Don't get me wrong, that would be the best outcome, however it is simply not going to happen.

A neutral Ukraine can only happen if both Russia and the US agree to reinstating Ukraine as a neutral buffer as it was before 2013.

The United States will never agree to that, since the whole point of this crisis was to expand the US sphere of influence into Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine would be a defeat for the US and a nullification of billions of dollars spent over the course of at least a decade.

Further, after 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine the US will not trust Russia to respect Ukrainian neutrality. LIkewise, after 2013 Russia can no longer trust the US to respect Ukrainian neutrality.

Probably, yes. But we do trust the mods of this site by and large, don't we? They have opinions, but when they get out of line they are reprimanded or even banned.

edit: and they are 100% essential, too — ToothyMaw

We can trust them because ultimately the function of this forum is benign.

Nothing in mankind's history suggests governments deserve that kind of trust ruling over the lives and rights of people.

I'd prefer the now antiquated concept of self regulation, where news outlets adhere to journalistic standards. That used to be a thing. — Hanover

I agree this is the best. But that also requires an audience that appreciates those things.

A good question would be why modern societies have become less critical and more ignorant, and thus more receptive to poor journalism and propaganda.

Government censorship is an evil to be sure, but so is government propoganda. Should Trump or Biden or their minions post false information, is that not propoganda? — Hanover

The two often go hand-in-hand and they go hand-in-hand today. Propaganda doesn't work without first silencing the voice of reason.

Today, government censorship is more insidious since it is hidden. It escapes the common eye. Things aren't outright banned, because governments understand they can't get away with that anymore.

Instead they refuse to give or outright try to deny critical voices a platform (or a large enough platform to make a difference). Critical voices are denounced under the umbrella term "conspiracy theorist" to undermine their credibility and keep them from reaching large crowds, etc.

We all understand the role of government narratives in the modern day, but "government narratives" are nothing but propaganda and censorship under a different guise.

In a healthy society the media provides critical, well-balanced coverage. However, the media are all bought and paid for by those it should be scrutinizing. It would be a mistake to believe we do not live in an environment of propaganda and censorship on par with humanity's blackest pages.

That would just shift the power to whoever appoints the advisors.

Hanover says he doesn't think the government should necessarily enforce the ethical standards he proposes. — ToothyMaw

And he would be right. So who else would be given that power? Which ever way you wish to go about limiting free speech, the cure is worse than the disease.

The position I'm taking, and your thoughts and objections to this is what I am seeking, is that free speech absolutism (a title Elon Musk has given himself) is not an ideal, but places the considerable power of the press in undeserving hands, whose objective isn't to seek higher truths and dispense with ignorance, but is for their own personal gain and self-promotion. — Hanover

The alternative is to put the power to limit free speech in undeserving hands - those of the government. And rights were enshrined into constitutions and human rights declarations exactly because governments could not be trusted with protecting them.

There are some indications that much of what has happened in Ukraine since 2013 was premeditated by the United States.

The United States has profited immensely from the cut gas ties between Europe and Russia. It is likely the United States orchestrated the sabotage of Nord Stream.

Interestingly, Hunter Biden notoriously participated on the board of Burisma, Ukraine's largest private oil and gas producer.

There seems to be a red line in this story, and that is the United States' interest in European gas and its gas dependency.

But for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. — ssu

The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine.

Before the United States aimed for regime change in Ukraine, Ukraine was as independent as it can hope to be given its sensitive geopolitical position.

It's the United States who sought to change that in 2013.

Fiat currencies are legal tender. We get paid in it, we pay our taxes in it, and I can go to the shops and buy milk with it. — Michael

It's value is controlled by whoever controls the printing press.

Scarcity is perhaps the most important characteristic of money, and fiat currency does not check that box.

I think you need to be more honest and accept that it's just a get rich quick scheme that some get lucky with. — Michael

The fact is that that is exactly what it is not. The hordes of people with zero market understanding who voluntarily jumped on the crypto bandwagon and treated it like it was a way to "get rich quick" have no one but themselves to blame. Investing isn't for everyone, and it certainly isn't for the ignorant.

It has nothing to do with the inherent value of cryptocurrency - an independent, scarce means of exchanging value.

Cryptocurrency has more characteristics of actual money than FIAT currency has, so what can I say.

Well, that was the big hype period which was obviously not representative of the actual value of Bitcoin. I don't think anyone with a bit of understanding would think that was a good time to buy in.

Isn't that being devalued by about ~10% per year as we speak?

Cryptocurrencies are far more volatile than normal stock, and unlike normal stock have no real underlying value. It's all just a confidence scam. — Michael

FIAT currency is the real confidence scam.

The underlying value of cryptocurrency is that it is a scarce, independent means of exchanging value, much like gold and other precious metals. In fact, you'll find that a lot of people who invest in gold also invest in cryptocurrency for many of the same reasons.

With financial repression looming on the horizon, and irresponsible economic policies running rampant, I'd say there are very good reasons to invest in both. For one, it's a lot easier to pay for things with cryptocurrency as opposed to gold. I'd stick with Bitcoin though.

There are many larger governments in terms of spending, taxation, laws, public sectors, and government bodies per capita. — Isaac

A country can have free citizens at the expense of the rest of the world (the United States), and that doesn't make its violence in any way benign.

In the case of some unassuming country like Norway, it's citizens are free, it's government is "large", yet where is the violence?

It outsources its violence to the United States, and thus is complicit, and is not a "non-violent" nation. Complicit not just in the violence the United States has to carry out to guarantee its safety, but complicit also in the violence the United States has to carry out to put itself in a position where it can do that.

There is no link between size of government and violence. — Isaac

Clearly there is, but you need to get the idea out of your head that the United States is somehow an example of a small government!

It's tendrils span the globe. There's not a larger government in the world.

It feels like you don't quite get what it means that every person on Earth is threatened with the annihilation of themselves and everything they hold dear, every day of their lives, by governments.

The sort of coercive violence a government commits in imposing laws does not beget more violence. If it did you'd see a correlation between the size of government and the levels of violence. There is no such link. In fact it's moderately the opposite. — Isaac

It does. It simply outsources, exports or imports it. That's why, as governments have grown larger and more powerful over the course of history, their propensity for violence has likewise grown. Now we're at the point that every person on Earth is threatened every day of their lives by violence.

The link is clearly there, but you don't like to see it.

You argued that, in my well-poisoning example, the people ought not coerce the well-poisoner with threat of violence because "violence begets violence". — Isaac

You cannot reduce my argument to "violence begets violence".

You are arguing that violence breeds violence. You are including in "violence" the sorts of government coercion involved in taxation, regulation and public sector work. — Isaac

I never stated it like that.

My point is that powerful governments (which to exist must apply large amounts of violence) wreak the most destruction on mankind. That some governments apply that violence to their own people, and others apply it to people in other countries, does not change their violent nature.

Look at all the violence the United States exports - arms industry, international conflicts, etc.

And the violence it imports and outsources. Much of what is consumed in the United States is made in, for example, China. The gap in your logic should be obvious.

When push comes to shove, the United States also has no problem forcibly making its citizens complicit in overseas genocides in third-world countries.

Is this your idea of a "low coercion" government?

Where do you get the idea that the US has "very low measures of government coercion"?

Where do you think it gets all those trillions of dollars from? They don't grow on trees you know.

The most powerful governments in the world, US / NATO, China and Russia all are holding the world at nuclear gunpoint (and they should all be coloured pitch black).

I'd say that's supports my position, rather than undermines it.

What do you believe that shows, if not that governments are extremely violent?

That index is nonsense.

Also, Norway is not a state, it's a vassal.

If you accept my idea of outsourced violence, then I think there's ample reason to believe ever more powerful governments (which rely on ever more elaborate systems of violence to exist) result in ever larger wars, thus more violence.

Ironically, it seems that these governments have now reached the threshold for outward violence, since they can hardly threaten with more than destroying the planet.

They are now starting to turn their violence inward, into some sort of "new wave authoritarianism" the rotten fruits of which only time will reveal. (But 20th century totalitarianism gives us an idea)

And every NATO country should be red, just like the United States, since they all outsource their violence to the US.

Note the color of the United States, one of history's most violent nations, and then look what other nations it supposedly compares to.

In what modern community with no government does the toll of violence rise into the millions?

What modern community with no government has the means to hold the world at gunpoint with nuclear weapons, sir?

People who thought "the numbers were irrelevant" tended not to find themselves on the good side of history.

What a joke had Stalin or Mao said: "If I hadn't killed them, many more would have died!"

The scale of warfare and its destructiveness have only ever increased during mankind's history.

You don't see that states going to war are simply an extension from the poor family and the ruffians from your hypothetical? It's outsourced violence. And ironically, no one ever seems to agree over who are the poor families and who are the ruffians.

And what about the many violent rebellions against authority that history has known, with death tolls going in the millions?

Violence is for hypocrites and animals. When one resorts to violence when other options are open to them, they shouldn't protest when others use those same means against them, and that's exactly what violence invites. Violence breeds more violence - the cycle of abuse.

The children will be located wherever the most powerful bully forces them, and they'll have access to whatever drinking source the most powerful bully allows them access to. — Isaac

Sounds like an awful circumstance to have children in. Anyone so foolish shouldn't be surprised when things go to hell in a handbasket, nor should they be under the impression that questionable decisions on their part would justify their use of violence.

So in ruffian controlled territory, families ought to just up sticks and move? — Isaac

They certainly could. Or they could stay and protest - they are being wronged after all. They shouldn't resort to violence.

Shall I have children in a place where food is scarce, and then justify my violence towards the people around me because my poor children will starve if I won't?

Who in their right mind would have children at all in a place with only one drinking source?

And in a place where drinking-source-polluting ruffians roam about, no less?

Who in their right mind would have a million children in a place with only one drinking source?

I've just argued that government is inherently a violent instrument, so there is no such thing as "great government" as far as I am concerned.

Protecting people against direct physical violence is a noble goal. If government was to limit itself to that task and that task alone I could consider it a grey area.

Anything else does not warrant violence.

Because I don't like being made complicit in rapacious institutions.

So? — Isaac

If people want to continue to construct and contribute to rapacious institutions then so be it. The extent of my action will be to avoid them, and protest if forcibly made complicit. — Tzeentch

People have their freedom restricted either way. — Isaac

The difference is that you and I wouldn't be complicit in it.

Even if we all agree anarchy was morally superior, how do we suppose the world remains in anarchy? — Marchesk

That's not my problem. If people want to continue to construct and contribute to rapacious institutions then so be it. The extent of my action will be to avoid them, and protest if forcibly made complicit.

It's not ideal that such violence-supported impositions are needed, but its being non-ideal is irrelevant unless there's a better alternative. — Isaac

The goal of violence is to control people against their will. What you're asking me is whether I can give you a better tool than violence to control people against their will.

My response would be, don't try to control people against their will.

Therefore, I assume you will fly the anarchist banner. — Bitter Crank

To be clear, I don't fly any banners nor am I campaigning for the abolition of states.

I'm just discussing an idea.

Now, you also express antipathy to this idea of the "social contract". A lot of people dislike the term. Fine -- one can get alone without using that term. — Bitter Crank

Obviously I have no problem with people consensually interacting and voluntarily committing to mutual obligations, preferably also without violence playing a role.

And that's exactly the problem I have with states and how it relates to anarchy: the role of violence and the lack of consensuality.