24032

I feel like you are describing the inevitable libertarian end state.

24033

Yeah, there is “theoretical” libertarianism and “practical” or “inevitable” libertarianism.

24034

Time took my tongue-in-cheek comments too seriously, but really that argument makes no sense. From that description the difference between Russia and true libertarian state is Russia still having pretend elections and wealthy respectable people have titles like minister or senator.

24035

But if you are talking about actual libertarian ideals, they are specifically antithetical to things like government corruption and bribery.

Even if you were to take libertarianism to a dogmatic extreme, you still don’t get that… you get a system where there is very limited government power, and you are paying other private groups to get things done.

If you were just making a joke, that’s cool, although there seemingly are a bunch of folks here who really understand libertarianism to be exactly that… “Bad stuff with money”.

24036

It’s like how ideally communism works and you don’t need government.

24037

Sure, but you would still be wrong if you then described communism as a system where people owned private property.

You can criticize libertarianism all you want, but saying it’s about rich people bribing the government isn’t factually correct.

It’s like when folks on the right wing claim everything they don’t like is socialism.

24038

Isn’t this a version of an argument that’s been litigated a thousand times already, as well as being in the wrong thread?

24039

Heh maybe

I think it came up because the idea of describing an authoritarian state as libertarian was kind of nuts.

24040

Yeah, I mean it as a joke. Russia is as far away as possible from oppressive totalitarian state of evil laws (though of course I have to admit USSR too had plenty of laws that didn’t work in practice, especially about elections and such) and is now a place where money solve every issue. Today Russia is similar to USA as portrayed by Soviet propaganda.

24041

Seeing increasing concerns within the State Department and the DoD that China could step up with significant arms supply to Russia. The thinking being: Beijing wants a weaker Russia…but not a fully defeated one.

24042

From an academic perspective, it’ll be interesting to see how china’s military supplies stack up against NATO equipment.

24043

I’ve seen arguments that no matter what you do to Russia Siberia will still be easy to buy off for cheap. But it would make sense for China to fear Russian government collapsing and being replaced with someone competent who could turn one of the reachest countries in the world into something not resembling a failed state.

Some people think China would just annex the parts of Russia it wants but it’s not their style. It’s cheaper to buy off the northern barbarian chieftains.

24044

The Guardian reports that the White House is in discussions about providing F-16s.

24045

Not true.

Thete was no mention of bears.

24046

Macron and others of his ilk fall into a logical fallacy, confusing the process of regime change with the goal. Saddam, Qaddafi, the Kim family, Iran’s ayatollahs, the Taliban, and Assad are/were regimes that possess a unique threat not only are they awful governments for their people, inflicting horrendous suffering on millions. They also are a threat to their neighbors and even the world at large due to terrorism. At the top-of-the-heap of a dangerous regime is Putin’s regime for obvious reasons.

I think it is indisputable that if Macron or Biden could wave a magic wand and any or all of these regimes would disappear, the people in these places would be very likely better, and the world would be definitely safer.

Iraq, is better off, as was Afghanistan before the Taliban regained control. Libya is arguably better off, if you go by recent reports of Al Jazeera. or the African press, worse off by the judgment of progressive newspapers like the Guardian. But Libya is no longer a state supporter of terrorist actions like blowing up airlines.

In point of fact, regime change has actually not been that hard, what was an unmitigated disaster was nation-building. But even among the craziest Neocons, there is no talk of the west forces invading Russia. The ultimate objective should be regime change in Russia. It is the only way to achieve lasting peace. I think is likely that humiliating Russia in the war will help bring that about. Ultimately, regime change in Russia must be done by the Russian people, with at best covert aid from the west.

24047

Highly acclaimed Character Actor Margo Martindale is not pleased.

24048

I’m not quite sure I followed here. It was Gaddafi that renounced terrorism and Libya was removed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the US during his rule, before the civil war or change of regime.

24049

Russia’s offensive will fail:

24050

It is true, he did get rid of his pretty extensive WMD program, in no small part due to his reaction to the overthrow of Saddam. Did he completely renounce terrorism, hard to say, it was definitelyt decreased.

I should add a qualifier, generally regime change will result in improved conditions for the people, and a safer world. To me it is law of averages, these folks are in the bottom 10% of the leaders in 200 odd nations in the world. It is certainly possible the new regime could be worse, but odds are it will be better. The Putin’s, Saddam, and Kims are not only really evil, but they are also good at staying in power, the new leader might be a good guys like Nelson Mandela, or Václav Havel , but more likely your garden variety authoritarian leader, who is neither as evil as the old regime, nor as efficient as maintaining power. A regime change in Russia or even a power struggle is a pretty fast way of ending the war in Ukraine, similarly getting rid of the Kim family will almost certainly reduce their missile, atomic weapons program. They simply won’t have the resources to cause mischief outside their borders.

24051

Russian MoD not paying soldiers. What could possibly go wrong?