There's something unnerving about watching people defend politicians, whether they're Biden or Trump. Like they don't understand that the job of every politician is to deceive the public.

Libertarian socialism¹ (s.g. economic democracy²). — 180 Proof

This sounds quite interesting, however I am trying to understand how a system of socialism could exist without a large, powerful government to coordinate it.

Is the socialism to flourish as a result of voluntary cooperation?

Leave. — javi2541997

As I said:

That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!" — Tzeentch

But the individual, of course, will not leave. They have as much the right to live where they do as anyone else, and the state especially has no right to make them leave.

Clearly the collectivist believes otherwise - they believe they are entitled to the individual's cooperation, which is why they demand their departure when the individual refuses.

This entitlement stems from a belief that they are right, and therefore the individual has no right to refuse, and no right to exist if he does.

You see now why collectivism brings up unpleasant memories for many.

They killed themselves for many complex reasons. — javi2541997

Surely for someone to commit suicide they must be deeply unhappy, or am I missing something?

Who cares if a Spaniard is happier than a Chinese citizen? — javi2541997

You, apparently. Weren't you just now wondering about that?

I was speaking about effectiveness. I don't care if they are happy or sad, ... — javi2541997

But individuals do care about whether they are happy or sad. My question was what the individual is supposed to do when the "collective" they are living in is making them unhappy.

Should they simply accept their fate and find consolation in the fact that this is, apparently, a by-product of an "effective" society, whatever that may mean?

The stubborn truth is of course that there is no good reason for them to accept being sacrificed, and people generally don't.

But why happiness should be a factor to consider of in terms of functionality? — javi2541997

I never said it should, and you didn't answer my question.

The pursuit of happiness is something all people have in common, so it seems like a sensible thing to use as a base for coexistence. What would you replace it with?

The concept of death in Japan is different from the western world. — javi2541997

The Japanese view the national suicide rates as a major social issue. Moreover, child suicide has apparently been peaking and the cause of much worry.

Japan Appoints a 'Minister of Loneliness' after seeing suicide rates increase for the first time in 11 years

Child suicides in Japan are at a record high

Japan's child suicide crisis

I doubt many Japanese would agree this is normal, regardless of their views on life and death. Do you believe this is normal?

I wonder if a person from Andalucía in Spain - which is one of the poorest regions of Europe and with a high unemployment ratio - is happier than an individual of Asian countries. — javi2541997

Happiness and life satisfaction - wonder no more.

First of all: what is happiness? — javi2541997

That's for each to determine for their own - it's certainly not up to a "collective" to decide for others what constitutes happiness.

We have to take care of the individual, that's for granted. But this doesn't mean that one group has to step down just for one person. That would be selfish and ineffective. — javi2541997

How would that be any more or less selfish than asking of the unhappy individual to simply sacrifice themselves?

I guess that's why the economy of my country is in the 16th position and theirs are the 1st, 3rd and 5th of the world. These are pure facts not personal opinions. — javi2541997

South Korea and Japan also have notoriously high rates of suicide, so I guess that answers part of the question of how they deal with unhappy individuals. As for China, well... If you believe economic prosperity is worth living under an authoritarian dictatorship then our ideas about what is happiness must lie very far apart.

In the other hand: if the collective is effective, both sides win, the individual and the group. — javi2541997

The issue is who determines whether "the collective" is effective.

If I, the individual, am deeply unhappy within "the collective", what good is it for me to console myself with the idea that "the collective" is effective? Apparently "the collective" didn't include me, because it's not effective at making me happy at all.

Should the unhappy individual simply sacrifice this one life they're given for the sake of some imaginary higher power we call "the collective"?

The individual doesn't exist there, but the group or collective is unstoppable due to their efficiency. — javi2541997

This sounds like a nightmare.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "a collective", there are only conglomerates of individuals. "The collective" is simply a pretense of the individual to attempt to absolve themselves of their will to power over others by appealing to a higher authority - "the collective" - which by virtue of representing something greater than the individual supposedly may justly boss the individual around.

What we're left with is the same old all over again - individuals bossing other individuals around.

That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!"

Where it differs most from normal investments is that you can pay directly with crypto, whereas with a 'normal' investment you would first have to liquidize your investment before you can pay with it.

I'd say that's not necessarily a ground-breaking difference, but it certainly is convenient in today's day and age. On top of that, being able to make purchases online without any kind of bank involved means there's a high level of anonymity.

But all in all there's nothing "special" about cryptocurrency, other than that it was hyped at some point and a lot of gullible people lost money.

Any investment is essentially an alternate banking system.

In my opinion, investing should always be done with a great deal of care.

Before one invests into anything, one should have a thorough understanding of what it is and what it derives its value from.

A lot of laypeople jumped on the crypto bandwagon knowing practically nothing and throwing all caution to the wind, and predictably got burned. In my opinion, that is primarily their own fault.

Now that the hype is over, cryptocurrency will probably stabilize around a more honest price that more accurately reflects its true value. My view is that as long as cryptocurrency is an effective means of maintaining financial independence, it will retain its value.

I believe when/if financial repression becomes more widespread, its value will go up. However, there is a risk that if cryptocurrency continually undermines governmental drives for more control over citizens' wallets, governments will try to find ways to ban it like China did. If that happens it may swiftly crash.

It's evil because it undermines the Federal Reserve System. — javi2541997

There are few institutions more evil and less preoccupied with the welfare of the ordinary person than the Federal Reserve.

Undermining it is exactly the point; undermining people's dependence on state currencies the quantity and thus value of which is controlled by the state. Politcians and politicized government institutions like the Federal Reserve have time and again proven not to be able to wield power responsibly. Moreover, states are already flirting with totalitarian levels of surveillance and control over people's financial behavior, state-owned digital currencies being the latest iteration of that.

Undermining that is not evil - it's essential freedom. No wonder the CCP banned it - freedom is the last thing they want their citizens to have.

I tried googling the numbers and did not get matching results. — Paine

Sweden, 23,600 active military personnel
Estonia, 7,200 active military personnel
Latvia, 16,700 active military personnel
Lithuania, 23,000 active military personnel
Finland, 23,800 active military personnel

(first hit on Google if you type: "<country> active military personnel", lazy I know)

~100,000 active military personnel, spread out over a massive area.

These numbers clearly in no way present the image of countries that are fearing an invasion. For reference, Ukraine had over 300,000 active military personnel at the onset of the Russian invasion and it has only a fraction of these country's combined GDP. Hell, Sweden alone doubles Ukraine's GDP.

As a defensive force you only need to field a third of any offensive force. Assuming EU members will support each other, how far/close are we to such a figure? — Benkei

Europe combined comes fairly close to equaling Russian numbers, or perhaps slightly surpassing their numbers, but that doesn't convey the full picture. The issue is with operational readiness of European armies, who have been neglecting their armed forces and thought large-scale land warfare to be a thing of the past. Sources elude me for a moment, but experts have theorized that Ukraine and possibly Poland are the only nations in Europe that could have kept up with the type of combat seen in Ukraine today. Not the French, not the Germans, not the British, etc. despite their armed forces being relatively sizable, and their equipment likely better than the Ukrainians'.

In regards to the idea that one can defend against a force with one third of its number - that's military shorthand, but reality can be much more stubborn than that.

When the Russians invaded Ukraine, they did so with a force of roughly 200,000, against a Ukrainian force of 300,000.

Or when the Germany army invaded France in 1939, they roughly doubled France's number and France got, as we all know, completely swept aside.

From what sources are you getting this information? — Paine

These countries' active military personnel and materiel combined add up to a fraction of what, for example, Ukraine is currently fielding to fight the Russians. That information is publicly available, aka you can simply Google those numbers.

They have neither the manpower nor the equipment to wage prolonged war, even if we assume all the materiel is up-to-date and functional, which is a big 'if', considering pretty much every European country gave up on the idea of large-scale land warfare and neglected that part of their armed forces over the last decades.

Err yes, Europeans are worried about security. — jorndoe

I've already laid out an argument why I don't believe that's true, the most notable point being that there's barely any nation within Europe that maintains a military that can grant a credible deterrent, except Poland. If Poland says they're worried about a potential Russian invasion, I believe them, because they consistently act the part.

The main buyers of Swedish arms are not European nations trying to protect themselves from the Russian invader, but Arabs intent on committing genocide in Yemen.

One might expect that if, A) European nations were living in fear of an imminent Russian invasion and, B) Swedish military manufacturing would play a role of any signifance should such an invasion take place, the Swedes would be in big business right now.

Yet we see nothing of the sort, probably because neither A nor B are true.

Really? Haven't taken any measures? — ssu

Sweden has roughly 24,000 active military personnel. That's less than one tenth of the Ukrainian military when the invasion began, while Sweden has thrice the GDP of Ukraine.

Moreover, its military is outdated and mostly comprised of late '80s materiel.

It's a textbook example of a military that was left to atrophy after the Cold War ended.

It will take more than the Swedish government announcing "plans" to drag it out of the mud. Besides, that type of rhetoric is to be expected since they wanted to and did join NATO. They could hardly send the message that now that the United States will be covering their defense bill, they'll be sitting on their loins and spending the defense budget on social security and "progressive" government projects instead, but we all know that's exactly what is going to happen.


You have to differentiate between governments doing things, and governments doing things that are actually proportional to what you're proposing they are facing. You proposed they face a threat to their survival and a Russian invasion.

That's clearly not what is driving their actions.

Especially Sweden is likely acting on a potential deterioration of the security situation in Europe in the mid to long-term (which is markedly different from facing a existential threat or imminent invasion) and figured the economically smart thing to do is join NATO, because then the United States will be paying their defense bill instead of them having to pay it themselves.


I much sooner accept it when a country like Poland claims they fear an invasion, because they are actually acting the part. They have a functional, well-maintained military and their defense spending (read: their actions, and not just words) reflects that perceived threat.

Poland has double the GDP of Finland, yet its military (active personnel) is five times the size of the Finnish military.

Again, when we analyse the actual actions of states and put them into perspective, we are presented with a very different picture than what you are trying to paint.

Or is somehow Sweden, Finland, the Baltic States not in Europe? — ssu

There's a difference between actions and rhetoric. The former being worth taking note of, and the latter generally being no more than windowdressing.

None of these states have militaries that are on a modern operational level, nor have they taken any steps towards making them so.

Isn't it strange that countries that supposedly live in fear of invasion every day take no steps towards protecting themselves?

And that obviously would have continued... — ssu

It did continue. Nothing changed since 2014 in relation to Europe's appalling military condition, something which it has been called out for by the United States on several occasions.

The only military that made significant improvements since 2014 is the Ukrainian military, because they legitimately feared a Russian invasion.

It should speak volumes that Ukraine, a relatively poor country, sports Europe's most effective military. And it is taking a beating as we speak. Yet, despite pursuing a policy that practically forces Russia to expand its military, there's not a hint of urgency in Europe's military expenditures.

Calling the invasion of Ukraine an atrocious breach of etiquette and appallingly bad mannered was an attempt at sarcasm which, apparently, failed. — BC

Went right over my head. Fair enough then, I agree with your point of view.

Your post contradicts itself. On one hand you note that states do not have ethics - a nice realist point-of-view with which I can definitely sympathize, but then you go on to call the invasion appalling, atrocious, etc., which is a clearly moral judgement.

There's the hypocrisy.

Europe isn't worried about their security. That's why nearly every European country let their armed forces atrophy beyond repair, with Poland being perhaps the only notable exception.

Ukraine has the most powerful military in Europe by far, and there's been no sign whatsoever the other European countries have any interest in trying to catch up. Instead, they're sending whatever is left of their militaries to Ukraine, further diminishing their own capability to defend themselves!

Furthermore, they're pursuing a policy that has as its logical effect that a large force build-up by Russia will take place, yet again, there's no sign whatsoever European countries are gearing up to meet a Russian war machine they themselves are helping to create.

That in no way implies to me these countries are afraid they'll need to defend their borders any time soon. This is just an argument of convenience.

The American elite doesn't want to deal with this issue.

Immigration equals higher GDP.

Geopolitical power is for a large part about how many warm bodies you control.

That's why despite serious domestic protest nothing ever happens.

The European elite operates on the same principle.

The ease with which a government can squeeze money from the citizen’s wealth is profound. You just tack it on and you’re 1 trillion yen richer. — NOS4A2

And don't forget about "mystery" inflation that just so happens to evaporate government debts at the expense of the citizen's buying power.

Zelensky (and many Ukrainian presidents before him) was so foolish to think he could play the United States and Russia against each other.

They predictably did not succeed in beating the great powers at their own game, and got used as a pawn instead. The United States is doing the minimum it can to maintain its credibility as a military ally, while mostly just watching as Ukraine gets clobbered by the gorilla it told the Ukrainians to pick a fight with.

Even if they had succeeded at causing a United States intervention, did they honestly believe Ukraine wouldn't pay a horrible price for that?


I wouldn't go so far as to say Zelensky is as responsible as Putin for the war. Russia is principally responsible for the war. Zelensky, his predecessors and the United States are principally responsible for the conflict that sparked the war.

Motivation of the US is pretty clear, but it's really hard to interpret European leadership's motivation in this ... — boethius

The majority of European "leadership" is an ideologically driven bunch inspired by the likes of Klaus Schwab. Authoritarian to the core, they'll jump on every crisis opportunity to further their personal agenda and tighten the reigns on the population of Europe.

Crises give governments extraordinary powers, and they are currently using those to pass all sorts of far-reaching legislation, from attempts at forced vaccinations during covid, to mass-surveillance, digital IDs and digital currencies. Notice the common thread - control, control, control.

There simply are no 'allies' of Putin on the left outside of Russia that have any significant impact, ... — Isaac

I would go further, and say that Putin has no impactful allies anywhere in the western world. If any kind of influential "Russia lobby" existed, surely some type of public debate would have formed over the fifteen year period that led up to the war in Ukraine.

Instead we have seen no debate whatsoever, and for example a stance that is critical of the role of the United States in Ukraine, while supported academically, is nowhere to be found in public discourse and even stigmatized.

Alarmism about a "Russia lobby" is probably the work of actual lobbyists trying to, as you said, control the narrative.

We know that the vaccines likely were never meant to stop transmission, and now we also learn that, as far as this study goes, vaccination for some reason might increase the chance of infection.

Government narratives that focused on pressuring people to get vaccinated to protect others are getting more far-fetched by the day, yet the adverse effects and even deaths they caused are very real.

Governments basically under false pretenses pressured people into taking vaccines that had a non-trivial chance of severe adverse side-effects.

I hope this once again underlines the importance of respecting people's right to choose what they inject into their own bodies, and the dangers of giving governments who believe they have a monopoly on wisdom carte blanche to force their policies on their citizens.

Just thought I'd drop this little gem in here:

Good points.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases.

Always is a big word I probably shouldn't have used. I've never come across an instance where unethical behavior couldn't be explained through the suffering of the perpetrator.

There is "unethical" behavior that results from ignorance, but the nature of ignorance is such that, in my opinion, it requires a different label, different from unethical or immoral.

I've found (parts of) these ideas in Jungian psychology, Buddhism, Hermetic philosophy, Platonism, and probably a slew of other sources.

While I agree with the idea that big business likely fits into this picture somewhere, it must also be noted that in the modern age of globalization it is almost unavoidable that the markets of opposing nations end up supplying each other. I think a fair part of that is completely unintentional.

The real "conspiracy" is probably found in the various lobby groups that influence US policy through means which are perfectly legitimate within the American system. And the same likely happens in Russia, but I suppose we know less about Russia's lobby groups.

"Eye for an eye morality" is an oxymoron.

Morality is a set of rules we bind ourselves by - a limit we voluntarily impose upon our actions and behaviors.

"An eye for an eye" implies no such limit exists (and thus it doesn't convey a meaningful definition of morality), since any action can be "justified" (but not really). It literally states that if one has their eye carved out, thus is physically tortured / maimed, one may "justly" physically torture and maim their assailant.

It is essentially a debasement of one's own values - to stoop down to the level of whatever one recognizes as deplorable and thus becoming that which one detests.

If one believes physical torture and maiming is immoral, one should not allow themselves to participate in such acts under any circumstance, period.


Forgiveness is of course the real virtue, but it is a much more complicated concept than it is often given credit for.

True and genuine forgiveness requires a deep understanding of human psychology. Most importantly it requires one to understand that unethical behavior always comes from a place of suffering. Once we recognize the suffering in the wrongdoer, and their actions were a foolhardy attempt at alleviating their suffering, we take a step towards humanity rather than away from it.


Whether it is possible to create a system of crime and punishment that does not contain retributive "justice" is another question altogether, and not a moral one, since systems are not moral agents.

Say, is Russia doomed to destruction, can't go on, without Crimea being a part of Russia? — jorndoe

Russia as a great power would cease to exist for the foreseeable future if (parts of) Ukraine were to become militarized by an anti-Russian military alliance.

I've gone over the reasons for this several times, but most importantly Crimea and southern Ukraine is what connects Russia to its strategic allies like Iran and Syria, and they're also what connects the Russian heartland via rivers to the oceans through the Sea of Azov (Volga / Volga-Don Canal / Don / Sea of Azov).

How is my comment an example of the strawman argument? — Paine

I never referred to the Ukrainians as "soulless" - that's a misrepresentation of my argument and a tasteless one at that, aimed specifically at framing me as anti-Ukrainian.

You say that neither possibility involve choices they are making for themselves. — Paine

I stated specifically that the Ukrainians have a choice between fighting or surrendering.

It doesn't get more imperial than that. — Paine

It's the reality. Sugarcoating won't do the Ukrainians any good.

I am still curious if you have a particular objection to Lough's actual argument. — Paine

His point is that no formal promises were made, and Russia isn't the USSR.

I've already given you my objection to that sentiment.

Your version of them as soulless puppets... — Paine

If you want people to take you seriously here, you'll need to take the strawmanning down several notches.

... is as dismissive of their agency as any version of colonial right you charge being exerted by other states upon them. — Paine

It's not a matter of agency. It's a matter of power, which they have comparatively little. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world works.

At this point Ukraine is turning into the next Vietnam. You may make of that what you will.

Everything between Washington and Moscow becomes flyover country. — Paine

That's because it is.

Besides Washington and Moscow, the only thing that matters is the performance of the Ukrainian military. There isn't any other actor worth mentioning. The Ukrainian people have been given a choice - fight or surrender. That's all the influence they have in this war.

That doesn't stop other actors from trying to appear important, though. The European Union has certainly elevated that into an art, tanking their own economy with sanctions that are apparently not even hurting Russia.

He also raises the question of how promises made to the USSR relate to one of the nations that appeared after it dissolved. — Paine

Kind of hard to imagine a serious scholar making that argument, but alas there it is.

Russia and the USSR occupy roughly the same land mass. They share roughly the same core strategic interests.

Those promises were made to the USSR to acknowledge their legitime security concerns and thereby promote peace and stability. The way they relate to Russia today depends on how eager we are for conflict and war with Russia.

Lough is putting the cart before the horse here in a way that is almost child-like.

I don't share your view that the incidents being reported are only propaganda. — Paine

That's not my view.

Objective reporting is fine. Framing is propaganda.

It's the difference between speaking of displaced civilians or of genocides and deportations.

I hope and assume you're smart enough to tell the difference.

The purpose isn't even to have a discussion, the purpose is just to repeat the position, however delirious it is, again and again. In hope that genuine participants would leave. — ssu

A fine bit of projection. :ok:

Is not the matter to attend to is whether these events are happening or not? — Paine

Sure.

How does pre-emptively framing Russia's actions as genocide help in figuring out what is happening?

It doesn't, of course, and that's not what this is about. It's about demonizing Russia, and I expect better from the people on this forum.

The Russians are employing the language of "not-so-subtle historical parallels." Are you promoting a nihilism where nobody is talking about anything? — Paine

You would be the one promoting a cynical nihilism if your argument for why you should spread your propaganda is because the other side is doing it too.

But seems like the UN or Amnesty International, as SophistiCat mentioned, seem to be just promoting fictional anti-Russian propaganda. — ssu

It is turned into anti-Russian propaganda when people start referring to "deportations" and "genocides", trying to draw not-so-subtle historical parallels.

The argument is no and that is why it is unpaid work. — Andrew4Handel

I don't think the amount of money something costs or yields is necessarily reflective of its actual value. Happiness cannot be bought, yet you can spend fortunes on things that will make one profoundly unhappy.

To say societies don't value parenthood comes across as a bit disconnected, and if anything it shows that using wages as a measure of value is insufficient.

I would wager that most people that watch super hero films are adults and that they have some cultural influence. — Andrew4Handel

Even if that's true, you believe adults take their life lessons from those movies? I'd like to think adults are little more sensible than that, and that is reinforced by the fact I see very few adults trying to conduct themselves like super heroes.

How come there is not the female equivalent to Incels? — Andrew4Handel

How should I know, and why is it relevant? Also, aren't radical feminists basically the female equivalent to incels? :yum: