371–380 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a classic color revolution, such as this one, is the signature of you-know-who I literally don’t.
there's a conspiracy theory that every revolution of the past 100 years was caused by the cia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agree that its technically a position but while that venn diagram may well include people who believe in charitable giving and local community organization its those who do not believe in those things (which I would argue constitute the majority of that position) who are the problem here. I agree with your broader point. A hair to split is that I tend to see those "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" types as…
> I agree with your broader point. A hair to split is that I tend to see those "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" types as sort of side-line sitters. They're a neutral party who genuinely want to mostly opt out for one reason or another. I don't think that taking a stance of them either being with us or against us is healthy when there are so many genuinely destructive people. I agree in principle, although ther…
Yes, certainly. Security is actually the point "minimal state" (Nozick) crowd agree we need, which is why I pointed to them as opposed to the Von Mises hard liners. I see your point about the argument against this being harmful.
> I do agree that preppers 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.
Sure, I think I see the point you're making. I disagree with it partly, but it's a quibble and not really the point we're discussing, I think.
> 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.
Yes, this is the heart of Social Contract theory. We agree we're going to give up some amount of control of our own lives and freedom in exchange for greater security and prosperity. Maybe that's a good lens to look at the original delineation we painted through. First-order opponents are violating that core Social Contract agreement by looting the commons. Second-order opponents adhere to the SC, but disagree with how we proceed within the agreement.
It was absolutely not just social media ban, it was mostly youth protesting against the corrupt government and unfairness, social media ban was one element that was against the freedom of speech, but it was right around the time where everyone was documenting the rich politicians, their business connections and their families that have been living lavishly and just inheriting the election seats from generation to gen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably a healthy way to see things. Ideally all people that are actively working to create or improve should be on the same "side" against those that are destructive. The second order conflict then becomes what the rules are, and how we guide that side. That is, I think, where most of the factionalism historically plays out. It does feel like we're regressing to fighting that first order conflict more often…
I think tax cuts are possibly a decent enough proxy for this subject? While there's certainly a case to be made for tax cuts in very specific use-cases (e.g. where they're strangling demand/innovation/living costs/government-corruption/etc); a general belief in tax cuts is a constraint that makes it very hard to believe in society. If you believe in tax cuts as a principle (i.e. 0% is a goal), then generally its hard…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is when the rules are made to sustain and exacerbate the social divide, not to make the life better for everybody. No need to go far, just look at the result of lobbying in the USA. Btw, while there are many famines caused by despots (Stalin's, Mao's, Red Khmer's), there is also Bengal's famine of 1943. One must also point out that China in the last 40 years have done perhaps more regarding the poverty mi…
The Chinese people did all of the work, their government simply allowed them, returning some of their own money in the form of state investment. Who pays for "state" investment?
It also failed in many ways, but overall influence is highly positive, the results speak for themselves.
Failing to see that is a sign of ideological blindness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corruption is simply incredible. About fifteen years ago I found myself in Kathmandu after getting altitude sickness. The team's fixer brought me to lunch with some government officials. The topic of discussion? How to steal from a hydroelectric project. One of his guests outright asked, "should we be talking about this in front of this guy?" The fixer shrugged it off saying "he's a Westerner, what is he going to…
Just went to look you up on your profile to see why you might be hanging out with government officials, and just fyi your website link seems gone.
It doesn't sound like the parent commenter was having lunch with the president. Just some random bureaucrats overseeing a construction project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As first generation out of Salazar's dictorship, our country now having a right majority with a Nazi party in the mix, makes me really sad. How short the memory of folks can be, especially with my parents and grand parents generations still around, but apparently their memories and experiences now fall into death hears. Maybe when they start getting visits from the eventually new state protection police, they will un…
> fall into death hears Maybe I'm missing a pun somewhere, but the phrase is 'fall onto deaf ears'!
Imagine dying because you can’t post on Facebook so you rioted and vandalized government buildings.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/8/six-killed-in-nepal-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a shadow tax on non-government consumers. Imagine if you ran a restaurant and had to always keep a table free for the mayor’s family.
You used the word "always", the person I responded to didn't. > I was flying from Kathmandu to Bangkok in 2000 and I couldn't book a ticket on the plane until the day it flew as 'half the plane' was reserved for 'Government Officials' 'just in case'. The "just in case" sounds like speculation to me so all it sounds like is the flight they were on was reserved.