Ukraine Crisis

[henry quirk]

I mean "owning yourself" means being responsible for your own decisions instead of following the crowd, or obeying your owner's decisions.

Well, sure. That's man's natural bent, to self-direct, to self-rely, to be self-responsible. The problem is some men aren't content to rule themselves alone.

There are always a few people who rule others. The thing is to try to make sure the best rulers get to rule.

Well, there's always gonna be folks who want to rule, sure. But, mebbe, instead of pickin' (when allowed) the lesser of evils, mebbe, instead, we ought to tell 'em to get bent cuz we don't need rulers.

You understand you, me, him, her, none of us need to be ruled, right?

[iambiguous]

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN at the NYT

'...with Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, his indiscriminate crushing of its cities and mass killings of Ukrainian civilians, he went from “bad boy” to “war criminal.” And when the leader of Russia — a country that spans 11 time zones, with vast oil, gas and mineral resources and more nuclear warheads than anyone else — is a war criminal and must be henceforth treated as a pariah, the world as we’ve known it is profoundly changed. Nothing can work the same.'

And now each of us one by one has to calculate where we might end up in that world...up to and including nuclear war.

Then this part:

'How do we isolate and try to weaken a country so big and so powerful, knowing that it could be more dangerous if it disintegrates than if it’s strong?

'The answer is that we don’t know. Which is another way of saying that we are entering a period of geopolitical and geoeconomic uncertainty the likes of which we have not known since 1989 — and possibly 1939.'

The irony of recognizing that Russia without Putin -- a disintegrating Russia with 6,000 nuclear bombs -- may in fact become far more dangerous than the one now with Putin.

'And it promises only to get worse before it gets better, because Putin is now like a cornered animal. He not only got so much wrong in his Ukraine invasion; he produced the opposite of so much he was aiming to achieve, making him desperate for any war achievement, at any price, that can obscure this fact.'

Stay tuned?

[Belinda]

Well, sure. That's man's natural bent, to self-direct, to self-rely, to be self-responsible. The problem is some men aren't content to rule themselves alone.

There are always a few people who rule others. The thing is to try to make sure the best rulers get to rule.

Well, there's always gonna be folks who want to rule, sure. But, mebbe, instead of pickin' (when allowed) the lesser of evils, mebbe, instead, we ought to tell 'em to get bent cuz we don't need rulers.

You understand you, me, him, her, none of us need to be ruled, right?

It's matter of fact that no known society, including a family of hunter gatherers, or a modern family of American libertarians, has not had a ruler or a ruling elite.

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom is always going to have to be fought for.

[henry quirk]

It's matter of fact that no known society, including a family of hunter gatherers, or a modern family of American libertarians, has not had a ruler or a ruling elite.

Really? Even among libertarians there are rulers and elites? Hierarchies and divisions of labor, sure, but flat-out rulers and elites?

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom is always going to have to be fought for.

Obviously, with all those libertarian tyrants around.

[Sculptor]

There are always a few people who rule others. The thing is to try to make sure the best rulers get to rule.

Well, there's always gonna be folks who want to rule, sure. But, mebbe, instead of pickin' (when allowed) the lesser of evils, mebbe, instead, we ought to tell 'em to get bent cuz we don't need rulers.

You understand you, me, him, her, none of us need to be ruled, right?

It's matter of fact that no known society, including a family of hunter gatherers, or a modern family of American libertarians, has not had a ruler or a ruling elite.

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom is always going to have to be fought for.

Obviously you've not heard of acephalic societies, or horizontal hierarchies.

[RCSaunders]

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom is always going to have to be fought for.

That's just a good excuse for belligerence and love of conflict.

Fighting never won anything and nothing of value has ever been produced by fighting. As a last resort, defence may require physical force, but to achieve anything of value in this world, it must be produced and earned by hard work, not taken from someone else you fight for it.

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom, like everything else of value in this world, must be earned and produced by one's own. Only those individuals willing to do that work can ever be free. No one has a claim on anything they have not produced or earned by their own effort, not life, not property, and not freedom.

One can be free if they choose to make themselves free, but going through life viewing others as potential enemies and threats to one's freedom they are going to have to fight precludes the possibility of true freedom or benevolent relationships with others.

[henry quirk]

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom is always going to have to be fought for.

That's just a good excuse for belligerence and love of conflict.

Fighting never won anything and nothing of value has ever been produced by fighting. As a last resort, defence may require physical force, but to achieve anything of value in this world, it must be produced and earned by hard work, not taken from someone else you fight for it.

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom, like everything else of value in this world, must be earned and produced by one's own. Only those individuals willing to do that work can ever be free. No one has a claim on anything they have not produced or earned by their own effort, not life, not property, and not freedom.

One can be free if they choose to make themselves free, but going through life viewing others as potential enemies and threats to one's freedom they are going to have to fight precludes the possibility of true freedom or benevolent relationships with others.

Tell it to Belinda: she said it, not me.

[RCSaunders]

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom is always going to have to be fought for.

That's just a good excuse for belligerence and love of conflict.

Fighting never won anything and nothing of value has ever been produced by fighting. As a last resort, defence may require physical force, but to achieve anything of value in this world, it must be produced and earned by hard work, not taken from someone else you fight for it.

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom, like everything else of value in this world, must be earned and produced by one's own. Only those individuals willing to do that work can ever be free. No one has a claim on anything they have not produced or earned by their own effort, not life, not property, and not freedom.

One can be free if they choose to make themselves free, but going through life viewing others as potential enemies and threats to one's freedom they are going to have to fight precludes the possibility of true freedom or benevolent relationships with others.

Tell it to Belinda: she said it, not me.

OK, then. Belligerent Belinda, look here!

[Belinda]

Well, sure. That's man's natural bent, to self-direct, to self-rely, to be self-responsible. The problem is some men aren't content to rule themselves alone.

There are always a few people who rule others. The thing is to try to make sure the best rulers get to rule.

Well, there's always gonna be folks who want to rule, sure. But, mebbe, instead of pickin' (when allowed) the lesser of evils, mebbe, instead, we ought to tell 'em to get bent cuz we don't need rulers.

You understand you, me, him, her, none of us need to be ruled, right?

Too many cooks spoil the broth. That means there have to be agreed rules so people cooperate, even when they are sharing a bathroom or a kitchen sink.

[Belinda]

That's just a good excuse for belligerence and love of conflict.

Fighting never won anything and nothing of value has ever been produced by fighting. As a last resort, defence may require physical force, but to achieve anything of value in this world, it must be produced and earned by hard work, not taken from someone else you fight for it.

There is no short cut to freedom. Freedom, like everything else of value in this world, must be earned and produced by one's own. Only those individuals willing to do that work can ever be free. No one has a claim on anything they have not produced or earned by their own effort, not life, not property, and not freedom.

One can be free if they choose to make themselves free, but going through life viewing others as potential enemies and threats to one's freedom they are going to have to fight precludes the possibility of true freedom or benevolent relationships with others.

Tell it to Belinda: she said it, not me.

OK, then. Belligerent Belinda, look here!

When I said "fought for" I did not mean only violence between persons I meant also any great expenditure of energy and considered risks in the name of truth and justice. Yes- men who lack the will power to think for themselves or are too cowardly to do so never lit the way to freedom and progress.

[henry quirk]

Too many cooks spoil the broth. That means there have to be agreed rules so people cooperate, even when they are sharing a bathroom or a kitchen sink.

Sure, but do you need a ruler or just a dispassionate arbiter?

I would argue, have argued, it's not a ruler or legislators we need but, where there can be no solution, only arbiters.

Rulers, aside from the whole power corrupts thing, are one-size-fits-all types. Arbitration concerns itself only with the matter at hand, with determination applicable only to the matter, and the players, at hand.

Me: I'd much rather take my case to the court of last resort and know, win or lose, the ruling applies only to me and my opponent. Takin' my problem to my local legislator can lead to legislation applicable to all, which is kinda overkill.

[RCSaunders]

Tell it to Belinda: she said it, not me.

OK, then. Belligerent Belinda, look here!

When I said "fought for" I did not mean only violence between persons I meant also any great expenditure of energy and considered risks in the name of truth and justice. Yes- men who lack the will power to think for themselves or are too cowardly to do so never lit the way to freedom and progress.

OK, but, "fought," usually implies conflict, and your description sounds more like a view of some social/political view, as though freedom was some kind of social state or condition (which is what most people think). There is not now and never will be a free society so long as there are governments and I'm quite certain there will always be governments. True freedom can only exist for those individuals who free themselves from governments.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

OK, then. Belligerent Belinda, look here!

When I said "fought for" I did not mean only violence between persons I meant also any great expenditure of energy and considered risks in the name of truth and justice. Yes- men who lack the will power to think for themselves or are too cowardly to do so never lit the way to freedom and progress.

OK, but, "fought," usually implies conflict, and your description sounds more like a view of some social/political view, as though freedom was some kind of social state or condition (which is what most people think). There is not now and never will be a free society so long as there are governments and I'm quite certain there will always be governments. True freedom can only exist for those individuals who free themselves from governments.

That's nonsense. Good govts. are what GIVE us freedom. The freedom to not starve. The freedom to go about our business. The freedom to enjoy our children and know that they have a good chance of surviving into adulthood. The freedom of knowing we will be able to get the help we need when we get sick. You seem to forget that people are arseholes. What you are advocating for is jungle law. Humans aren't clones of each other. There are ALWAYS going to be bullies who crave power over others, with plenty of willing followers who crave a big daddy figure telling them what to do. Humans are NEVER going to leave each other alone. How do you propose to change human nature? Your position is very naive and immature.

[RCSaunders]

When I said "fought for" I did not mean only violence between persons I meant also any great expenditure of energy and considered risks in the name of truth and justice. Yes- men who lack the will power to think for themselves or are too cowardly to do so never lit the way to freedom and progress.

OK, but, "fought," usually implies conflict, and your description sounds more like a view of some social/political view, as though freedom was some kind of social state or condition (which is what most people think). There is not now and never will be a free society so long as there are governments and I'm quite certain there will always be governments. True freedom can only exist for those individuals who free themselves from governments.

That's nonsense. Good govts. are what GIVE us freedom. The freedom to not starve. The freedom to go about our business. The freedom to enjoy our children and know that they have a good chance of surviving into adulthood. The freedom of knowing we will be able to get the help we need when we get sick. You seem to forget that people are arseholes. What you are advocating for is jungle law. Humans aren't clones of each other. There are ALWAYS going to be bullies who crave power over others, with plenty of willing followers who crave a big daddy figure telling them what to do. Humans are NEVER going to leave each other alone. How do you propose to change human nature? Your position is very naive and immature.

No doubt, but I can assure you I very much prefer my naive immature freedom than I would being a sophisticated slave of someone else's government. I don't mind if you want a government and have no interest in changing how anyone else choose to live their life. I'll never interfere in anyone else's life and never be part of any relationship with anyone that is not voluntarily chosen by every participant for their own benefit.

I would rather die than have to depend on someone else to feed me, provide my health care, educate my children or keep me safe from every possible threat and danger because the price of those things is my freedom, which I refuse to live without. To be without freedom, for me, is not living, and not knowing I am fully competent to live my life successfully by my own initiative and productive effort, having to depend on others for any aspect of my life I could not trade some service or product I produced for, would not be a life worth living. If I cannot produce it, trade for it, or buy it, whatever it is, I would rather live without or die than gain it any other way.

But I do not believe most people could want that kind of life. It's very hard, very risky, fraught with difficulties and temptations, though the rewards are the greatest possible in life. I think most people prefer safety, security, and a trouble-free life, which is what most people mean by freedom. It's not freedom to live as one chooses and be the best human being they can be most want, but the very opposite, freedom from responsibility for their own choices and lives which they gladly turn over to their governments which promise them all the good things you alluded to like food, and jobs, safety and education for their children, and protection from every threat and danger, all provided by the state.

If that is what people want, if it's what you want, I have no objection to you seeking it and working for it. I'm not anti-anything, I'm just pro individual freedom for those who truly want it and are willing to pay the price for it. They won't ever bother you and you probably won't ever personally even know any, but if you do, they are not your, or anyone's, enemy, because they want nothing from anyone else.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

OK, but, "fought," usually implies conflict, and your description sounds more like a view of some social/political view, as though freedom was some kind of social state or condition (which is what most people think). There is not now and never will be a free society so long as there are governments and I'm quite certain there will always be governments. True freedom can only exist for those individuals who free themselves from governments.

That's nonsense. Good govts. are what GIVE us freedom. The freedom to not starve. The freedom to go about our business. The freedom to enjoy our children and know that they have a good chance of surviving into adulthood. The freedom of knowing we will be able to get the help we need when we get sick. You seem to forget that people are arseholes. What you are advocating for is jungle law. Humans aren't clones of each other. There are ALWAYS going to be bullies who crave power over others, with plenty of willing followers who crave a big daddy figure telling them what to do. Humans are NEVER going to leave each other alone. How do you propose to change human nature? Your position is very naive and immature.

No doubt, but I can assure you I very much prefer my naive immature freedom than I would being a sophisticated slave of someone else's government. I don't mind if you want a government and have no interest in changing how anyone else choose to live their life. I'll never interfere in anyone else's life and never be part of any relationship with anyone that is not voluntarily chosen by every participant for their own benefit.

I would rather die than have to depend on someone else to feed me, provide my health care, educate my children or keep me safe from every possible threat and danger because the price of those things is my freedom, which I refuse to live without. To be without freedom, for me, is not living, and not knowing I am fully competent to live my life successfully by my own initiative and productive effort, having to depend on others for any aspect of my life I could not trade some service or product I produced for, would not be a life worth living. If I cannot produce it, trade for it, or buy it, whatever it is, I would rather live without or die than gain it any other way.

But I do not believe most people could want that kind of life. It's very hard, very risky, fraught with difficulties and temptations, though the rewards are the greatest possible in life. I think most people prefer safety, security, and a trouble-free life, which is what most people mean by freedom. It's not freedom to live as one chooses and be the best human being they can be most want, but the very opposite, freedom from responsibility for their own choices and lives which they gladly turn over to their governments which promise them all the good things you alluded to like food, and jobs, safety and education for their children, and protection from every threat and danger, all provided by the state.

If that is what people want, if it's what you want, I have no objection to you seeking it and working for it. I'm not anti-anything, I'm just pro individual freedom for those who truly want it and are willing to pay the price for it. They won't ever bother you and you probably won't ever personally even know any, but if you do, they are not your, or anyone's, enemy, because they want nothing from anyone else.

Go back to the jungle then. 'nuf said.