Statistics show that the death rate for all possible causes has declined in the US for the period 1916 to 2023. — Agent Smith

Really? Fewer people are dying? What's happening to them instead then?

Apparently @neomac is capable of comparing two entities only by looking at data on one of them. We don't yet know how...

You missed: — jorndoe

What's Russia's conduct in war got to do with estimates about their relative management of peacetime conditions?

How do Ukraine's armed forces conduct invasions? We don't know. So comparing like-with-like is impossible. we can compare their management of contested regions and see they're about the same. so why would you avoid the evidence for which we do have comparative data and only seek to present the evidence for which we don't?

I expect that the Western integration process of Ukraine will improve its human rights conditions as it did with other ex-Soviet republics (indeed it's one of the condition of EU membership https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/conditions-membership_en). That's exactly the line of reasoning that you can't even follow on a step-by-step basis.
But good you posted your chart, because it still neatly fits into my line of reasoning: Ukraine outside the Western influence, under Russian sphere of influence or in conflict with Russia, shows as poor human rights conditions as Russia wrt West. — neomac

So because western countries have better human rights records than Russia, it's morally legitimate to support Ukraine's fight over territory?

If Ukraine would then join the west's approach, and if the west's human rights are not simply bought at the expense of others, and if the utter destruction of Ukraine's economy and the flooding of its black markets with weapons aren't enough to tip it back over into nationalist extremism... then you might, just might, get an improvement in human rights.

And this slim chance is worth the deaths of tens of thousands?

Tell me. Those other ex-soviet countries which came under western influence, did we fight a proxy war with Russia over each of them? Or did economic development, local political action and covert support bring that about?

So in what way is fighting a long protracted proxy war with Russia necessary for this vague and speculative end goal of yours?

Here is a summary for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia — neomac

John is taller than jack because John is 6 foot.

See any problem with that argument.

Christ! You didn't even put Ukraine on the fucking chart (which if you had, would have put them next to Russia).

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&country=UKR~RUS

It's like arguing with children.

this comparison between the 'Orange' and 'Maidan' shows the idea that they were all fronts for foreign governments very difficult to imagine. — Paine

...by Dr Olga Onuch. Currently consulting for the Ukrainian government. This is what you consider an unbiased source?

Second step: are human rights better implemented within Western countries? Yes — neomac

This step does not support your argument. To do so it would have to be possible for all countries to be like western countries, but if the human rights in western countries are bought at the expense of human rights in chattel countries, then it is not. You'd have to demonstrate not only that human rights are better in western countries, but that western countries do not worsen human rights elsewhere in achieving that state.

is Ukraine more pro-West than Russia? Yes. Asking to join NATO and EU, and be ready to suffer a war against Russia to defend their choice wrt anti-Western rhetoric and hostility from Russia are unquestionable evidences for that. And if this is no evidence I don’t know what is. — neomac

Seriously? A bit of pro-western rhetoric is the gold-standard evidence of a desire to adopt western human rights values?

The human rights record of Ukraine is on record for all to see. You can't bluff your way out of it. Read the reports.

anti-West Russia with a poorer implementation of human rights — neomac

It does not have a poorer human rights record. Again, this is all on record. Read the reports.

the democracy index is telling — neomac

Democracy is not exhaustive of human rights, not even close. It's one of 30 articles. Usually the one chosen by neoliberals like you to excuse nations for trampling over the other 29.

Is this enough evidence? If not why not? — neomac

See above. What could possibly make you think that the satisfaction on one out of thirty articles of human rights would be all the evidence needed?

Come back to this argument when you have any evidence whatsoever that Ukraine's human rights record (in all aspects) is better than Russia's, that it has more than a cynical Machiavellian desire to take advantage of western money, and that western countries have an approach to human rights that could improve the welfare of all, not just a privileged few.

... Oh, and then you've got to show how the deaths of tens of thousands is the best, or even morally acceptable, way of achieving this vague goal of 'westernization'.

If you would read correctly, it is about invading and annexing territories from neighbors — ssu

So Britain wasn't imperialist?

I think Mexico would mind if the US annexed let's say Baja California from them. And with US Presidents declaring Canada or Mexico to be artificial constructions. — ssu

But Russia hasn't declared Finland to be an 'artificial creation'. You're losing the thread of the argument again. The article we're talking about paints Russia's attack as a problem for "civilization", not just for those countries Russia has declared 'artificial'. All countries.

So are we all worried about Israel? Are we all worried about Myanmar? Are we all worried about the US? Not just neighbours because the article doesn't say "Russia's neighbours who it thinks are artificial should be worried" the article is claiming that we all ought be worried about Russia's 'imperialist' war with Ukraine.

So did we all ought to be worried about Israel's imperialist war with Palestine?

Did we all ought to be worried about India's imperialist war with Pakistan?

If not, why not?

think military supporting Ukraine is morally right — neomac

Yet...

I’m describing and not making moral claims — neomac

Make up your mind.

I’m describing and not making moral claims — neomac

Then your entire wall of text was a waste of time. If I want 'description' I'll consult an expert, not some bloke off the internet. If your ego is seriously so inflated that you think your armchair 'description' of how morality is manifest through society is better than any of the thousands of well-researched an informed papers, articles and books that have been written on the subject by sociologists, social psychologists and cognitive scientists, then I worry for you.

If I want a description, I'll consult an expert.

I'm asking for your moral view. the thing all of us are experts on, the thing for which there is no body of fact to draw on and so no expertise to be gained. What you think is right and why.

A country that just has invaded in the past decades two of it's neighbors and annexed territories from them? Yeah, well, you'll be on there on your own peaceful island, not sharing a border with Putin. — ssu

Are Canada worried? Is Mexico? America is the single most interventionist country in the world, by a long, long way. no-one talks about fear that it's going to invade Mexico. Why? Because people make even the most basic assessment of its interests (primarily oil). Russia wants gas export routes to be securely in it's sphere of influence. The US wants them in its own. Unless Latvia suddenly discovers a massive oil field, it's got nothing to worry about.

Nonsense, likely you have imperialism either in the woke category of things like "racism" or likely as the nearly religious satanism as it's used by the Marxists. Russia is basically still an Empire, so it's really no wonder that it has imperial aspirations. — ssu

Now it's back to the weaker definition. You can't get anywhere with this flip-flopping. Either 'imperialism' is a uniquely worrying trait (in which case you need evidence Russia has it - as opposed to most other countries), or it's a normal trait of many larger counties (in which case you need to explain why we need to be uniquely worried about Russia having it).

As to... "just has invaded in the past decades two of it's neighbors"... are Israel imperialist? Is India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Myanmar, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Morocco, Spain, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Syria, Turkey... All of whom have been involved in military clashes over border territory in the last two decades.

And if two countries in two decades is your evidence of rampant imperialism, then Finland must be quaking in its boots at the prospect of being invaded by Putin's tidal wave of imperial expansion...sometime in the next 160 years...

A lot of countries don't want political and economic control of other states. — ssu

Wishful thinking.

But it's good that at least you noticed from the definition the part "Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition" that Tzeentch isn't willing or capable to pick up. — ssu

No. The point was that your definition becomes pointless by being too inclusive. If Russia is 'imperialist' in your sense, then it's nothing to worry about. Most countries are. The US certainly is.

You want 'imperialism' to mean something so much more sinister. Something more like Hitler, Elizabeth I, Alexander... But then you've not got any evidence to support such a claim, so you fall back on the weaker definition, only that has no teeth. We don't care that the US is imperialist in that weaker sense. So why should we care if Russia is?

The issue under discussion is whether there should be deterrents. The effectiveness of deterrents remains to be seen. — Fooloso4

Yes, and the first complaint raised is that the deterrents have disadvantages. So their advantages need be weighed against those. Effectiveness therefore cannot be avoided.

If you're saying that legal recourse in the face of demonstrable lies is the full extent of deterrence then I might be inclined to agree, but that's not censorship is it? Nor is it exhaustive of, or even most common among, the tools for suppression of free speech.

they will be more cautious and diligent in establishing the truth of their accusations and allegations. — Fooloso4

Really? So this sort of legal action is new? Has some law changed in the US that I've not noticed?

Because otherwise, history pretty much undermines your theory. It has always been possible to be sued for publishing false information (of various sorts) it doesn't seem to have held anyone back yet.

something can be done to curtail future abuses — Fooloso4

What? You said that Fox is "being sued" and that "the damage has been done". So the system you're describing established falsity after the allegations have been made (and done their damage). What different system do you imagine can be put in place to establish the falsity of a claim before it is published (and the damage done)?

gaining political and economic control of other areas, often through ... soft power (cultural and diplomatic power)

Then what fucking country isn't imperialist?

the future of the international system — To Defend Civilization, Defeat Russia - The Atlantic

What "international system" do you take this to refer to? International Law (that the US has refused to ratify)? The authority of the UN (that he US has ignored whenever it feels like it)?

I'm intrigued as to what 'international system' you think was soundly in place through America's invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Kosovo and Libya. The support for Saudi Arabia and Israel... what 'international system' allows the starvation of millions of children, but it suddenly "in mortal peril" over a border war.

Article 19 says nothing about deliberate misinformation. — Fooloso4

Neither does censorship.

Censors don't have mind-reading devices. They can't divine intent.

What censors censor is stuff they believe is wrong. Other people posting it might differ in their belief.

Citing Article 29 is exactly the reason given for literally every act of fascism ever. No fascist has ever come to power on the back of "this is going to be shit for you lot, but I'll get rich". Without fail every fascist program has been "the freedoms we restrict now are for the best".

We need more (much more) than one government's say so that it's for the best.

in that sense I agree with the "free speech absolutists" that the remedy is more free and open discourse, and less censorship. — Tzeentch

I don't want to overstate the disagreements, I basically agree with what you've written bar a couple of points. The first is the reason I'm opposed to free speech absolutism. I agree with the quoted proposition we need "more free and open discourse, and less censorship". Less censorship is not the same as no censorship.

Pushing for less censorship (as opposed to none) is not only more likely to receive support, but has a better, more persuasive argument in its favour.

It's pretty easy for anyone sane to see that Facebook censoring the British Medical Journal on Covid was nothing short of propaganda. It's much harder to see how censoring a Nazi spreading Holocaust denial is quite so unsavory in motive.

Secondly, a bit off topic, but I'd add a point zero to your description of the process. The government's censorship has tracked precisely the enrichment of those industries with the deepest lobbying pockets (pharmaceuticals and arms). It's their drive for profit which initiates the whole thing. Governments don't just decide to have an agenda out of the blue that just so happens to support their biggest donors. They're paid to do it.

To emphasize, censorship (just like free speech) to me is about ideas, and not arbitration of interpersonal disputes.

In my opinion, slandering, calls to violence, intentional deception etc. are not primarily about the sharing of ideas, and having laws against those things is not a form of censorship to me. — Tzeentch

Ah. Then we probably disagree far less than it would at first seem. I include all that under the heading 'censorship'.


What's dangerous here is that those who want to do exactly what we've seen recently, namely...

Censorship pollutes the information environment by eroding transparency and neutrality. — Tzeentch

..., are helped, not hindered, by extremist calls for free-speech absolutism. They can point to the very obvious flaws (of the wider sense) as justification and thereby dodge the discussion that needs to be had.

My main concern overlaps considerably with yours, but in my view, extreme positions like @NOS4A2 presents here are harming that concern.

Has censorship ever demonstrably produced something positive? — Tzeentch

A more pleasant discourse environment for most people, especially those vulnerable to abuse.

Individuals are perfectly capable of looking at the data and drawing their own conclusions. It's specifically this that the censor desires to circumvent, likely because they know that when the individual looks for themselves they will arrive at conclusions that are undesirable to the censor. — Tzeentch

Agreed, but censorship is not limited to data. It extends to opinions and expression.

Censorship pollutes the information environment by eroding transparency and neutrality. It also undermines the individual's propensity for critical thought. — Tzeentch

Again I completely agree, but if you want to make an argument that "all Jews are twats" has anything whatsoever to do with transparency or critical thought then I really don't think you understand either.

censorship and propaganda go hand in hand, and for everything you're not allowed to hear there's a convenient government narrative that you are expected to copy paste instead. Today's 'misinformation' age is case and point. — Tzeentch

Not really. It's like arguing that because the chef added too much salt to the soup we should never add salt to soup. Obviously, like any human activity, censorship can be done really badly. It's ridiculous to suggest that because it can be done badly it ought not be done at all.

I’d rather a minority does not suffer so that some arbitrary greater number might enjoy some vague and incalculable benefit at some point in the near or distant future. — NOS4A2

Again, what you'd 'rather' is not an argument from either stupidity or injustice. It is not stupid of institutions not to provide you with the service you'd prefer, nor is it unjust of them. So you've not answered the question. Why does it matter?

Because we're neither children nor slaves. Such behavior is unjust and stupid. — NOS4A2

You've not even begun to make a case from either justice or stupidity. All you've told us so far is that you'd prefer not.

If an institution censors offensive content, most of its customers/clients will be pleased. So doing so hardly seems stupid.

If an institution censors someone's output against their will, they will suffer a very minor inconvenience to benefit many others. So doing so hardly seems unjust either.

If your conception of 'justice' is just that you get to do whatever you want, unimpeded, then its your conception that's at fault here.

What you find offensive says nothing about what I would find offensive. — NOS4A2

So what? That's the question you keep dodging. Why do you expect anyone to give a fuck about whether you miss out on a few non-pc jokes you might not have found offensive but others do?

I'm not arguing that anyone knows what you'll find offensive. I'm not arguing that the censor we choose will get it right all the time. I'm asking you why it matters.

I always face the insoluble problem of who I would give the right to decide what I can or cannot say and read, as if I was a child or student. I cannot come up with anyone or any group of people, dead or alive, who are fit for the task. — NOS4A2

As is clear from most of what is censored, the answer to this question is 'virtually anyone'. Censorship is mostly about removing obvious crap and anything accidentally removed which isn't crap is very unlikely to be the next Beethoven or a cure for cancer, so the person chosen doesn't even have to be very good at it.

It is the concern of an unwelcome and meddlesome third party who has neither the character nor knowledge to know what others can or cannot say, or what they can and cannot hear. All they possess is their own sentiment, and that counts for little in these matters. — NOS4A2

Nonsense. The vast majority of people find the same sorts of things offensive. That's why being offensive works, because your audience is likely to reach in a predictable way. It's easy to spot offensive material and remove it.

And if you're one if the rare ones, if you're not offended by stuff most people are offended by, then all that will happen is you'll miss out on a few jokes and some opinion pieces. So what? It's absurd to kick up such a fuss about a few comments you might otherwise have liked to have read.

You were, on the other thread, attempting to defend a compassionate individualism. you're really not advancing that cause any by complaining about a handful of off-colour jokes you'll miss out on because of censorship. There are far bigger issues to worry about for Christ's sake.

Ain't going to keep repeating — jorndoe

So you think that was the first suggestion that Russia ought to withdraw? 434 pages in and no one had mentioned it?

Why do you think I posted the suggestion that they ought to leave anyway — jorndoe

Virtue signalling.

Subsumption under Kremlin rule no good — jorndoe

As has been proven over and over Russian rule over Crimea produced a virtually identical record on human rights to Ukraine's rule over nearby Donbas. The record is unequivocal, there's little to no improvement under Ukrainian rule for average folk compared to Russian rule (and in case it needs clarifying, that means they're both awful, not that Russian rule is fine). Factor in the pecuniary loan and 'reconstruction' agreements of another year of war and there's zero reason to believe anyone's life will have improved sufficiently to justify a complaint letter, let alone a war.

do you think it wrong that "the invaders ought to go home"? — jorndoe

Frankly I don't care. They certainly ought to stop committing war crimes, but that's not the same thing as giving up territory.

I don't give a fuck who owns what. I care what they do with what they own.

With millions, are you referring to Ukrainian farm production + export impact + consequences elsewhere? (As an aside, Putin's Russia apparently managed to sneak stolen farm goods off to Syria.) Are you thinking of a (nuclear) world war three? Something else? — jorndoe

Yes. And more. Millions of people outside of Ukraine are affected by the continued fighting there. I can understand why the Ukrainian government might not take their needs much into account, but our governments ought to.

Because, like Sweden Finland others, they don't want to be under Putin's thumb? — jorndoe

I said 'anyone else'. Why do we care what Ukrainians happen to want. Do we care what Russians want? This idea that there's some moral value to what an arbitrary group of people happen to want is just nonsensical. That only institution that need concern itself with what Ukrainians want is the Ukrainian government, that being their duty in a democratic system.

Any new aspects? Developments? — jorndoe

I'm not a newspaper. You posted something. I presume you did so to garner feedback, which this is. Otherwise, why bother?

She goes on to talk about it in more detail. It’s not an accident. — Mikie

No she doesn't. She goes on to provide the specific route the wealth redistribution took. It's like describing how transport networks work and having that stand in for an explanation for human trafficking.

Whether the government transferred wealth via "rising costs", or "stimulus packages", or "low interest rates" is irrelevant. They could have used any one of a dozen mechanisms at their disposal. The explanation is missing the context which allowed them to do it. The self-gagged left wing who just stood by and did fuck all to stop it. The complicit media who are always more than happy to vomit up whatever narrative is most convenient to wealth accumulation.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. People (and opposition parties) don't just watch their welfare get taken from them and let it happen because they didn't notice the government's super cunning scheme. There needs to be a crisis, an ideology, an enemy (anyone but the rich). All supplied and propagated dutifully by the very organisations who should have been holding the government to account.

An now, unsurprisingly, we're seeing exactly the same playbook with Ukraine. The most powerful lobbying industries just so happen to be getting richer but it's all just a coincidence because arming Ukraine is the right thing to do, anyone questioning it is a dangerous extremist, and the real enemy is somewhere else. Trust your government, don't ask questions, the rich just got lucky. Again.

the pandemic accelerated the trend. Rich people benefited from everything – every positive intervention from the state and negative impact of the crisis somehow still ended up increasing their wealth.

"Somehow"?

It just so happened to turn out that the policies of the most compromised governments we've ever had, enriched the exact industries which spend most on lobbying them. What a coincidence!

How lucky the rich and powerful are, things just keep happening by chance to turn out in their favor.

How could a government govern if it does not have the means that allow it to govern?! — neomac

There's no moral requirement for any specific government to govern any specific peoples or land.

Governing in compliance with some moral commitment still needs enabling means to govern. — neomac

No it doesn't. Clearly some other government could bring about the same committent. If I'm committed to building the biggest sandcastle ever, I can easily step aside and let someone else finish the job. Building the biggest sandcastle doesn't require that I have the ability to build sandcastles, only that someone does. Likewise a government committed to a moral objective does not require that they have the means, only that someone does.

The territory delimits the community and the resources within a government’s reach, the perimeter of its sovereignty. — neomac

So? This clearly has no impact whatsoever on a government's ability to commit to programmes of any sort since borders are always changing. I listed above over 40 major internation changes in border in the last 30 years. In no case did the governments of those countries cease to be able to carry out their objectives in their remaining territory.

even if different governments share the same commitments they would still need to secure a territory. — neomac

Why?

All Western, Ukrainian, Russian governments of all political regimes needed to secure their territory against invaders and/or separatist forces in their history. — neomac

This is just bare assertion.

IN ADDITION to that they may threaten their moral legitimacy. For example, Ukrainians do not want to be governed by a pro-Russian regime, nor make territorial concessions. So if the Ukrainian government doesn’t commit itself to do what the Ukrainians want nor act accordingly, the Ukrainian government will lose also moral legitimacy in addition to see its sovereignty severely shrunk. — neomac

Nonsense. A government is not morally required to carry out all actions it's citizens request. Again, this just obvious nonsense if given even a moment's thought. If the Russian population unanimously voted to bomb a hospital, it would still be immoral for the government to do so and it would still be a war crime. Things are not made right by voting for them and governments are not automatons devoid of moral responsibility.

I argued that “national security” can also be a government's moral imperative (this is true for all types of regime and ideologies). — neomac

No you didn't. You just said it.

if Western governments believe (and I would add "reasonably so") to secure their sovereignty against Russian threats by supporting Ukrainian resistance, and act accordingly, they are morally warranted. — neomac

Nonsense. A government has no moral right to the territory it governs. All border changes would thereby become immoral.

If states can’t act or are rationally expected to not act based on moral oughts as the offensive realism theory you champion would claim — neomac

Nothing about political realism says governments can't act differently. It's a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one.

it’s precisely because, according to your own understanding of international relations, oughts can never inform political action in the international arena that your claims about what states morally ought do in the international arena are irrational. — neomac

It's not my claim... It's yours. Here...

I take national security to be the moral imperative of legitimate governments of sovereign states — neomac

Take a look at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to get a sense of the vandal’s project. Voltaire, Montesquieu, John Locke, Hume, Balzac—more than a few gems were subject to ban. Look at the works thrown into Nazi fires or destroyed by Commie censors. Luckily these days publishers can stay ahead of it and with smuggling some works can reach others. I imagine that wasn’t the case before the printing press. I can never know what Galileo or Bruno might have written if they were able to express themselves freely, but I guess we can be content enough with what was able to reach us. — NOS4A2

Firstly, we seem to very much have these works using our current system. You can't cite them in support of the fact that the system is losing some amazing works. We don't seem to have lost those. Censorship used to be terrible (mainly religiously motivated), it's much better now (despite having gotten considerably worse recently). You'd need to find, to support your argument, some great work of art or philosophy which was censored under our current system.

Secondly, even the works you cite are a tiny, tiny proportion of all the junk that's eliminated by censorship. What, seriously, do you think are the chances of someone publishing some world-changing insight via Twitter and it being lost in the pile of vitriol the censors otherwise trash? The idea is preposterous.

Thirdly, and most importantly, none of what you've said distinguishes an argument for no censorship from an argument for better censorship.

The problem is in most cases we can never know what might have exised in that gaping hole. — NOS4A2

We absolutely can know. We know (in the wider sense of 'we') what is censored. It's not some super-hidden military secret. The stuff is just kept off the main servers. Loads of people know what it contains, none of them have yet come forward with a new approach to unified theory or a cure for cancer.

No matter what it is I’d prefer to know and decide on my own accord rather than remain ignorant about it and let someone else decide for me. — NOS4A2

Someone else always decides for you. Unless all human thought is presented to you on a searchable database, then someone else is making decisions about what you'll encounter. Censorship just places it out of everyone's reach. Hundreds of other factors place it out of your reach.

One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing. — NOS4A2

How?

By which I mean, it doesn't seem at all likely that the sum total of censored material would add up to anything very much of import. Mostly just abuse and weird opinions. There might be one or two gems in the rough, but that's an argument for more careful censoring, not for no censoring.

It'd be like arguing for no justice system on the grounds that occasionally an innocent person is condemned. No editing of books on the off-chance that a legitimate word is nonetheless edited out.

How can governments comply to their commitments?...
In other words, governments to gain moral legitimacy (whatever the ideology and regime are) are also morally compelled to pursue/secure power. — neomac

Why would governments need to use power to comply with their commitments? If government A and government B both have similar commitments it's not morally necessary for either government to have power over that territory in order to bring about it's moral objectives. Clearly either government will do the job.

The idea that governments need to secure territory in order to carry out their moral commitments only applies if the alternative government (the one competing for the territory) doesn't share those commitments. If it does (or if it's even better), then it doesn't make any difference, the moral commitments will be met, just by a different government.

It's as if I make a committent to care for an elderly relative and then set about murdering any rival carers on the grounds that I need to see them off so that I can keep the commitment I made. It's an absurd argument.

Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. And the West is helping Ukraine to secure its Western countries’ sovereignty (NOT Ukrainians’ sovereignty, that’s the Ukrainian government’s task!) against Russian strategic threats. — neomac

So? What's any of that got to do with the moral case? Why would anyone else care about Ukrainian sovereignty?

You are championing a theory of international relations which is incompatible with the kind of moral imperatives you think States should comply with. — neomac

If you can't understand the difference between how things are and how things ought to be then that explains a lot about your failure to engage with any moral arguments.

I’m talking about moral imperatives for governments, not moral imperatives for ordinary citizens. Maintaining control over resources can be a moral imperative as much as a forced collectivisation of means of productions by a communist — neomac

It isn't made so just by you saying it. Why does a nation gathering more resources become moral when a person doing so would not?

the goal is “national security” and not “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can”. — neomac

That's the same thing. 'Security' in this context means nothing more than 'I control it, not someone else'. The fight is over the control of the resource-crucial Donbas region. Russia wants it. The West want it. Ukraine wants it.

if that’s your worry, you must listen to your favourite expert: — neomac

Where in any of that does it even mention morality?

It's the only point of disagreement, so unless we're all just going nod and congratulate each other on how virtuous we are then it's the only thing to discuss.

Does Ukraine's territorial claim have any moral weight?

Your comment seemed to suggests you think it does (primary issue - invaders go home). Not primary issue - make sure everyone is safe, fed, housed and cared for.

Ukraine's territorial integrity is not more important than people's welfare even if Ukrainians themselves think it is. Majorities don't make things right. Morality isn't different in Ukraine depending on what the population think.

There are children, future children, millions affected outside of Ukraine...

So the question of what moral objective we have uppermost, far from being off topic, is the most important topic.

I'd say the welfare of the most vulnerable is uppermost. That should be our starting point. Do you disagree?

Absolutely. But...and you can see where I'm going with this... None of those ideas we new. Some have been around since I was a young man, others since the 60s. Some since the 1860s.

They haven't worked. Either they haven't taken hold, or their opposition has been stronger, or they've just not proven popular.

So when I ask about methods, I'm really asking if you have any ideas to fix that problem.

We can unionise, sure. But not enough people want to join unions, they keep getting stiffled by conservative politicians who people keep voting for. Even when they're powerful, they often go through a subsequent period where their power is lost and they loose much of their previous gains.

We could take collective action, but that requires people to collect with, and there aren't enough. Most can't be bothered and, again people keep voting for governments like mine here in the UK who have just passed a law making collective action much more difficult.

We could educate people about their bad voting habits, their lacklustre political involvement. But out of all of them, that's the one I'd put in the 'been around since 1860' camp, and things haven't got better. They've got worse. So if education is the answer, at the very least we're doing it wrong.

So is there a fix?

I take national security to be the moral imperative of legitimate governments of sovereign states — neomac

That doesn't seem at all intuitive. Why would you think maintaining control over resources a moral imperative? Is it, for example, a moral imperative for me to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can?

Stop complaining about the actions of other governments. This is supposed to be a thread about Ukraine! It's Russia who are to blame for Ukraine's situation, not anything Germany are doing, you're just trying to shift blame. Blaming other countries just plays right into Putin's propaganda.

This is a war between Russia and Ukraine. Germany are not involved, so what they do, or don't do is irrelevant.

I’m in favor of those.

I think there co-op model is a good one. I also like the idea of requiring workers on the board of directors. I think Germany has something to this effect.

Then there’s the obvious case of stronger labor unions. Repealing stock buybacks and increasing corporate taxes are also low hanging fruit. — Mikie

All moves that would help. So now the more interesting question of what you think is in the way of getting (or, in some cases, keeping) all that? Much of it we've had before and lost, some of it hasn't a hope in hell's chance of becoming law.

So what's in way do you think?

Fidgetting with knobs and switches isn't going to change what is a structural problem. They're dealing with symptoms and if that's the best on offer then workers will continue to get shafted. — Benkei

Do you even consider UBI to be in the list of "knobs and switches"? If so, what level of structural re-organisation did you have in mind?

Simple enough moral starting point: the invaders ought to go home (mercs included).

Agreeable? — jorndoe

As a starting point? That suggests that the most important moral issue here is where everybody is and who's in charge of what.

Surely the most important moral issue is the welfare of ordinary people?

After all that, it is difficult to process: — Paine

Short of adding that to my collection of 'things Paine reckons' I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that. discussion might be promoted if you were to tell me why any of that causes such a difficulty.

The quotes you've selected seem mainly around the point that the border of Ukraine is arbitrary (has nothing to do with any natural breaks in culture).

The final asserts that the question at hand is one of how much moral weight to put on any aggregated opinion (particularly that of those who happen to be within this arbitrary border).

I can't see a problem there.

I think that Western governments would be morally objectionable for not supporting (or not supporting enough?) the Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggression, as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight. — neomac

Why?

it’s not on me nor on Western governments to decide to what extent Ukrainians are willing to fight with whatever military aid they get from the West. — neomac

Obviously not. I don't see what that's got do with the issue. The question is whether we should be providing military aid in the way we are, and/or should be doing anything else. That fact that Ukrainians will decide what Ukrainians will do is (despite the bizarre frequency with which it's raised as if it were some Solomonesque insight) trivially uninteresting.

Russian propaganda, which has been prevalent in the discussion here too: — ssu

The trouble is that your arguments are based on lies.

See how easy it is to dismiss all dissent by just claiming they're lies without offering a shred of evidence to that effect?