You can't seem to understand what's compared here. Bombings should be criticized, everything the US did should be criticized, but it's not comparable to multiple Russian troops systematically raping and executing civilians from village to village, town to town. — Christoffer

Again, you seem to be simply assuming some kind of threshold. Why is the number of children starving to death acceptable, but the number of children bombed not?

Plus you're noticeably avoiding putting any figures to any of your ramblings. How many rapes? How many executions? Because the US have certainly raped, certainly executed. So it seems to be a numbers game for you, yet lacking in actual numbers.

The difference here is the intention, what they actually do, systematically in Ukraine. — Christoffer

Exactly what I've been arguing. The intention matters. So the mere fact that Russia have brutally invaded Ukraine is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of brutally invading Finland.

Just as the fact that the US 'recklessly' (to use your judgement) invaded Iraq is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of 'recklessly' invading Finland.

All we have by way of intention is that Russia intends to carry out a military response if Finland join NATO. So using intention as your guide, the one thing to avoid would be joining NATO.

By a few, over the course of 20 years. — Christoffer

Which comes back to @boethius's point about Nazis. You act as if there's some threshold of war crimes below which we stop caring about them, stop seeing them as any indicator of action needed to be taken.

Russia is systematically brutal over the course of as little as three months, coming close to numbers for a 20-year conflict. — Christoffer

Around 4,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first few days of the US invasion, so if we're doing a like-for-like, they beat Russia hands down.

And what does any of that have to do with Finland and Sweden seeking security against Russian brutality? There's no counterargument there, it's just whataboutism to brush Russia's acts under the rug. We're not seeking security against the US because there's no risk of them murdering, raping, and killing our children. — Christoffer

That is exactly the argument. Russia's brutality in Ukraine is not sufficient reason for Finland to seek security from them in the same way as the US's brutality in Iraq isn't. There's no credible threat of the US invading Finland in the way it did Iraq. There's no credible threat of Russia invading Finland in the way it did Ukraine.

It's astonishing the ease with which the thinnest coat of whitewash absolves all crimes for some. A paper thin veneer of 'democracy' cack-handely draped over US warmongering and all the the sickening death and misery it causes is apparently thereby absolved.

There's no comparison between the US and Russia. Russia is a brutal militaristic fascist regime, the US is just a somewhat imperfect (sick) democracy. How many folks are fleeing the US to go live in Russia nowadays? Not very many, but quite a few are fleeing Russia right now to go pretty much wherever they can afford to go. — Olivier5

Yes. They've got different flags too. Unfortunately for your top notch erudition on that, we're talking about the extent to which they kill civilians in wars, not what colour their flag is, or how many immigrants they get.

Did the US go through villages and towns to specifically loot, rape, execute and kill children? — Christoffer

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/13/middleeast/yemen-children-school-bus-strike-intl/index.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/iraq/syria-danger-us-white-phosphorus
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/white-phosphorus-over-raqqa/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/12/american-marines-accused-war-crimes

If the rate of the atrocities Russia conducts were to be continued over the same time period, what do you think their numbers would be? — Christoffer

Given that the wars in question were not in constant high battle and estimates are around 7,000 for civilian deaths in Ukraine at the moment, I should think it would be something within the same ballpark.

But what Russia is doing are war crimes, brutal acts of terror that's the worst you can think of. It's not even comparable in the way you're trying to do it. — Christoffer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

The US won't kill us... — Christoffer

Exactly.

So @Olivier5's simplistic argument that because Russia has killed people in Busha it is a threat to Finland is nonsensical. The US has killed people in it's wars, they are no threat to Finland. Simply having killed people in wars is insufficient to render that country a threat to any other. There must be a credible strategic interest and chance of success. Neither seem to be present with regards to Finland. In fact, the most credible risk to Finland that we've had any presage of is military action is they do join NATO.

Look at what the Russians did in Busha. Who in his right mind would want the same thing for their people? — Olivier5

Look at what the Americans did in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan... 22,000 civilian casualties - who in their right mind would want the same thing for their people?

Do you now feel compelled to join an alliance to protect you from America?

Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore. — Olivier5

Finally caught up with the conversation from 10 posts ago... well done. So the question asked was, given how badly you think Russia are doing in Ukraine, how nearly destroyed you think their army is, how weak you think their generals, how low you think their morale... and this in a country you believe Putin clearly has wanted to invade for years... what exactly is the military threat to Finland? A ramshackle army of thugs trot up to the border with a handful of half-bombed tanks to be dispatched with a few Javelins (borrowed from our good friends at Lockheed, at 'mates rates')? How does such a threat require the full might of NATO and not, for example, the sheer pluck of an invaded people backed by the constant supply of weaponry Ukraine is currently benefiting from - ie the exact same circumstances you're now arguing are a safe bet for Ukraine to defeat Russia?

And since Russia has threatened military action against Finland if it does join, there seems to be one very simple method of avoiding invasion available... Oh, I forgot - some of the things Putin says are true and some of them aren't. We'll have to ask @ssu which that was, he seems to have the authority for determining on such questions.

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security. — Olivier5

If it's that simple, then why hasn't every country in the world joined NATO? More specifically Finland and Sweden. If there are no downsides and only an increased security, then what's stopped them up to now? If you're to attempt anything more than an entry-level assessment strategically (I was actually talking ethically, but we'll go strategic if you want - though we'd have to defer to experts, neither of us are qualified here), then one which assumes there's no downsides to be weighed against the benefits is simpleminded at best, at worst simply disingenuous.

what the Finns do will depend on what the Finns want. — Olivier5

No shit. Any more primary school level insights into human behaviour you'd like to share with us, or would you like to join in the actual discussion about what the Finns ought to do, not what they will do.

I can't think of a single good reason why the UK, or anyone else is in NATO. The entire monstrosity should be abolished as many strategists have suggested almost from the day it was conceived.

Yep, there's no end to Russia's superpowers...

... except apparently in Ukraine, where they're useless as shit because Ukraine is their kryptonite and the Ukrainians should definitely keep fighting because they're definitely going to win any minute day year decade now...

Just a few more Javelin's and we can be assured Marillyn Hewson's new yacht world peace.

It's not a rabbit hole. Your arguments are just shit. The question was why Finland wants to join NATO and you can't provide a reasoned answer, so you resort to pretending the question is somehow flawed. A neat tactic if the question were sufficiently complex, but here it just makes you look stupid. The question is too simple to play that trick on.

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat (other than the one levied if it joined NATO), you answered with a threat which seemed to a) lack credibility and b) not be solved by joining NATO.

I asked you to answer both counter-arguments and your failure is evident in your reaching for inappropriate rhetorical tricks instead of just answering.

Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014. — Punshhh

To lead which separatist movement?

And again, how does joining NATO prevent this?

an unjust transfer in wealth never results in a just distribution, let alone a just state of affairs. We cannot use injustice to reach justice. No matter the efficiency, no matter who gets what, it’s injustice all the way down. — NOS4A2

So your argument is either pointless whinging or lacks foundation.

The issue is what is just, not why people fear laissez faire. People fear laissez faire because they think it unjust. It's only sociopaths like you who think hoarding all the capital you can get your hands on is 'just'. The rest of us think justice is about what people deserve to get, not what people can get.

Russia won’t invade Finland, it will send in infiltrators. — Punshhh

Eh? What does 'send infiltrators' mean, and how does joining NATO defend against it?

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

Didn't answer the question at all.

Russia doesn't want Finland and Sweden to join NATO, so they make threats of military action if they try to. The question @Manuel asked was why Russia would want to invade Finland at all. What Finland has to fear from Russia if they don't join NATO.

The idea behind @frank and @NOS4A2's approach is similar. Completely unreasonable propositions are set within rhetoric mimicking academic inquiry, detached interest. When challenged the resort is to journalism "I wasn't advocating anything, just reporting how things are...".

True, it feels as if we don't have any say in the federal government because it's so remote. But we really do. And when it comes to the state and local level, we have a lot of say -- if we choose to leverage it. — Xtrix

I can see your point, but we can, in theory, 'vote with our dollar' on corporations too. If we all refused to buy from Amazon, they'd be gone in a day. The problem is, as I'm sure you know, that corporations create de facto monopolies (in both resources, and employment), and control the means of production to create a constraint on choice. The problem I see in modern democracy is that political institutions are barely any more limited in their ability to similarly monopolise and so create constraints on choice. I know we can all vote for a better politician, but there needs to a) be one available, and b) be a sufficiently mobilised, informed, and care-free fellow electorate to join with us to elect them.

Existing political power structures can limit (a) by restrictive requirements for financing, access to media, access to intermediate institutions.

They can limit (b) by simple gerrymandering, but more nefariously by creating conditions of scarcity which limit political activism (simple poverty, association laws, etc) as well as conditions which limit access to information.

I suppose the limits to (b) are mostly surmountable - they make political power difficult, not impossible, to wield. I'm not convinced of the extent to which the constraints in (a) don't simply render the opportunities of (b) obsolete.

It may be that there are certain political systems in which we can wield power, but then there are some consumer and employee interventions which work too - strikes and boycotts, for example.

So I agree they're different enough to make the case complex, but personally, I still don't see a lot between them.

Really this makes NOS' position even less convincing, and exposes just how absurd it is to rail continually and exclusively against the "state" while ignoring the far worse injustices of corporations. — Xtrix

Yes, I agree here. Even if one accepts my more jaded view of politics, the very existence of a voting system makes the idea that one only has a say in the system that has none utterly absurd.

What I have argued is that what we fear in laissez-faire is not poverty, wealth inequality, or ecological destruction as such—these are present in all systems—but what we are to do in the absence of state authority. — NOS4A2

I see. Well then you are wrong (insofar as I am such person who fears laissez-faire). I fear what other people would do. People like you, who seem to think more of their wealth than they do the welfare of others. As I said before, we haven't come to this point with a blank slate.

All of us must obey because it is illegal to do otherwise. — NOS4A2

Again, this is simply not true. You need not obey. You can move. You only need obey if you choose to remain in that country. Just as if you choose to agree to a contact of sale you must obey the payment terms (under pain of exactly the same threat of violence).

That money funds everything from state propaganda to state monopoly to the politician's wardrobe to wars to vaccination programs, all without my consent. — NOS4A2

The profit you provide to a corporation for goods is spent on whatever the corporation wants to spend it on, also without your consent. Why a different rule for them?

I can do as you suggest and not buy food, not work, become homeless, move to another country, because no one is forcing me to consume food or live with a roof over my head, but knowing that all of this is being used to avoid the points of my criticisms leaves me with little choice but to ignore it. — NOS4A2

It's addressing your points directly. Your points try to distinguish corporations from governments on the basis of freedom to choose. You are simply wrong about the difference. You are no more or less free to choose the rules of your government than you are the rules of your employment. Both can be left, both are difficult to find a genuine alternative, both monopolize authority to reduce competition, both engineer circumstances to reduce choice compelling you to accept pecuniary terms. There's no difference.

The human capacity for cooperation, I believe, serves us all better then than his capacity for evil and greed. — NOS4A2

This has absolutely nothing to do with the difference between government and corporation. Both can exhibit greed or cooperation. Neither are more or less likely than the other. Raytheon is responsible for no less death and destruction than the US government. The largest genocide ever was perpetrated by British American Tobacco. Governments are leading us to war, fossil fuel corporations are leading us to a global climate catastrophe.

This difference you're trying to paint in is fantasy.

As labor demands higher wages, capital has a choice: raise prices or take a hit. So they raise prices. — frank

Poor capitalists, being forced by circumstances to raise prices...

For an alternative view for anyone wanting to keep their tounges free of boot polish...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inflation-market-power-america-antitrust-robert-reich

Let alone that back in the day we had a lot less government, we had no poverty whatsoever. Right? — Benkei

Ahh, the good old days of the church-run workhouse. Happier times!

I don’t know the answer. — NOS4A2

So you're advocating demolishing the state on a hunch that everything will be just fine?

I never made such arguments, though. You’re pretending I did. The closest I came is saying that if I don’t like a product or service I don’t buy it, which is a statement of fact and a description of my own behavior. Instead you took someone else’s mischaracterization and wasted a lot of time on it. — NOS4A2

It's your entire argument because without it, this...

I differentiated the state from the corporation with the monopoly on violence. — NOS4A2

...makes no sense.

When I purchase a product or service from a business I do so voluntarily. When I purchase a product or service from the government I do so involuntarily. — NOS4A2

You do not. We've been through this. No one is making you accept any services from the government. Just move country. I asked you (but you've so far refused to answer), what threat of force prevents you from avoiding taxes by simply moving out of the country in which they are the rule.

It's no different to employment. If you don't like the terms of your employment, leave. If you don't like the terms of your using a country's resources (air, land, water), then leave. If you don't agree that such ultimatums are fair (and I'd be with you there), then no such ultimatums are fair - including those of the corporation.

There is no difference between the rules a corporation sets for your employment and the rules a country sets for your use of their services. Both are mandatory whilst you use their service, both can be freely left of you don't like the terms.

Is there no such difference in your mind? — NOS4A2

Of course not. To think so would be absurd. Why would I even have a job, or pay for a service with no threat of violence. I'd just take the stuff I wanted (to the extent that I thought it rightfully mine). Corporations rely entirely on the threat of violence to enforce working conditions that no-one absent of such a threat would agree to. As such, the threat of violence (and the monopoly on it) is absolutely integral to the functioning of the corporation. All the while they can control the state, they control the monopoly on violence (by proxy). Take away the state and they'll have to obtain the monopoly on violence some other way. They need the monopoly on violence because without it they cannot set a price on products that people could otherwise just freely take from them.

I've no idea what you might be referring to here. Russia didn't 'send in' the far right agitators. The experts I cited are talking about US support for agitators, US plans to destabilise Ukraine....

The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.

US does not seek to “defeat” [these countries], but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong.

This from George Friedman, director of Stratfor, hardly an axe to grind against America.

But, as I said to @Olivier5, if some bloke off the internet thinks otherwise, then...

Of course, all of this culpability goes away if Ukraine doesn't actually have a powerful far-right movement, the US are once more blameless. Now, where have I heard people pushing that narrative before...?

For the even slower.

A failure to implement peace agreements tends to lead to a lack of agreement about a state of peace.

Ms. Johnstone puts two and two together for the slow ones at the back.

First Mearsheimer...

If you were going to shut down the conflict in Ukraine, you had to implement Minsk II. And Minsk II meant giving the Russian-speaking and the ethnic Russian population in the easternmost part of Ukraine, the Donbas region, a significant amount of autonomy, and you had to make the Russian language an official language of Ukraine.

I think Zelensky found out very quickly that because of the Ukrainian right, it was impossible to implement Minsk II. Therefore even though the French and the Germans, and of course the Russians were very interested in making Minsk II work, because they wanted to shut down the crisis, they couldn't do it. In other words, the Ukrainian right was able to stymie Zelensky on that front.

Then Maté...

In April 2019, Zelensky was elected with an overwhelming 73% of the vote on a promise to turn the tide. In his inaugural address the next month, Zelensky declared that he was "not afraid to lose my own popularity, my ratings," and was "prepared to give up my own position – as long as peace arrives."

But Ukraine's powerful far-right and neo-Nazi militias made clear to Zelensky that reaching peace in the Donbas would have a much higher cost.

"No, he would lose his life," Right Sector co-founder Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh, then the commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, responded one week after Zelensky's inaugural speech. "He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk - if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War."

...finally Stephen Cohen

Zelensky cannot go forward as I’ve explained. I mean, his life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine, he can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back. Maybe that won’t be enough, but unless the White House encourages this diplomacy, Zelensky has no chance of negotiating an end to the war, so the stakes are enormously high.

It's not rocket science.

But of course, if some nobody off of the internet thinks it's nonsense, well...

Thankfully, propositions are not rendered false by your inability to comprehend them.

I don't think you quite caught my meaning — jorndoe

You might want to try writing in entire paragraphs, in furtherance of that objective, perhaps some actual grammar, maybe - dare I say it - some actual syntactic relationship between your sententious quips.

NOS just keeps repeating the same thing again and again. He's not interested in a real discussion or a conversation. You will not change his mind, because that's not what he's here for. And that's perfectly fine. Just don't waste your time sticking around after you say your piece. — Philosophim

Most everyone just repeats the same thing again and again, and you barely ever change anyone's mind by rational argument. NOS is no different there. People simply don't arrive at positions by some kind of logical process and they certainly don't change them by it.

Take a glance through the political threads (even most of the non-political ones) do you see a flurry of mind-changing going on? Think of the regular contributors here. Is anyone going to offer long odds on what they'll have to say on any given topic?

Defiance is an act of solidarity, not a mathematical proof.

It’s not as ludicrous as you make it out to be, I'm afraid. People help the homeless everyday. People organize to protect the environment. Volunteers, churches, philanthropists, charities, still operate despite your panacea. — NOS4A2

Then why have those problems not been solved? There's enough money in the hands of the wealthy to house, feed and clothe everyone. There's sufficient available solutions to the environmental crisis for it to be, at least, patched up. The government is neither preventing, nor even discouraging people from acting. Jeff Bezos could feed most of Africa tomorrow if he so wished. The fact is that charitable efforts are currently below what is required. It's therefore ludicrous to argue that such efforts would be adequate to deal with state-funded management tasks too.

I'm still unsure what any of this has to do with anything. "If you don't like it, just leave" is a fallacy. Why do you keep evoking it, and why should I answer these questions? — NOS4A2

It's your argument, not mine.

"Employment does not need regulating because if you don't like it you can just leave" - your argument, not mine.
"Corporations are not tyrannical because of you don't like their deal, you can just find another" - your argument, not mine
So
"Governments are not forcing anything on anyone because if you don't like it, you can just leave" - exactly the same argument.

the risk of leaving a country, his home, his family, his support networks, is more than enough to convince one to remain in his country. — NOS4A2

Again, why is the risk and difficulty anyone else's problem? Your argument is that the government are forcing you, with threat of violence, to comply. They're not because you can leave. Your argument is simply wrong on the same grounds you want to use to argue corporations are not forcing anyone to comply. Either both are using a kind of force (the difficulty of finding an alternative), or neither are.

If you want to start using the difficulty of the alternative as an argument, then fine, but that then draws most corporations in too. If I, for example, wanted to use alternatives to Black Rock- or Vanguard- owned companies, where would I turn for my insurance, or my banking? If I want an employer who'll give me a three day working week and twice the minimum wage, where do I look?

The corollary of your absurd 'freedom' of employment choice is that people actually freely chose to work in warehouses requiring a a 700 package an hour throughput rate, a 60% risk of serious injury per year's work and of which one former employee said “I would rather go back to a state correctional facility and work for 18 cents an hour than do that job,”

Does that, in any way at all, sound like a job someone chose of their own free, un-forced, will to take?

Are these children doing a job they chose, of their own free will, to do?

I was arguing that they don’t need doing, that they are immoral, that there are voluntary alternatives such as community organization. — NOS4A2

It is absolutely clear that people will not volunteer to deal with common resources, the idea is utterly ludicrous. There are homeless people in every city, people dying from poverty in every country, pollution and habitat destruction on an apocalyptic scale... All of which people are perfectly free to voluntarily solve and yet they do not.

If some pie in the sky Utopian fantasy of a global love-in is all you've got...

You think finding emigration easier than moving jobs is insane, but apparently the idea that Jeff Bezos will, overnight, for no reason at all, decide to spend his money alleviating the plight of the starving in Africa, is sane?

one isn’t compelled, by threat of force, to deal with anyone in the private sphere — NOS4A2

Nor are you compelled by force to deal with anyone from your government. You are free to leave at any time. We've been through this. What threat of force prevents you from leaving your country?

This seems more accurate to me:

X needs doing. Y is the only way to do X. That's a justification for Y. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. That works better.

Taxes need doing. That’s a justification for taxes. Doesn’t compute. — NOS4A2

The form given was... (Although, see )

X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.

...is there some reason you missed out the most important part?

I would not rule against inheritance, and never implied any such thing. — NOS4A2

So, if the Queen inherits England, she legitimately owns England.

A monarch is the head of state, a factory owner is a subject of the state. — NOS4A2

Yep. Because his factory is on the Queen's property. Her property, her rules.

I’ve given reasons why they are not equivalent, all of which were not addressed. — NOS4A2

I did address them. You just ignored it. Your list makes emigration harder than moving job, no other difference is given than the difficulty. If I find emigration easier than moving job, is my boss immoral for changing my contract unfavorably?

Or, put another way, if states made emigration easier, would they be off the hook?

I thought you were going to justify taxation. — NOS4A2

I am. X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.

There are two means by which man can satisfy his needs, through one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, or through robbery and confiscation. The private citizen, whether factory owner or factory worker, engages in the former, the state engages in the latter. — NOS4A2

So you'd rule against inheritance then, which is neither "one’s own labor" nor "the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others". That's a good start, but it doesn't differentiate Queen Elizabeth from most factory owners.

You’re comparing immigration to finding a new job. It’s a false equivalency. — NOS4A2

Just saying it's a false equivalency doesn't make it one by magic. It's harder. That's all you've given me so far. If I find emigration easy but moving jobs hard does that make my employer immoral for changing my contract to terms I don't like?

It doesn’t follow for me that a compulsory tax or compulsory cooperation is required to manage common resources. — NOS4A2

OK. How else?

By and large people come to own a factory by legitimate means, states do not acquire a territory by legitimate means. Factories deal with their employees through legitimate means, utilizing contract and voluntary cooperation, states do not, and utilize force and compulsory cooperation. — NOS4A2

You're just using 'legitimate' here to mean 'means I agree with'. On what grounds are the means by which factory owner come by their factories 'legitimate' which then excludes the means by which, say, Queen Elizabeth came by England?

states ... utilize force and compulsory cooperation. — NOS4A2

They do not. You are free to leave.

I don’t require a passport to leave a job and find another. I don’t need to pass through a border and have my motives questioned if I leave a job and find another. I do not need to sell my property and sever ties with the people I know to change jobs. I do not need to become an immigrant and go through any immigration process to change jobs. I do not need to learn new languages, customs, laws, just to fit in a new job. I do not face deportation if I find a new job. — NOS4A2

You've not answered why the state should care how difficult you find it to emigrate. If you don't like the rules, move. If you find moving onerous, how exactly is that my problem, or the state's problem, or anyone's problem but yours?

If I personally find emigration a breeze, but am terrified of job interviews, do I get to claim corporations are immoral for making move jobs every time they change my employment terms?

I’m not sure I’ve seen your justification for taxation in this thread, or I have forgotten. If you wouldn’t mind reiterating it or linking to it I can provide a response. — NOS4A2

I gave it in the quote - there's a need to manage common resources, experience has shown that in our current hierarchical society people do not do so voluntarily. You agreed with both of those principles. Hence it follows there's a need to manage common resources without relying on spontaneous voluntary action.

One justification among many, but the one whose premises you agreed with.

I don’t think you made any deal with Harold Wilson — NOS4A2

Of course I did, same deal you made when you buy a phone, open a bank account, drive over a toll bridge, get on a train... Not every deal is in the form of a signed contract, not every deal is made with the relevant party's agreement (those involving children, for example).

I don’t think anyone can own a country — NOS4A2

Neither do I, I'm following your logic. If no-one can own a country then I shouldn't have to pay for any property, right? Since no-one can own it? Why do you think no-one can own a country, but people can own a factory?

I have given no group of people or any institution the right to dictate how I conduct myself. — NOS4A2

Yes, you have. You're living in their country and those are the rules. If you don't like those rules, move. How is this any different to employment? Say your boss changes your working hours, you didn't agree to that change, you no longer like the new working hours, so what do you do?

One dictates my behavior by threat and force, the other by agreement. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't you're completely free to leave. They're not using any threat or force to compel you to stay. Of course, if you do stay, then you're agreeing to their rules, one of which is that they can throw you in jail if you break any of the rules. If you don't like that rule, move.

I don’t think a government should make it easier for me, and never expressed anything like that. — NOS4A2

Yet the only counter-argument you offered to the suggestion that countries are no different to corporations is that it's hard to leave. If you're now saying they're under no obligation to make it easier for you to leave, then what remains?

Your argument fails because you cannot invoke any substantive reason why a government should not own a country that doesn't also apply to a corporation owning a utility (or land, or mining rights, or whatever...). Absent of this, it is exactly as legitimate for a country to specify the rules you must abide by to make use of it's land, air, water etc, as it is for a corporation to. If you don't like those rules, move.

I have only said the relationship is immoral, employs compulsory cooperation rather than voluntary cooperation. — NOS4A2

There's no compulsion at all. You're free to leave any time you like.

You didn’t justify taxation. — NOS4A2

With which point do you now disagree?

Deal? With which official did you make a deal with on the date of your birth? — NOS4A2

Whomever the Prime Minister was, Harold Wilson in my case.

I have changed services, changed corporations, and changed countries. One was significantly more difficult and life-altering, taking years to become official and involving much effort — NOS4A2

I don't see how the amount of effort is someone else's problem. Can you explain why the rightful owner of a country should make arrangements to make it easier for you to enter/leave?

zero negotiation — NOS4A2

When was the last time you negotiated on your gas bill? For Christ's sake, you're clutching at straws here. The company says "here's the terms, here's the price - take it or leave it", that's it. You don't get to fucking negotiate the terms and conditions of your utility bill.

It was as if running from one plantation to the next. — NOS4A2

Which is exactly how it feels for someone dissatisfied with all of the available utility companies, for example, or all of the available banks.

The rest were easy. — NOS4A2

Again, explain why the owner of a country should make it easy for you to enter/leave.

Yes, it's more like...

See this dog will bite me any minute
* poke, poke*
...any minute now, you'll see how viscous it is
* kick, poke, slap*
...any minute...
* kick, prod, take bone*
...There! See! It bit me! I told you it was a viscous dog

That's quite a truthful graph. — ssu

Uh huh. So where in that graph is any kind of support at all for the ludicrous claim that America gives a shit about long drawn out wars? Where's the gradual decline caused by the fact that America has been almost permanently at war somewhere for the last 200 years?

"NATO caca" is not really an insult. Rather it's an apt summary for many posts here. — Olivier5

I see, well in that case you can fuck off you fatuous twat - just an apt summary of the situation, mind. Not an insult.

And now the nominal profits can be up, but substract inflation and those winning aren't so big. We finally have the inflation problem and likely it won't go away easily. — ssu

You're right, we should look at real-term profits as well as real-term stock price...



Anyone notice any kind of trend?