14 Killed in anti-government protests in Nepal

For the EU? Genuinely, no. Curious for a source.

I agree in principle, although there is a slight harmful component to it that I think is best described in defence (now WAR) spending. This is perhaps an element of taxation that most people do not see a direct benefit from, but in the scenario where they do suddenly need it, but don't have it, they lose absolutely everything. Its almost akin to the parental demand that a child eat its vegetables where the child doesn't see the point.

> Interesting. I'm curious what you mean here, as this could point a lot of different directions. Are you saying that you don't think individualism is healthy in general?

No, I think it is healthy but we also have to accept that we live in a society so that individualism must be tempered with a modicum of respect for others. We take much of this for granted, such as not murdering each other. Thankfully we are beyond the point where somebody takes to the air to decry their inability to arbitrary kill other people as some sort of government oppression.

I feel like part of the abstract of a more model citizen is accepting that sometimes society will do things that you don't necessarily agree with. For me there has to be some level of acceptance of this with arguments about ratios being entirely acceptable. I'm content for people to make that argument that tax cuts to 0.1% are okay if they result in the sort of growth where that 0.1% can actually cover the problem solving fund, but you have to accept that to some extent.

For example I live on the ground floor of an apartment block and would be insane for me to lobby our management firm to defund the elevator, which I partly pay for, despite never needing it. I accept that the elevator is part of my society of appartment block, despite it not directly benefitting me in the slightest.

I do agree that preppers/anarchists/von-mises are hardly the most destructive people out there, however their entirely individualistic attitudes do hold a parallel with those who think robbing the commons is ok. Especially since the whole "taxation is theft" idea creates a imbalance where robbing the commons is just redressing that balance. But I agree that we might be too zoomed in here to have the sort of impact we might hope for.

You're just not being targeted, aren't exposed to it or aren't paying attention.

In my comment, I said, "People in other cities who voice this same concern are getting kidnapped or become the subject of targeted harassment campaigns that include vans rolling around with the names and faces of dissenters hoping to inspire local stochastic terrorists to commit violence against them."

CNN article on it: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/business/harvard-doxxing-truc...

Excerpt:

"The “doxxing truck” appeared days after the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups, a coalition of Harvard student groups, earlier this week released a statement that held “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” following the attacks by Hamas that have killed more than 1,200 Israelis and more than 25 American citizens. More than 1,400 in Gaza have also been killed since Israel started strikes on Gaza following the deadly Hamas attack.

Some students and their groups have since distanced themselves or withdrawn their endorsements from the statement amid an intense backlash inside and outside of Harvard."

Video evidence of these vans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2C7gw02WoY&t=142

If you watch the entire video, you will see people talk about the chilling effect they personally experience regarding publicly expressing their dissent against the genocide.

There is a chilling effect, it's not debatable, and it's not debatable that they are the result of well-financed disinformation campaigns seeking to protect the US-Israeli colonial empire. This is all open, well-documented information.

> More specifically, this argument —one side is trying to chill the other by speaking too much

No one made this argument. That is a straw man provided by you seemingly out of nowhere. The billboards aren't about "speaking too much", they're subtle propaganda campaigns. You have not even seen the billboards I'm talking about, have not asked me about them, you're just dismissing them out of bias before even understanding their content, purpose or who is paying to have them literally cover my local highway. They are actively creating a conflict narrative.

IMO, the only American program that has a good program in Contemporary Indian politics and foreign policy is Stanford, as Sumit Ganguly acts as the primary linkage between American and Indian policymakers, and the FSI and Hoover Institution tends to host Indian policymakers and career bureaucrats as affiliates and fellows. For example, during the US-India trade negotiations, the only public visit Nirmala Sitharaman and her staffers had was at the Hoover Institution [0]. Even the USIBC is hosted at Stanford, and that event has a lot of Indian and American dignitaries and policymakers coming.

Other than Christine Fair and a couple Pakistani fellows at HKS, I can't think of a similar domain experts on Pakistan either in the US.

If you want to study contemporary Indian foreign policy outside of India, your only options are NUS, ANU, Stanford, LSE, and maybe Oxford.

It's the same reason why the best China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea scholars tend to be clustered at Harvard and Stanford.

[0] - https://www.hoover.org/events/laying-foundations-developed-i...