It did not end well for the roman law though
A law is not just a piece of paper, and I don't think you can call "bordering on traitorous" something mandated by law (and not just allowed).
The government having a political agenda that isn't determined by constitutionally appointed political processes
I don't know what it means, given that the government always has a political agenda that isn't determined by any legally defined process. The people in charge are appointed by those processes, what they do with the power they get is up to them as long as they obey the Constitution
It does not make sense to me: either you want the historical thing, or you want a sports optimised for tournaments (in its rules and techniques), and in the second case you have modern fencing which is a pretty much optimised olympic sport. But as long as people have fun, maybe it does not matter
I think I agree, it's just that it is not at all how those purges do happen. The people they are firing are working for legally funded agencies or programs, and they are targeted under the assumption that people working in those agencies or programs are mostly political adversaries
Unless that includes God or Nature as intent sources
Yes it does if you believe nature or God have intents (it works better with God than nature, as most people who think that nature has intent also think that nature is a kind of god). People who don't think God exists or nature has intents also don't think there are purposes in nature.
Intended purpose means that the way you use the tool now (the purpose it's used for now) is what it was built for (the purpose of its creator). For example if you use your shoes to protect your feet it's their intended purpose, but if you use them to kill a fly it's not (presumably).
Neither does my comment have anything relating to firing people on the basis of their political opinions.
Given that the first comment has been removed, I might have misread yours, but it seems to me you were arguing in favor of incentivizing people to leave the country according to their opinions.
"The purpose of a system is what it does" is a stupid opinion if it is taken as a general mathematical truth. The concept of purpose assumes intentionality (the purpose of something is the intent of the people who built/used/participated in it) and therefore the opinion assumes the effects of a system are always those intended by the actors, which is obviously false.
Most of the time "the purpose of a system is what it does" instead means that what the actors want is less important than what the system actually does (it provides more prediction power, as you said).
There are some cases however where intentionality is very important, for example if you kill someone the police and the court will be interested.
A few years months ago, before Elon Musk bought twitter, there was a very popular opinion here on the motte, and probably also among conservatives, that freedom of speech should not be limited in any way, whether directly by the government, or by powerful actors like social medias. When big tech fired people due to their right wing political opinions, conservatives were defending them while liberals were saying things like "they are bigots, they must be improductive anyway".
I don't know what happened, but it seems that a lot of people who had a very broad definition of free speech switched to a very precise and restricted one.
Obviously not in the government, but in private companies those fired for their right wing opinions had some level of support from conservatives a few years ago.
Getting fired has nothing to do with free speech. The principle of free speech is that the government cannot prevent you from speaking.
That's why conservatives have no problem with private bodies (e.g. social media) censoring right wing opinions I suppose.
Optimistically, the academics leaving the USA are the ones most ideologically captured, such that their contributions to knowledge production is easily replaceable or even a net negative, as is the case for much of what is purportedly being cut by DOGE.
How fast from "there is no such thing as a limited freedom of speech" to "just fire them"...
There is no international competition, those conferences will be restricted to locals for the exact same reason. The american military researcher can't just choose to go to a chinese conference instead
Then just change the rules? For example make any deadly touch eliminatory, so that no one says "I'm going to leave myself wide open and go for an uncovered afterblow" . I suspect the problem is that you want tournaments to be more spectacular than realistic (if the adversaries are more conservative it might get a bit boring)
Likely giving other nations time to choose (with us or against us), and slapping the nations who chose to align with China with huge tariffs in 90 days.
If that was the plan, it's pretty dumb. First you can't really un-declare a (commercial) war. Second, if you want people to side with you, you don't start a fight with them. Third, it puts everyone except China and the US in a better negociating position with those two, because they can play one against the other.
It's a commonwealth of nations (that's its name...) not a commonwealth of individuals
(apparently agreed upon in advance by the heads of state)
Isn't the british monarch the head of state of like 90% of the commonwealth?
They would have to end democracy to achieve the conquest (just imagine the protests...), and therefore the opinion of canadians would not matter at all
No
In a world where Russia lies, probably
It's only a waste if you think Putin will stop there. If you think you will have to defend yourself against Russia at some point, then the sooner the better
Cyprus is a very small country with 1 million inhabitants, and Turkey invaded a third (not half) of the country and its population. 300 000 people is the same order of magnitude as just the losses during the war in Ukraine.
About Syria, it's a mess. Everyone and their friend owns some part of Syria. If you can tell me more about it I'm curious, honestly. How many Turkish soldiers are their in Syria? What part of the territory do they control?
No those governments weren't autocratic given that the power has swiftly switched hands. Sure they were and are still corrupt, but the corruption level is continuously decreasing since those revolutions.
And?
I'm pretty sure Russian or Chinese nukes in Portugal would have an important effect on the geopolical balance
- Prev
- Next
The president himself is not really an example on those matters
More options
Context Copy link