullshit from the start. "We'll never have another crisis": my ass. Only hyperinflation is an issue. Both moderate deflation and inflation should just run its course. — Benkei

It doesn't need to be hyperinflation. Just look what couple years of (actual) double digit inflation will do. I think we will have stagflation, just as during the 1970's. The war in Ukraine has quite similar effects as did the Yom Kippur war and the Oil Embargo after that. And as the workforce is shrinking, there is a reason for wage inflation to continue. After all, now in the US there is low unemployment. It's all a central bank play: either it's a recession or double digit inflation. Likely they deny everything, hope that people don't notice the inflation and with their actions will just prolong the stagflation.

Even if from last May 2022, Nouriel Roubini makes the case for stagflation quite well in my view and his message is quite current:

What exactly is funny about Saudi Arabia getting nuclear weapons information? — Benkei

The whole US Middle East policy has been for a long time an absolute train wreck. It's not a tragedy, it's a tragicomedy.

They really are just trying everything to try to get him off the hook. — Michael

Now the focus is on Trump. And when Trump decides it's in his best efforts to declare that he is seeking Presidential candidacy, I fear nobody will dare to compete with him. And then he can brush of this as a politically motivated witch hunt, which not only @NOS4A2 thinks it is. Likely the GOP would want him to do it after the midterms, but I'm not sure Trump will wait for it.

Yes, they are doing everything...and even if many don't look at TV anymore, Fox News has more viewers that MSNBC or CNN.

Do you really believe there is any government anywhere on the planet where variations of the same thing aren't happening? — ArielAssante

Well, at least here the normal bickering over normal political issues (taxes, immigration, economic policy, etc.) is similar, yet when shit hits the fan (pandemic, February 24th) the left and the right, or basically the administration and the opposition can quickly reach a consensus on the most important issues and act as like "Team Finland". With the most important issues done, then the political parties can (and will) go to the usual critique and political arguments. But as no party can think of getting absolute majority and have to work with other parties is coalition governments, they cannot go in the mudslinging so far to portray the other parties as raving maniacs that will destroy democracy or to insane conspiracy theories like Pizzagate.

In the US it has gone down that rabbit hole and I don't know how it will get back.

There's nothing remotely funny about this so I'm puzzled by your reaction. — Benkei

Why? Whatever Trump does, it doesn't matter for his supporters. Because it's all just fake news, even if they hear about the issues. What would change their minds, other than Trump going full liberal?

A guy that gives such a backstabbing blow to America's own protege, the Afghan government, with a "peace deal" that basically was a surrender and then makes a video of Joe Biden where he accuse Sleepy-Joe of losing Afghanistan, simply isn't on the scale of ordinary political assessment. Just to make one point of one policy issue. But Trump is simple beyond ordinary assessment, he is just a vehicle of polarization now.

Yes, so since it would be political suicide if this were directed by the Democrats or done without probable cause, we can be confident there actually was a smoking gun. — Benkei

Ask that from @NOS4A2. I think he's not confident about that.

I'm just happy that I am not an American.

Sometimes Ukrainians can score. Quite fitting that Russia first said it was an accident.

But how about the actual winners in this war: Qatar

Jesus. Imagine they don't find them. What if Trump sold them to Saudi Arabia. — Michael

HAHAHAA!

That would be soooo fitting to the Trump administration. They already reinstated the Taliban into power by stabbing in the back the Afghan regime they created, so this wouldn't be anything new. Yeah, Saudi's desperately want a nuclear weapon IF Iran has one. Perfect opportunity to get some bucks from the tech transfer: better have that cash going to the US (and family Trump) than to Pakistan, or North Korea.

And then of course a revolution happens in Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda comes into power and Saudi Islamic Arabia is the worst nightmare to the US, perfect bogeyman with the vast majority of 9/11 terrorist already having come from there.

Meanwhile Republicans are like the raid was "disturbing and dangerous". — Benkei

Well, raiding a house of a previous president and a potential presidential candidate does raise eyebrows. But so does Trump himself also.

Personally, I don't see much of a difference between MM. Putin and Hitler, prior to the Holocaust, or between the UK in the 40's and Ukraine now, for that matter... — Olivier5

Seems that Isaac see's a lot of difference.

No.

In September 3rd 1939 Great Britain declared war and immediately went ahead with the National Service Act, which imposed conscription on all males aged between 18 and 41. Only those medically unfit were exempted, as were others in key industries and jobs such as baking, farming, medicine, and engineering. Later in 1940 the enemy state, Germany, sought peace without any territorial demands from Great Britain.

I'm just asking how this goes with your line of thinking on this thread.

Just wondering out loud, can he run while he's not been convicted yet? And if either he or another Republican wins the next presidential election, can he be pardoned? — Benkei

Yes. :scream: — 180 Proof

Heck, he can be made even the Speaker of the House.

Which is unlikely (because he wouldn't give a rats ass about the job), but all things are possible in the US. I assume he doesn't get some immunity or legal privileges from the post, otherwise he might consider it (just like in Russia gangsters prefer seats in Parliament as to get immunity).

(Newsweek, last year) Republican Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida reignited chatter of Trump becoming speaker of the House if Republicans reclaim the chamber in 2022 on Tuesday, telling reporters he's spoken with Trump about the possibility. Historically, the speaker of the House has been a member of Congress, but the majority party can pick whoever they want.

So, theoretically, Republicans could choose to put Trump in the speaker's chair by a majority vote. However, Trump's been noncommittal on the idea and it's possible he wouldn't even want the position if it was offered to him.

One would be hard pushed to make a reasonable argument that life under the Nazis, for example, would be no less equitable than life under Churchill/Chamberlain. They had unequivocally unjust policies. So I think conscription might be justified to fight something like that. — Isaac

So, the last time your own country faced a possible threat of invasion, that time conscription was OK. :roll:

Because then, the enemy was exceptionally bad. But otherwise, seems it hasn't been. :snicker:

But didn't Hitler want a peace with the UK in 1940?

BERLIN, July 19, 1940 (UP) -- Adolf Hitler today addressed an "appeal to reason" to Great Britain to avert "destruction of a great world empire," but he made it clear that rejection would mean an attack with all of the forces at the command of the Axis powers.

"In this hour and before this body," the Nazi Fuehrer told the German Reichstag in the presence of Italian Foreign Minister Count Galeazzo Ciano, "I feel myself obliged to make one more appeal to reason to England."

Wouldn't then making peace with Germany have been then reasonable, Isaac?

At the very least we've established the utility of probability in philosophy; other subdisciplines of math may also aid in finding solutions to different philosophical problems. — Agent Smith

This discussion has gone for 7 pages. Hence it is probable that Leibniz and his views have come up.

Or should have come up. (If not, in my disgusting laziness I didn't check it)

The idea that philosophy freed from its verbal limitations is mathematics, the real lingua universalis. So let's just compute! Or in the modern way, let's make a mathematical model of reality.

Thus we should look at what has been the critique of the Leibnizian view. Perhaps the most famous is Professor Pangloss in Candide by Voltaire. Even if Voltaire's main critique is the Leibnizian optimism, that this is the best of all possible worlds, this still relates to mathematics and mathematical modelling.

How?

Well, we usually seek maximums (or minimums) in our mathematical models, to see what would be the best possible outcome. That is rather easy to do with math, even if you have many, many variables in the equation. Computers can crunch the numbers...if you have data to use. And usually the mathematical formulas don't open up to the common man (or a philosophy major who hasn't studied math), so that's something positive. So learn math before trying to make any counterarguments to my mathematical model!

Yet mathematics, being based in logic, demands many things when making a mathematical model. The first thing that comes to mind is that we have to make the correct assumptions, picked out the correct variables in order for our model to work. Otherwise our model simply doesn't give us an answer as it doesn't depict reality. In philosophy these primary assumptions are even more important and philosophers can end up really quickly asking questions that basically are part of metaphysics. Just ask why a couple of times and your down to true philosophy that natural sciences don't care about.

So I would argue that the philosopher can and will rather quickly face the limitations of mathematics. Even if mathematics can be said to be a language, so is English.

I fear this thread will go on still.

New ice age for us? That's unlikely.

Another logical consequence of warming:

Republicans and the right-wing media were starting to talk about other politicians than Trump. Congress got even something done. (Like uh, accepted my country and Sweden to NATO among things :grin: )

And now they, just like NOS4A2, took the bait.

Time for some of that Jan 6. magic to increase the polarization. Elections are coming.

But seems that Isaac views these questions only from a moral point of view and cannot see any other way to look at it. — ssu

It's the topic of the thread.If you want to start another thread about the history and function of conscription, do so. — Isaac

Not exactly.

To answer the question "Is the country mobilizing to save its citizens, or is it mobilizing to save the existing power structure?", you need to look at the function of mobilization of the society in a war.

And what happens to countries and societies if they loose the war (or surrender) to an invading power whose objective is annex the country.

Actually yes since it's less painful — Darkneos

How is it less painful?

Death is a natural thing. It happens. When you have had a nice relationship with someone, when the person dies you will have fond memories about him or her. It's just part of life.

Yet not having parents is usually far more traumatic and a rare unfortunate thing.

It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)? — Banno

If I understood the picture correctly, the places were colder than average. And I've heard this argument that climate change can also make some places colder and rainier, but it's not naturally a topic discussed with climate change.

For example, if the warming stops the Gulf Stream, the climate in my country will transform more to be like the climate of Alaska. :sad:

I doubt an annexed country would be given autonomy. — Isaac

The Russian Empire granted autonomy both for Congress Poland and the Grand Duchy of Finland. Poland, which had been for a long time a large independent nation, revolted several times against the Russians. Finland, which hadn't been an independent nation, revolted only when Imperial Russia started Russification and later when the empire collapsed.

What's so special about autonomy? — Isaac

Local institutions. The government you face basically isn't the foreign power, but for example your old previous institutions. A county isn't a country: both your county and London are in England. In fact Scotland with their Scottish Parliament (or the Welsh Senedd) are examples of autonomy in your country. The Scots have been an independent country and have had now referendums about independence (and I guess one purposed for 2023 now), which just underlines my point. Whales shows even better how assimilation works: only a third or so of Welsh people actually can speak Welsh and only a tenth use it daily.

Your notion that the world can be neatly divided into these shapes whereby a majority within them can rightfully tell the others to walk into a tank, but anyone from a different shape is monstrous to do so. — Isaac

Now your off to build your own strawman arguments.

ssu is not arguing for a moral obligation. — Olivier5

Correct. :up:

But seems that Isaac views these questions only from a moral point of view and cannot see any other way to look at it. Well, for a person living in the English countryside where the last foreigners that invaded the place did so 956 years ago, these issues can be only a question of freedom and morality.

Peter Zeihan putting the problem with the grain exports from Ukraine into context:



Higher World prices coming in the future...even if prices were rising before the war in Ukraine.

What's interesting are those cooler areas next to the Antarctic.

(And of course my country hasn't gotten warmer in the summer.)

Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem. What's important is doing something about climate change. This bill takes a few baby steps in that direction. — Xtrix

Well, if inflation would be calculated as it was in 1980, the US would be now experiencing 15% inflation. But that's not dangerous...only several years of this high inflation will be.

And climate change? At least we are burning coal in record numbers, going off from nuclear power, so that obviously is the path we have decided to be on.

(IEA, March 8th, 2022) Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tonnes, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the Covid-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth, according to new IEA analysis released today.

The increase in global CO2 emissions of over 2 billion tonnes was the largest in history in absolute terms, more than offsetting the previous year’s pandemic-induced decline, the IEA analysis shows. The recovery of energy demand in 2021 was compounded by adverse weather and energy market conditions – notably the spikes in natural gas prices – which led to more coal being burned despite renewable power generation registering its largest ever growth.

So if you want to tackle climate change, then I guess hope for a severe economic depression. Especially in China as they are totally on a league of their own when it comes to the use of coal. China's share of coal use is half. The other half is the rest of the world. If I sound to gloomy, there is at least this nice statistic from the EU:



(Now the stats may be different as Germany has opted to use more coal and not nuclear energy.)

According to Manchin, reducing the deficit is the "best way" to fight inflation. Why else do you think the bill has $300 billion in net deficit reduction instead of literally anything else?

I mean, there are some aspects of the bill like the drug price negotiation stuff that would help reduce costs. Also the bill is tied to more oil and gas drilling so if you're one of those people who think a pipeline will slash gas prices then that may do something for you. There are some people who say that this will reduce pressure on the Fed in raising rates, but I'm not an economist. — Mr Bee

Well, lets see how much the net deficit will be reduced.



Usually in recessions the deficits don't come down.

I just wonder how more spending will reduce inflation.

Oh well, must be like the new definition for a recession: when the old definition was two quarters of negative growth back-to-back and when it happened, you just define the term in a new way. Voters won't notice anything, I guess.

Wikipedia has changed the definition of ‘recession’ and locked the page from further edits. These changes were made during the week that the White House proposed a re-definition of recession to mean something other than two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

Until July 11, the world’s largest online encyclopedia included in its definition of a recession ‘two negative consecutive quarters of growth’ with users free to make alterations. But as of July 25 any mention of ‘two negative consecutive quarters of GDP growth’ was removed from this section. A Wikipedia administrator then froze the edit feature, blaming a ‘persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content,’ with a warning that the page may have been ‘affected by a current event’.

They still do say that the old definition is a "common practical" definition though.

Next I guess is to change the definition of inflation.

So, it's called the Inflation Reduction Act because it was cut down so much from the original bill that would have been the Inflation Enhancement Act? — jgill

:grin: Good one!

Well they might. Or they might not. that's the point. — Isaac

You do understand that it's a great, enormous risk?

And think about it from the invaders viewpoint. If you invade and annex a country and then give autonomy to the country and have them have their own laws and institutions etc, why wouldn't they in the future just demand back their independence, if you are so benevolent and friendly? The actions that Russia has made it pretty clear what Putin has in mind for Ukraine, the state that he has called "artificial".

As I've said earlier, there have been times when countries have joined voluntarily another, but that is totally different matter.

Yes. Absolutely. In most cases resistance was useless and failed anyway. — Isaac

And you think those that did successfully resist colonization are unhappy of their choice to resist?

. Surrendering would have been much less harmful and resistance could have taken the more successful form of political action. The thing which actually repelled the colonists in the end. — Isaac

You think so?

What do you happened then to the native Americans, the Aztecs and or the Incas? Or the Maoris in New Zealand? Did they get their nations back? With what political action?

No.

My wife is Mexican (and now a Finnish citizen also). She doesn't speak nahuatl, but Spanish.

I can totally imagine that Finns and the Finnish language would be in a similar situation like many Fenno-Ugric people and their languages in Russia today (the Komis, the Udmurts, the Mari). And Finland would be a "natural" part of Russia proper inhabited by Russians. Five million people are quite expendable. Nobody would care a shit if they would have disappeared.

Not if your state surrenders. — Isaac

And just why wouldn't the surrendered people then fall to what surrendered people have fallen in history many, many times: to be second rate people in their own country and finally being assimilated to be the part of their conquerors after losing their language and their own culture? Or if not being assimilated, then live as a lower caste or live in a reservation.

Perhaps these days an own independent nation state is taken as such an obvious given that one has to be a Palestinian or a Kurd to understand what an own independent country means.

War (vs no war) is not the choice we're discussing. It's the current State vs some other State. — Isaac

And you think that one state to another doesn't matter? Well, benevolent and friendly states that value your freedom usually don't go and invade other countries and annex them.

The state could simply hand over control to the invading party. No war. — Isaac

What would have surrendering in 1939 meant for us? Likely rape of women, pillaging, elimination of our political and cultural elite, deportations of entire families and villages to Siberia, masses of basically forced immigration of Russians (and Belorussians, Ukrainians) to our country. The Russification of our society and being under Soviet control perhaps until finally getting our independence back when the Soviet Union fell apart. We'd just be far more poorer with and ugly, painful history. We can see it all from what the Baltic States had to endure.

Or was it so simply to all those countries that were colonized by the Europeans? Just surrender? I think the few non-European countries that didn't become colonies or protectorates of Europeans are quite happy with putting up a fight and staying independent.

But that said, of course surrender and hope for the best is an option. History has told it's a really lousy option.

Yet who cares about people or societies that don't exist anymore?

In legal terms, yes. How's that related? — Isaac

There are legal terms in war too. Just starting from that combatants can be legal or illegal. That enemy soldiers are prisoners-of-war, not treated as ordinary criminals.

Are we having some translation problem? I'm asking you about justification, and you're replying with ability and requirements. — Isaac

Seems like you don't want to understand my point. If you don't have the ability to defend your country and the potential enemy knows it, meaning your defense has no deterrent, then what is the justification for having a "defence force" in the first place? Perhaps it's just to lull your people into thinking that the army can protect the nation, when it cannot. I think there's enough justification on universal military service when otherwise you wouldn't have the ability to defend your country.

I thought that was unjustified too — Isaac

Well there you go. What you are talking about are the rights of the individual compared to duty of the state to protect the society and it's people, where the state then limits your freedoms because of the collective. And if you are somewhat OK with the state posing limitations on your freedoms during a pandemic, you think it's so totally different when the state faces a bigger threat of war.

So if you are an American, just how much does the obligation of serving on a jury when summoned tramples your freedoms. Is that justified, because it's an obligation too?

1. Being quarantined hardly compares to being shot at, captured, tortured and injured. The justification has to be significantly greater. — Isaac

And irrelevant of your status of being either a civilian or not, you might be shot, captured, tortured and injured in war. What is so difficult to understand in the grave threat a war poses to a society? It's not comparable to anything in peacetime. Just being an able military aged man is grave risk when enemy soldiers arrive to your neighborhood.

I think what ought to be discussed is the relationship between the state and it's citizens.

Perhaps my use of capitals made you suspicious that I was being sarcastic, — universeness

Yeah, that was it. Well, thanks for clearing this.

Just a little bit more on this. I know some people who have traced the ancestry of their family and can describe a good deal of detail about many members of their family that go back centuries. — universeness

The basic problem is that only few of us have had great grandparents around to tell about their life. Hence it's usually this third generation where the personal link to history is lost. The thinking goes likes this: you surely remember what has happened in your lifetime. Everyone of us will remember for example the Covid-pandemic, which is likely a historical event (especially if the next pandemic won't hit us in the next 50 years). To events that have happened to your parents and grandparents one feels a link, especially if they have told themselves about it. But earlier generations, you don't usually know much if anything about their lives. Then it's hard to relate to them.

Usually people get interested about their family and roots only at older age. It should be something that children should interested in when there older generations still around. And as you said, some families have done this and have stories about people that have lived far earlier. I think it's valuable to keep these stories. And in my country it's quite interesting as the people have lived in the same places, not much immigration here before, and the Church books usually go to the Middle Ages.

I don't see how that has any bearing on the argument. — Isaac

Do you understand then the difference between law enforcement and vigilantism?

Yes, but not on the grounds of self-defence. It is not just simply for a sate to defend the state. There's no principle of equality, humanity etc inherent in a state. It doesn't have a right to exist. It was just to resist the Nazis because the Nazis were attempting to impose unjust laws on people. Not because our state had a right to defend itself tout court.

Otherwise you end up with the ludicrous result that the US, Britain and Russia had no right to push their advantage to Berlin. By the time they reached the German border, apparently, they should have stopped.

It was just even to invade Nazi Germany entirely because the Nazi state did not have a right to exists. It was a monstrous states, it didn't have a right to defend itself, and it wasn't just of it to do so. — Isaac

Look, they I see it, it was totally logical to push the war to Germany itself and destroy the Nazi regime for self defense purposes. If the Allies had stopped at Germany's border, the regime wouldn't have collapsed. Hence it would be a real threat later, perhaps then armed with it's own nuclear weapons.

What you are stating is that it didn't have the right to exist. Well, just where do you then draw the line? What if Nazi Germany didn't invade Poland and not even annexed the whole of Czechoslovakia? Totally OK then for other nations to declare war and invade it?

You've still completely dodged the actual question - Is it just to use conscription to defend the state? If so, on what grounds? — Isaac

Have I dodged the question?

I think I've answered already that conscription is basically a manpower issue. If with a volunteer force you cannot create a force big enough to create a credible military deterrence, then you need conscription. If the population is big enough, then you can use volunteer force.

If you think it is so unjust for the state to demand military service conscription, just a while ago you and I were quarantined to home and set a lot of limitations thanks to the pandemic.

This is true for some but we have many people amongst us who are very humble and genuinely humanist. They just get on with helping people every day and hardly mention their own suffering. When you compliment them or show them admiration they tend to shrink away, truly embarrassed. — universeness

Yet helping others, bringing them happiness, make us feel good (at least me). And yes, people usually don't whine about their problems. Yet I don't think that humble and genuinely humanist people are totally indifferent about their own life. They don't want their lives to end.

WELL DONE SIR!! A great legacy! — universeness

Is that sarcasm, universeness? If so, why?

Ok, I have to admit that there was a bit of sarcasm with myself too in talking about a notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.

The vast majority of people that have died before us are unknown and haven't left such an individual mark that we would remember them as historical figures. Yet very many of them are someones ancestors. Especially on a philosophy site the notion of continuation of life as a meaning for life might be boring and doesn't answer much, but it's something one cannot disregard.

Countries are not people. There's no 'self' to defend. Self-defense is just because it's reasonable to want to live, and avoid harms. States have no such claim to reasonably want to continue existing. That you'd put a state on the same level as a human says a lot. Does a corporation have the same right to self-defense? — Isaac

But states go to war. Individual people do not have the ability to declare a war. War is something that has been formalized and legalized between states. Not between individuals. Hence the idea of legal and illegal combatant, just to give one example. Similar to the difference between law enforcement and vigilantes.

And if you say that "I don't think it was unjust to go to war against the Nazis", then obviously defending from the attack of Nazi Germany (Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium) was just also.

Because it's unargued for. — Isaac

Well, you argued that it wasn't unjust to go war with the Nazis. So I guess self defense and a country defending itself from an another state attacking it would be just.

It seems pretty self-evident they think they can improve their society by killing the Russian invaders. — Isaac

No. I wouldn't say defending yourself from a violent attack is similar to improving yourself. Yes, if you don't defend yourself, obviously you can at worst get killed. But that isn't same as improving yourself, it's self preservation. It is quite different.

Ukrainians defending their country aren't improving their society, they basically are trying to preserve it. Improving it would be things like getting rid of the worst aspects of corruption in their country.

I think it would be better to die when they don't remember anything, it's less painful. Your reply sounds pretty self centered. — Darkneos

I have many good memories of people that have died. They are not painful at all. Why would it be painful to have good (or even not so good) memories of people that have loved and cared about you?

If you think it's great to be an orphan who has no memory about his or her biological parents, I have to disagree. Do you really think that is better?

People die and if you remember the generation of your grandparents, the older people of you childhood, later you will notice that you have become part of that "old generation" to younger people.

Anti-life is completely futile as the universe has clearly demonstrated that if life can happen, it will happen, somewhere at some point, again and again and again. Death just means you disassemble back into the spare subatomic parts you were made from. You dissipate back into the universal mix, all of what you were will be used again in new variations and new combinations. Nothing to be afraid of. The little life variation you were is gone forever but you will not be forgotten if you leave a respectable legacy and future transhumanism may offer many more options. — universeness

Yeah, but when it really comes to our own lives, we are all such egoist whimps. :sad:

If I die tomorrow, at least I'll be happy that my children are now so old that they will remember me. It would really suck to die when your children are so young that they won't remember anything. But at least I had them and a loving wife, so one notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.

Many people think they do good. Those that think that they can and will improve the society by killing others are not good people. But they sure have revolutionary visions for the future.

We can try to improve things from where they are.

Care to attempt an argument, or are we at the stage of exchanging arbitrary preferences? — Isaac

What do you think in war would be just?

Self defence is usually thought of being just.

Why do you think that is an arbitrary preference?

Of course it could have happened differently. Nothing is predetermined. The Italians or the Poles could well have invented human rights, if the French had not. — Olivier5

I think that the British and people in their colonies were aspiring the same rights. And they also understood that the powers of the state ought to be limited and individual should be protected from the state.

Some can argue that Magna Carta just showed the weakness of the English king, but it was quite important for the future. And your correct too about Poland: it had limited the power of the king also early on, yet even if Poland exemplified religious tolerance and the kings rule was limited, this also made Poland so weak that it could be divided by it's neighbors. So creating an efficient and functioning democracy as an end result was a real challenge for humanity. (And many would say we haven't yet perfected it yet.)