Plato's "ship of state" metaphor was actually written as a dig on democracy. In it, he likens democracy to a mob of half-drunk sailors who, after having mutinied, are now fighting over the tiller, wrenching it out of each others hands continually, despite none of them having any training in navigation.
As much as I am loathe to admit it, Plato may have a point.
I expressed this to someone else, but I've long since ceased to believe democracy is the best form of governance. In fact, there's no evidence or even philosophical argument for it. Everyone having a choice isn't always a good thing and we all agree, when it comes to the things we personally value most, that not everyone should have a say.
I don't think authoritarianism is naturally superior either, but that's just it - the outcome is what matters most. If the outcomes is good, then it's a good form of governance. If the outcome is bad, it should be considered a bad form of governance. Anyone who thinks democracy is the best of bad choices must concede that if a people vote to destroy their own country, then there's nothing wrong with that.
My take on "Go volunteer to fight" doesn't really contradict yours, but might cause some disagreement anyway.
American combat troops on foreign soil are not an inevitable consequence of lesser interventions (materiel aid, sanctions, etc.), so I consider "go volunteer" to be a non-sequitur unless the person being responded to is actually espousing sending troops… which I have yet to see anyone do regarding the Russia–Ukraine war. (Maybe I'm not reading the right people.) And yet, I see that “go volunteer” sentiment everywhere regardless—and not even just on policy discussions, but on pretty much anything to do with that war.
"Go volunteer" might have been a salient point in 1964/65 or 2002/03. So far, on pretty much every question pertaining to the ongoing saga, it’s not as much of one.
You mentioned Vietnam - the likelihood of U.S. military intervention was basically 0% until the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The likelihood of the U.S. invading Iraq was non-significant until after 9/11. However, keen-eyed observers saw it coming. When you're involved in a scruff, even indirectly, the longer you're involved, the more likely you're going to become directly involved at some point.
At this point, I doubt Russia will outright defeat Ukraine, but if the fighting continues and Ukraine refuses to fold, the U.S. will never outright abandon Ukraine, either. Eventually, Ukraine's own fighting ability will diminish, despite foreign support. The question to ask yourself is whether the U.S. will demand a surrender on the part of Ukraine. I doubt even Trump would ask that of them.
With re. to that last question -- "what do women give up for the sake of parity?" -- the answer in a sane world is sexual autonomy. See "The Garbage Generation" linked to at the bottom of this page: https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
Plato's "ship of state" metaphor was actually written as a dig on democracy. In it, he likens democracy to a mob of half-drunk sailors who, after having mutinied, are now fighting over the tiller, wrenching it out of each others hands continually, despite none of them having any training in navigation.
As much as I am loathe to admit it, Plato may have a point.
I expressed this to someone else, but I've long since ceased to believe democracy is the best form of governance. In fact, there's no evidence or even philosophical argument for it. Everyone having a choice isn't always a good thing and we all agree, when it comes to the things we personally value most, that not everyone should have a say.
I don't think authoritarianism is naturally superior either, but that's just it - the outcome is what matters most. If the outcomes is good, then it's a good form of governance. If the outcome is bad, it should be considered a bad form of governance. Anyone who thinks democracy is the best of bad choices must concede that if a people vote to destroy their own country, then there's nothing wrong with that.
My take on "Go volunteer to fight" doesn't really contradict yours, but might cause some disagreement anyway.
American combat troops on foreign soil are not an inevitable consequence of lesser interventions (materiel aid, sanctions, etc.), so I consider "go volunteer" to be a non-sequitur unless the person being responded to is actually espousing sending troops… which I have yet to see anyone do regarding the Russia–Ukraine war. (Maybe I'm not reading the right people.) And yet, I see that “go volunteer” sentiment everywhere regardless—and not even just on policy discussions, but on pretty much anything to do with that war.
"Go volunteer" might have been a salient point in 1964/65 or 2002/03. So far, on pretty much every question pertaining to the ongoing saga, it’s not as much of one.
You mentioned Vietnam - the likelihood of U.S. military intervention was basically 0% until the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The likelihood of the U.S. invading Iraq was non-significant until after 9/11. However, keen-eyed observers saw it coming. When you're involved in a scruff, even indirectly, the longer you're involved, the more likely you're going to become directly involved at some point.
At this point, I doubt Russia will outright defeat Ukraine, but if the fighting continues and Ukraine refuses to fold, the U.S. will never outright abandon Ukraine, either. Eventually, Ukraine's own fighting ability will diminish, despite foreign support. The question to ask yourself is whether the U.S. will demand a surrender on the part of Ukraine. I doubt even Trump would ask that of them.
With re. to that last question -- "what do women give up for the sake of parity?" -- the answer in a sane world is sexual autonomy. See "The Garbage Generation" linked to at the bottom of this page: https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html