You're getting a little hung up on this "great power" thing.

One might almost get the impression you're desperately trying to find something to disagree with, so you can avoid talking substance, just like .

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"?

Or do you also disagree that such a thing is taking place in Ukraine?

Your gas bill suggests otherwise.

Regardless, whether or not you consider Russia is a great power isn't relevant to the point I'm making - a point which you seem to be avoiding.

I think Putin's death would not produce a peace. The conflict in Ukraine represents a genuine geopolitical great power struggle that goes much further than the ambitions of individual heads of state.

I would recommend watching that talk by Mearsheimer. He presents a historical context that goes back to the Bush administration.

The US and the EU are simply willing to admit Ukraine as a member and ally. — Tate

And they have publicly expressed a desire to make it so, and actively taken steps to make that a reality. (See Mearsheimer's talk)

I was talking about negotiations to end the conflict. That is between Russia and Ukraine. — Tate

The United States and European Union are involved in Ukraine, not just politically but also militarily. I don't think you're disputing that.

However, despite the world's largest military and economic power in the world, the United States, being intimately involved in Ukraine, you believe a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia is a realistic solution to this conflict?

He lost me when he argued that Putin doesn't lie. How naïve, or wedged to one's narrative one needs to be to make such a blatantly false statement? Putin told us before Feb 24 that he had no intention to attack Ukraine. He's perfectly capable of lying. — Olivier5

Is it your interpretation that Mearsheimer's theory hinges on whether or not Putin is capable of lying?

I'm not sure why you call it a compromise, but the answer is no. — Tate

It's a compromise because the United States and the European Union obviously want to add Ukraine to their political spheres - something which is unacceptable to Russia.

Since, according to your own words, the US and the EU are unwilling to accept any compromise here, how can you argue Putin is the reason why there are no negotiations?

The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin. — Tate

Since before 2014 the Russian red line has been that Ukraine must stay neutral, independent and demilitarized.

In your view, have the United States and the European Union have been willing to accept this compromise?

What are the forum's thoughts about Ukrainian membership to the European Union, which seems to be inching ever closer?

If Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union while it is still at war with Russia, this would seem to bring war between NATO and Russia closer. Yet, NATO is a defensive alliance and the war in Ukraine is not a basis for invoking Article 5 as long as no NATO countries are directly attacked.

Is Ukraine becoming part of the EU realistic? Will it change anything? How likely is military intervention and thus escalation in Ukraine by NATO or European countries?

Do you agree that the concept of 'currency' is changing?
The total in your bank account is a number that goes down over the month then it gets replenished, if your circumstances allow for such. Paper/metal money is on the wane. — universeness

Paper "money" and metal money are markedly different.

Paper "money" is not real money, but currency. It's a means of exchanging value.

Real money is also a means of exchanging value, but has as one of its key characteristics that it is scarce and difficult to produce. Coins, gold bars, other precious metals, etc.

Paper currency does not check this last box. It is very easy to produce, and so it has been in copious amounts by the Federal Reserve. (see the discussion on inflation)

Since the letting go of the gold standard there's no money underpinning the value of our currency anymore and that has been cause for worry for a long time. The value of our currency is now completely a matter of trust in the institutions of government.

So to answer your question: the concept of currency isn't changing, but currency has taken a different (in my opinion very questionable) role in our economic systems.

Secondly, paper currency might be on the wane, being replaced by digital currency, but both are valueless and problematic in their current role - it doesn't make much difference whether your currency is paper or digital.

Real money on the other hand is not on the wane. In fact, the value of gold has been on the rise for a long time, peaking during times of economic crisis.

In what ways might this cause change as we move forward? — universeness

Our current system is based on whether the public believes in fairy tales, and people are starting to wisen up. Once faith in governmental institutions erodes sufficiently (a process which I think is already started) people will go back to real money. After all, everyone is free to buy gold in order to safeguard their wealth.

What do you think of efforts towards a UBI(Universal Basic Income)? — universeness

I think it's a Trojan horse.

Are you content that your life is so influenced by the amount of money you have access to? — universeness

The things that matter in life can't be bought with money. As long as I have food on my plate and a roof above my head I'm as content as material wealth will make me.

Can you not envisage a different/better/more benevolent system for humans to exist under? — universeness

I could certainly try, but such visions of a better world must always be nuanced by an understanding of the flawed human nature.

Abolishing capitalism would be good, ... — Streetlight

... get money of out politics, ... — Streetlight

This would be a funny joke if I didn't know you were being serious.

Taking away economic power from private individuals and putting it in the hands of government gets "money out of politcs" how?

... rewrite that stupid piece of shit document they call a constitution, ... — Streetlight

And who is going to do that? The politicians that have created this mess? Intellectuals that you happen to like? You, yourself?


Moving on...

... establish a decent fucking healthcare system, ... — Streetlight

... fund the ever living daylights out of public housing, .... — Streetlight

Swell. How are you going to pay for that?

... bring back the corporate income tax rate of the 1940-1950s, ... — Streetlight

... massively raise the capital gains tax, ... — Streetlight

... gut to the point of death funding for the military and for cops, ... — Streetlight

By ruining the country economically, politically and socially, apparently. Interesting approach to fixing things.

All the things that the democrats and republicans are united on opposing. — Streetlight

Gee, I wonder why.

... so and and so on. — Streetlight

I don't even want to know what else you would add to this blueprint of wholescale destruction.

Are you joking, or some kind of closet racist?

Interesting theories, no doubt with a great deal of truth to them.

But I'm not willing to absolve governments just because an alternative theory exists, while they continue to break economy 101. You double the amount of currency in a system, you halve its value.

Is it more complicated than that? Undoubtedly.

Government also failed elsewhere, including in how it mismanaged the covid epidemic, and how it provoked Russia into its illegitimate attack on Ukraine.

Again, the Fed owns about 15% of debt. That fact should give you pause. — Xtrix

I'm sure you have an idea of what kind of money that amounts to, same for the amounts of money that are printed every year. Maybe those number should give you pause?

Not all money printing is undesirable, since it can be used to accomodate a growing economy which relates to your comment.

But instead it has been used to accomodate government spending.

Yes, inflation can be a delicate issue, but this isn't a delicate situation anymore. It's a complete disaster and the cause is obvious.

It's monetary policy of printing billions of dollars causes inflation.

It adopts this monetary policy to accomodate a general fiscal policy of spending too much.

I don't know why you would be asking me for the specifics of that fiscal policy, since it's completely besides the point and you've yet to acknowledge the elephant I just described.

Care to elaborate? — Xtrix

I'm not going to play this game where you ask for details while ignoring the elephant in the room.

I realize I should have specified, but fiscal policy and monetary policy are connected, and intimately so, and both have been disastrous.

How did the United States finance decades of endless war and military projects such as the $800 billion you referred to?

Why, by printing money, of course.

Now, some governments are able to practice restraint, and despite wanting to spend more, they realise that printing money whenever they want will ruin a country in the long-term. The United States government was no such government.

You mean to say you didn't see this coming with the disastrous fiscal policy that the United States and other western countries have been pursuing for years, that people have been warning about for years, decades even?

Everyone knew it was coming, and everyone knows it's failed government fiscal policy at the root of it.

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. [...] Too simple, and assumes rational actors and efficient markets -- neither of which we have. — Xtrix

Indeed, we have markets that are to a great degree controlled by governments, which turn them neither rational nor efficient. It's the governmental monopoly on printing money that's been at the root of this, coupled with ever-growing governmental control.

And of course the government will try to find "alternative" explanations, and insist things are more complicated. It will blame the public, it will blame the cooperations, and now it's blaming Covid and Russia, while it's printing billions of make-believe money thinking it can break the rules of basic economics.

When has the government ever shown a shred of sense and admitted to its disastrous fiscal policy and its eternal desire for control and more spending being at the root of much of this trouble?

Never.

Likely they use the same line of argument as you do, arguing that theories that put the blame on government are "now obsolete and things are more complicated". Please.

Even the Fed acknowledges this. — Xtrix

The Federal Reserve is an absolute failure and a part of the issue. It's completely politicized and unable to fulfill it's primary goal. What a surprise that the Fed "acknowledges Milton Friedman is obsolete" - Friedman argued to abolish that whole rotten mess.

PS: So great is in fact your blind spot that you didn't think to put the primary cause of inflation as an option in your poll.

And the way to handle this, would be higher interest rates. — ssu

You're probably right, but this pill has become a particularly bitter one to swallow, because the raise in interest rates it would require to counteract the current level of inflation will probably be the nail on the coffin of a great many private companies which are already hanging by a thread.

You probably saw how the stock exchanges reacted to even a slightly higher interest, one that doesn't come close to the measures required to repair this mess.

Then again, the longer the politicians keep throwing this hot potatoe around to avoid having to take unpopular but necessary measures, the worse the pain in the end, when the bubble finally bursts.

So what, if that is the result of people's voluntary actions?

There's nothing wrong with destroying the village if all the villagers voluntary want it to be so.

What consequences would that be then? Person A provides arguments for something he believes in, in this case anti-natalism. Person B can the either reject or accept A's arguments and choose voluntarily whether he wishes to live in accordance to A's ideas or not. I have yet to see what is immoral about this state of affairs.

What are we discussing really? — Tzeentch

Basic principles of morality. — baker

Are we, though?

Then what moral actors' actions are we discussing here? Putin's? Biden's? Those of every individual engaged in the war?

That either sounds like it would be overly simplistic or unimaginably complicated.

Inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency, thereby reducing the value of each individual unit of currency.

The only places where currency is created legally is in the printing presses of central banks.

When there is out-of-control inflation, it is because central banks are printing too much money.

Why are they printing too much currency? Because it's an easy, short-term way for governments to get more money to spend on all its hobby projects, and it makes the public carry the cost (inflation is literally a hidden tax).

The solution is lower government spending (after all much of this money printing is the result of the government wanting to spend more than it earns!), and much, much stricter control on government and the central banks, which are currently intermingled to the point that central banks can no longer perform their role as safeguard.

Besides this, the public needs to understand that there is no such thing as free money, and they need to stop demanding it from their governments through the voting process, because this is part of what incentivizes governments to make unaffordable, unrealistic promises that can only be fulfilled through printing money.

But not moral. — schopenhauer1

Just like preaching against procreating —> species extinction (auto-genocide). — 180 Proof

Without getting into desirability, mankind going extinct as a result of individuals' voluntary choice not to procreate is not immoral.

My point is these are all very different questions to ask, the possible answers to which are all being hopelessly conflated.

We can't have a debate if one person is discussing ethics, another is discussing law and yet another is discussing practical steps to get out of this mess, and each engages with each other's arguments from entirely different view points.

Lumping everything together into one abomination of anger in text certainly isn't helping to turn these discussions into something productive.

This discussion needs some direction.

What are we discussing really?

Who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys'?

What international law says about this?

What the best courses of action are for both sides?

What are the most likely outcomes?

Ethical principles?

This thread is an unconstructive mess.

Russia is simply redistributing wealth through force according to its ideas of what belongs to whom.

Given this forum's political leanings one might expect a lot more understanding for this course of action.

If we presuppose that hypocrisy (expressing beliefs, but not enacting them, implying underlying motives) is an ethical fallacy, "an eye for an eye" and "the ends justify the means" are ethical fallacies.

That might sound fairly basic, but these concepts are regularly used under pretenses of morality.

You seem to be arguing that because I disagree with Nazism then when I claim that someone should be fired for being a Nazi then I am claiming that someone should be fired because I disagree with them. — Michael

And isn't that exactly what's happening? You disagree with someone's views and therefore seek to get them fired?

Seems like a perfectly sound depiction of what you told me.

I don't understand this. Gender identity is an identity, and so the reality of their gender is their identity. — Michael

I am not looking to get into a discussion about transgenderism.

My point is that expressing a view about the nature of reality is not an insult, even if someone is insulted by it. You have views on a subject, and someone else may have a different view. If the discussion alone is reason to take offense then one is perhaps too fragile and should think twice before partaking in public discourse.

And this is where we disagree. I don't think liberalism requires that morally reprehensible speech be tolerated. As I alluded to before, one can be a liberal in one area but not another. I'm a liberal with respect to marriage if I support interracial and same-sex marriage. I'm a liberal with respect to drugs if I support drug legalisation. I'm a liberal with respect to the market economy if I oppose regulations. I don't see a problem with someone referring to themselves as a liberal if they are a liberal in many areas, even if they're not a liberal in one or two others. — Michael

Freedom of speech is a liberal pillar, and a fundamental human right as enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

A liberal that's against freedom of speech is basically missing the entire point. We could have a page-long discussion about why freedom of speech is fundamental - the whole idea that free exchange of ideas counteracts extremism, etc. but I don't think more discussion would get us much further.

I thank you for the discussion as it was heated but fair. :pray:

I'll read your response if you choose to reply.

If you say "we have the right to say what we like" should I interpret that as "we have the right to do whatever I believe we should be able to do?" — Michael

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It's not me saying you should have a right to freedom of speech. It's mankind as a whole deciding that freedom of speech belongs to a list of things governments should uphold in order to guarantee a baseline of humanity.

In that list are also things like "legitimate governments shall not commit genocides", and that should probably tell you something.

So why would someone saying "transgender men aren't men" be considered a civil way of expressing one's belief when it purposefully insults transgender men? — Michael

Because it's not an insult, regardless of how one may interpret it.

Saying the world is round may offend a flat earther. It doesn't make it an insult.

I guess for transgenderism specifically it's unfortunate their stake in reality is so closely related to their identity, to the point of which any discussion about that reality becomes an insult to them.

So you're saying that I shouldn't lobby a business to convince them to fire their employee for being a racist? That my free speech is morally reprehensible? I don't quite understand how you balance this apparent contradiction in your position. — Michael

People may use their freedom to do things I find morally reprehensible.

And I'm fine with that, assuming it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others or break the law.

That's the essence of liberalism you see.

There's a meaningful difference between "people who promote Nazi ideology should be fired" and "people who disagree with me should be fired". — Michael

What are nazis other than individuals whose views you strongly disagree with?

Assuming everyone in the example of moving within the bounds of the law I disagree there's a meaningful difference, if there's even a difference at all other than your subjective judgement about what are acceptable thoughts to have and views to hold.

Again, I disagree that individuals are able to make such distinctions to the extent that they should be given power over other people's fundamental rights.

Expressing one's beliefs in a "civil manner" is about more than just tone but also about content. — Michael

I disagree.

Civil means in a non-disruptive way, so as a part of a normal discussion. And I believe in such a setting every idea should be able to be discussed, no matter how reprehensible I may find it.

Telling my boss calmly and with a smile that I think he's a "fucking nigger" doesn't make me civil, ... — Michael

Why would purposefully insulting someone be considered a civil way to express one's beliefs?

So what exact examples do you have in mind? — Michael

If one holds the political opinion that some views should not be able to be freely expressed, one desires for their government to enforce limitation on freedom of speech, which means it has to threaten people into not expressing those views. That's how governments function.

One expresses this desire by voting, activism, etc.

However much one may be convinced of the soundness of their views, it doesn't change the nature of how governments function and how one attempts to use it to impose those views on others.

Because boycotting some business and posting condemnations on Twitter because their CEO is a racist (which is the sort of thing that happens nowadays) isn't the same as wanting the government to force people to behave a certain way. — Michael

No, in a sense it's way worse, because you're going out of your way to try and exact revenge and punishment upon people for behaviors that are perfectly legal, even enshrined as fundamental rights in the constitution and human rights legislation.

I think that's morally reprehensible.

If you were to try and enact your changes by means of the democratic process, at least it would have some semblance of legitimacy.

EDIT: Discrimination by this hypothetical CEO would be against the law, at which point one only needs to provide evidence for this crime for the system to do its job and uphold the law.

Well I never expressed that idea so I don't understand the relevance of this comment. — Michael

You did.

Didn't you want to lobby against people who have neonazi thoughts in their head to get them fired from their jobs?

That's actually even worse, since it implies the law isn't enough to exact the type of revenge you're after.

They don't have to. — Michael

Sorry, unrestricted freedom of speech. — Michael

If one is so afraid of words that one believes speech should be restricted according to one's fancies, one is, again, not a liberal.

And before you come with caricatures about yelling fire in a theatre: freedom of speech is about being able to express one's genuinely held beliefs in a civil manner, and I believe there should be no restriction on that, nor that any individual is able to impose reasonable restrictions on that.

don't know what you mean by "imposing a view on everyone else through government force" ... — Michael

Political opinions are opinions about what one believes governments should force other people to do.

When you say "I believe xyz" in relation to a political opinion, what you're saying is "I want my government to force people to act more in accordance to xyz".

It's good that we're discussing this, because apparently the nature of what government is is not clear.

I was referring to the exchange where you referred to my views as being hypocritical. — Michael

The idea that people should be free only if it suits one's opinions is certainly a hypocritical idea.

Well, there hasn't been another Hitler so maybe it has stopped it. We might not have stamped out Nazi ideology entirely but by censoring and ostracising those who promote it we're making a good effort to push it mostly into the fringe, which is a good thing. — Michael

You give yourself too much credit. I think people looking at history and deciding for themselves that nazism is probably not the road we want to go down did a lot more to ensure nazism moved to the fringes. Ostracising and censorship probably did very little.

What it did do is create the type of climate in which extreme ideologies take root. Perhaps not nazi ideologies, but they weren't the only ones that were problematic.

But such an assumption doesn't then mean that there's never a good reason to restrict freedom. — Michael

True. Yet at the same time a liberal must recognize there are certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, that are fundamental, a human right and shouldn't be infringed upon. And that's for several good reasons, one of which being that a climate of ostracization and censorship breeds polarisation and extremism, instead of combatting it.

This is a better account of liberalism than your account that somehow entails that liberals must support unrestricted freedoms. — Michael

I never claimed as much.

But all this is mostly irrelevant. The simple, everyday fact is that "liberal" is the term adopted by those people who support things like interracial and same-sex marriage, transgender rights, legalisation, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of the term "liberal", why not actually address the merits of the specific policies they either support or oppose? — Michael

Because as I argued before, the term "liberal" was hijacked by unsavory individuals who in fact aren't liberal at all - much the opposite. They behave like little tyrants that believe their view is best and that it should be imposed on every one else through government force. They're the antithesis to liberalism.

Which is why I said "[o]r maybe trying to label me as being any one thing is futile. Better to just address the individual views I hold rather than fit me into a specific box." — Michael

I'm not trying to fit you in a box. We are discussing what liberalism is.

Yes, and trying to prevent things like the resurgence of Nazism is an inevitable interference. — Michael

Imposing one's views on others under the guise of fighting nazis.

Come on.

Even if you genuinely believe that, your choice of censorship and ostracization are extremely poor ones, and haven't done anything to stop it over the course of nearly a century.

Liberalism is a philosophy that starts from a premise that political authority and law must be justified. If citizens are obliged to exercise self-restraint, and especially if they are obliged to defer to someone else’s authority, there must be a reason why. Restrictions on liberty must be justified.

This is about accountability, and that certainly is a part of what liberalism considers legitimate governance.

This description leaves the philosophical fundation of liberalism unaddressed; why must power be kept in check and constantly demanded to account for its actions?

Because man and by extension the governments they control can only make decisions based on highly subejctive, flawed ideas of reality, making man and by extension governments extremely poor arbiters of reasonableness on behalf of others.

Within the ideas of liberalism, government is a necessary evil and not a means to an end.

A liberal understands that when people are free, they will sometimes use that freedom to do things we don't like. And that's the price of freedom. Freedom of speech means sometimes people will have reprehensible ideas. So what? As long as they're not infringing upon people's fundamental rights they can entertain all the ideas they want.

It's kind of obvious that what you're actually doing is being unable to cope with the fact people are having a discussion without you, about topics you find threatening.

No, I want acceptable things to be allowed and unacceptable things to be disallowed. That principle likely drives every political position: liberal, conservative, authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, etc. — Michael

That's not a principle that drives liberalism.

The principle that drives liberalism is the idea that individuals and governments are inherently unfit to be arbiters of what is acceptable and what isn't on the behalf of others. (One needs only a brief glance at human history to see where this idea came from.)

They should therefore be kept from interfering in each other's affairs as much as possible.

In an imperfect world inferference obviously is inevitable sometimes, but if your first instinct is to want to interfere, then you're not a liberal.

If you fancy yourself the chosen arbiter of right and wrong, you're not a liberal.

Most of your ideas imply you want to be a proponent to individual freedom and expression. However, when you are met with ideas you don't like, you backpeddle.

"... and freedom for all, but only if I agree with you."

Such is not freedom, and such is not liberalism.

Wanting to prosecute people for thoughts in their head is about as far from liberalism as one can get.

I might believe that interracial and same-sex marriage should be allowed, that transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, that some drugs like marijuana should be legal to buy, and that we should lobby companies to fire their employees for being neo-Nazis. Am I liberal/anti-authoritarian because of the first few views, or am I a conservative or authoritarian because of the last view? — Michael

You'd be neither. You'd be applying the principles your views are based on inconsistently, you'd be cherry-picking essentially. It'd be confused and hypocritcal.

Introducing dishonesty and more censorship would not strengthen a system. It would weaken it. Didn't we agree earlier that censorship is a sign of weakness, that a set of ideas need to be protected from criticism to avoid falling apart?

I suggest we base our views on ideas that do not need protection from criticism.

A liberal would certainly not choose censorship, since that betrays everything liberalism stands for.

And I don't think conservative and liberal are opposites in the way you suggest. An authoritarian would be opposed to open debate, and that's what modern "liberalism" seems to be turning into.