Ukraine Crisis

[Belinda]

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.

Your discussion of arbitration strikes a chord with me, so I agree with that arbitration is best. Democracy happens to be the best mechanism for arbitration.

If 'arbitration' is practical solutions to practical problems and has no time for religions and ideologies I support arbitration.

[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.

Your discussion of arbitration strikes a chord with me, so I agree with that arbitration is best. *Democracy happens to be the best mechanism for arbitration.

If 'arbitration' is practical solutions to practical problems and has no time for religions and ideologies I support arbitration.

*Democracy isn't arbitration. It's nuthin' more than the majority directin' the minority. In a democracy of 1 million -- 600,000 wolves and 400,000 sheep -- the outcome of a vote on what to have for dinner results in? Population reduction.

Democracy is no better when moderated by the addition of representatives and legislators. The power of the majority has simply been transferred to a few who then call the shots for everyone.

Arbitration, as I say, works when you and I contend over a matter, can not resolve it on our own, and take our individual claims to the court of last resort. It's our problem, not the greater populations's. Why should they be burdened with it? Why shouid they have a say in it?

Here's an example...

Bubba and me, we've gone back & forth and round & round about bazookas. I say I have the right to property, any property I can fairly transact for or create for myself. Bubba sez bazookas are too dangerous for folks to have. This is an insoluble problem for us. Neither will budge.

Arbitration means we take our problem to the court of last resort. We make our claims. Whatever the ruling, it's applicable to bubba and me alone. If Joe and Stan, down the road, find themselves in a similar bind -- Joe has a revolver, Stan sez revolvers are too dangerous for folks to own -- they can take their problem to the court for resolution. And, again, no matter the ruling, it applies to them and only them. The dispute between bubba and me can stand as precedent, but ought not be taken as the one-size-fits-all solution to every dispute over firearms.

Of course for arbitration to work there needs to be a principle undergirdin' it; a common ethic applicable to all.

I suggest a simple codification of what everyone already knows can suffice...

A person belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his; his life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Now, yeah, it's easier to apply a one-size-fits-all solution, but it is right? All disputes are founded in some way in one person's claim against another, and all involve life, liberty, and/or property. The harder but right solution is to address contention as the individual matter it is, one important to those in the courtroom and perhaps unimportant to those outside it.

I can, and should (considering the thread), relate all this to the potentially apocalyptic kerfluffe between Russia and Ukraine (and it is applicable), but I'll let you digest this post first and see how it sits with you (or anyone).

[RCSaunders]

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.

You just cannot resist telling others what to do, can you? It's OK with me, but don't you have a life of your own to live? I don't care what you choose to believe, think, and do, why do you care what I do?

[promethean75]

Hey uh, guys... see that big ass thing coming up the road there? Yeah that's a tank. That's also what's making the loud sound you're hearing, btw. So if you guys could go ahead and get the fuck out of there, that would be... ohp, too late.

https://www.kaotic.com/video/93451d0d_20220411081457_t

[promethean75]

Oh thank God there's a Texan on the scene to help the noble Russians liberate the Ukrainians from their evil Nazi government.

And I quote:

"These guys are gonna save and liberate all the good people in Ukraine... and the bad people... foom, kick their ass."

https://www.kaotic.com/video/1de0d06f_20220303063505_t

[Belinda]

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.

Your discussion of arbitration strikes a chord with me, so I agree with that arbitration is best. *Democracy happens to be the best mechanism for arbitration.

If 'arbitration' is practical solutions to practical problems and has no time for religions and ideologies I support arbitration.

*Democracy isn't arbitration. It's nuthin' more than the majority directin' the minority. In a democracy of 1 million -- 600,000 wolves and 400,000 sheep -- the outcome of a vote on what to have for dinner results in? Population reduction.

Democracy is no better when moderated by the addition of representatives and legislators. The power of the majority has simply been transferred to a few who then call the shots for everyone.

Arbitration, as I say, works when you and I contend over a matter, can not resolve it on our own, and take our individual claims to the court of last resort. It's our problem, not the greater populations's. Why should they be burdened with it? Why shouid they have a say in it?

Here's an example...

Bubba and me, we've gone back & forth and round & round about bazookas. I say I have the right to property, any property I can fairly transact for or create for myself. Bubba sez bazookas are too dangerous for folks to have. This is an insoluble problem for us. Neither will budge.

Arbitration means we take our problem to the court of last resort. We make our claims. Whatever the ruling, it's applicable to bubba and me alone. If Joe and Stan, down the road, find themselves in a similar bind -- Joe has a revolver, Stan sez revolvers are too dangerous for folks to own -- they can take their problem to the court for resolution. And, again, no matter the ruling, it applies to them and only them. The dispute between bubba and me can stand as precedent, but ought not be taken as the one-size-fits-all solution to every dispute over firearms.

Of course for arbitration to work there needs to be a principle undergirdin' it; a common ethic applicable to all.

I suggest a simple codification of what everyone already knows can suffice...

A person belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his; his life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Now, yeah, it's easier to apply a one-size-fits-all solution, but it is right? All disputes are founded in some way in one person's claim against another, and all involve life, liberty, and/or property. The harder but right solution is to address contention as the individual matter it is, one important to those in the courtroom and perhaps unimportant to those outside it.

I can, and should (considering the thread), relate all this to the potentially apocalyptic kerfluffe between Russia and Ukraine (and it is applicable), but I'll let you digest this post first and see how it sits with you (or anyone).

I said democracy is a way to arbitrate. There is a lot wrong with democracy as you explained, but the alternative to democracy is even worse.

[henry quirk]

I said democracy is a way to arbitrate.There is a lot wrong with democracy as you explained, but *the alternative to democracy is even worse.

*Which alternative? There's more than one

[Belinda]

I said democracy is a way to arbitrate.There is a lot wrong with democracy as you explained, but *the alternative to democracy is even worse.

*Which alternative? There's more than one

There is little difference between a communist demagogue and a fascist demagogue.

[henry quirk]

I said democracy is a way to arbitrate.There is a lot wrong with democracy as you explained, but *the alternative to democracy is even worse.

*Which alternative? There's more than one

There is little difference between a communist demagogue and a fascist demagogue.

So, in your mind, it's the Kingfish or the minnows. There's no other other option for self-governance. Pick one, you say: tyranny by one or tyranny by many. There's nuthin' else.

[Belinda]

*Which alternative? There's more than one

There is little difference between a communist demagogue and a fascist demagogue.

So, in your mind, it's the Kingfish or the minnows. There's no other other option for self-governance. Pick one, you say: tyranny by one or tyranny by many. There's nuthin' else.

Your choose emotive language for your summing up but the gist of what you say is true. I'd call it a choice between pluralism and elitism. US libertarians are so enthralled they won't know what has hit them when the Republican elite manages the US.

[henry quirk]

B,

I'd call it a choice between pluralism and elitism.

What's the difference between rule by the many and rule by the few or one?

Seems to me: a leash is a leash no matter how many or few hands are tuggin' on it.

US libertarians are so enthralled

By what or whom?

And which libertarians?

[promethean75]

We disciples of Stirner believe that all concepts of 'rule' are ideological constructs developed in the idealistic stage of our lives. Well here just read this:

"In the first realistic stage, children are restricted by external material forces. Upon reaching the stage of youth, they begin to learn how to overcome these restrictions by what Stirner calls the "self-discovery of mind". However, in the idealistic stage, a youth now becomes enslaved by internal forces such as conscience, reason and other "spooks" or "fixed ideas" of the mind (including religion, nationalism and other ideologies)"

Okay. So. What we understand the word 'rule' and it's cognates to mean, involves and requires us to have already constructed a series of conceptual spooks... like 'rights', 'the state', 'government'. All such contracts and agreements regarding such things exist only because people enter into them. And people need not enter into them. They can, and they usually do, but they ain't gotta. Normally, tho, their hedonic calculus is much better satisfied if they live among and share/exchange material goods with other egoists. Which you are and don't kid yourself.

'Ruling' is just a behavior exhibited by an egoist who has the power to appropriate and/or control people and property. There is no 'right' here, and there is no 'not right' here, either. There are no 'rights' essentially. No platonic idea of 'right' that we discover if we are really smaht philosophers.

He whom has the power to take or defend something has a 'right' to it. That's as far as a discussion can go about that.

[promethean75]

Вот дерьмо! P just warned the U.S. that it betta stop supplying arms to Ukraine.

Yeah? Whaddya gonna dooo about it, huh?

Seriously I think Russia and china would win.

[iambiguous]

From NYT:

'WASHINGTON — Russia has sent a series of warnings to the Biden administration, including a formal diplomatic protest this week, demanding that it halt shipment of advanced weapons to Ukraine that could strike into Russian territory, or risk unspecified “unpredictable consequences.”'

What's a president to do? He wants to aid and abet Ukraine, but not to the point where those unpredictable consequences become truly horrific.

What should he do?

And what would you do?

Me, in not believing in immortality on the other side, and living just 35 miles from Washington D.C., almost certainly a target for Putin's nukes, and recognizing the very nature of realpolitik in the world today, I'd let Russia have Ukraine. And, in fact, all of the other breakaway states that once formed the USSR.

Unlike with Hitler, here and now, Putin does not seem intent on "taking over the world". He just wants all the oil and other natural resources from the states that got away.

And if that's what stands between me and a nuclear war that will blow me away, I've got to be realistic and accept the brute facticity of living in a No God world.

[promethean75]

Well now wait a minute. when you ask 'what would you do', do you mean what would I do as me, or as the president? If the latter - and I assume this would be true for you, as well - then I wouldn't be just some guy living within a few miles of Washington. I'd be the prez of the U.S., and you know how protected those guys are. Prolly got an orbiting space station or two that the prez would be flown to. Or maybe a few bases on the moon. in the moon, even.

So you see the problem changes... or I should say the original problem is a non-problem.

If you, as prez, didn't let Russia have Ukraine and kept sending arms, you'd still not be blown up by a nuke. So there's no prob there. You'd not be hanging out at the white house during a nuclear strike. You'd be forty thousand feet up in air force one.

On the other hand, if one were an ordinary guy who lived a few miles from the Washington, what would it matter what you thought? You'll still get blowed up by a nuke no matter who's side you were on. Your support of Russia or lack thereof would be entirely inconsequential.

And if it were consequential, if you were someone like the prez or a general or somebody high up, your risk of being blowed up would be significantly reduced, regardless of your decision regarding your involvement with the conflict.

See a non-problem.