• 3 Posts
  • 2.3K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • Well… this is more about purity of form… my descriptions above are what happens when each form is taken to its exclusive extreme, so it’s not necessarily distopian, it’s the consequences of reality.

    If you had even one perfectly benevolent person you could have a perfectly benevolent dictatorship, though it would still have scaling problems when the one person can’t handle every issue that comes up. If everyone were perfectly benevolent then pure collectivism could work, though there’s also a scaling problem if every person must participate in decision-making for every problem all the time.

    Rigid adherence to any structure becomes its own sort of totalitarianism. None of these can really be good (or utopian) in itself, the only really good option is to keep the structure itself flexible, but with a strong enough set of guiding principles to prevent local abuses.


    • Authoritarian Left - unstable, doesn’t scale, dependent on the efficacy of the central planner, prone to despotism. (dictatorship)
    • Authoritarian Right - bureaucratic hell, systemic inflexibility, adapting to new circumstances requires a chain of approvals from bottom to top, prone to tradition-based decision making. (the military)
    • Libertarian Left - groupthink, requires constant engagement of all elements, prone to stagnation if there is no majority consensus, prone to mob justice events, prone to suppression of individuality. (the Borg)
    • Libertarian Right - chaos, unpredictable outcomes for any particular element, prone to local injustice for elements in local groups, prone to “might makes right” in local groups due to lack of broad oversight. (feudalism)



  • This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don’t have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can’t actually force the spending of the money.

    Praise be to the system of checks and balances.

    I don’t know why you’re getting downvotes, I think you’ve got it right.




  • Frankly, I am actually at a loss at what else could be done and it’s heartbreaking.

    Yeah, I don’t think any of the typical political or economic pressure tactics will have any effect on the Taliban. The only thing that will end the oppression of women in Afghanistan right now is a direct military intervention to remove the Taliban from authority, followed by a sustained presence long enough to substantially change the culture. A new generation would need to be born and grow up with a different value structure that treats women as equals (so like, 50 years minimum). And that means running the country’s public institutions, rewriting its laws, enforcing justice and re-educating/indoctrinating its population, which is morally ambiguous at best.

    I don’t think there is enough united global will to support that, and it’s an ethical minefield of one culture imposing its beliefs on another (which has some nasty parallels with the imperialist/colonialist days). There’s no fix that doesnt involve violence that I can see.





  • If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.

    In any case it doesn’t matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.

    It’s also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.

    Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.


  • So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:

    This bill specifies that no federal funds may be used to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services to Israel. Also, no funds may be used to pay the salary of any Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of State employee who acts to limit defense deliveries to Israel.

    This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.

    The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that’s why the House pushed this act.