Notices by Truth Sandwich 🥪🇺🇸😷 (truthsandwich@sfba.social)

@gnu2

Yeah, no, anarchism, whether the full version or watered-down libertarian ones, would lead to hell on Earth.

@mitexleo

Idiots.

@unktheunk @HistoPol @almaember @gwit @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

The point it makes that's relevant here is that socialism undermines any motivation to create wealth, leaving too little pie to go around, no matter how fairly it's sliced up.

Demonizing billionaires makes this socialist error; it punishes those who are financially successful, thus demotivating the ambitious. Only, being ambitious, they won't give up, they'll just go elsewhere, taking their money with them.

A 100% tax on wealth over $1B would get a total of $0 during the short period before it's repealed.

We can reduce inequality by focusing on its causes, not its symptoms. At that point, if the only way to make billions is through socially-positive means, then the existence of billionaires becomes a sign of success, not failure.

If you want to argue that we need to block the ability of money to buy political power, I'd agree completely, but that's not the same as destroying billionaires.

@unktheunk @HistoPol @almaember @gwit @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Did you read my pie essay?

@HistoPol @almaember @gwit @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

I am unimpressed with such criticism.

"It's greedy to accumulate billions. You should use it to help the world." - you

"No, not like that!" - also you

@HistoPol @unktheunk @almaember @gwit @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

He's a mixed bag. He made his billions by producing plenty of value, and lots of millionaires on the side. Then again, the business itself was often unethical. And then, in his retirement, he's spending his billions to help people.

@HistoPol @unktheunk @almaember @gwit @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

I'm tempted to pick examples of billionaires who aren't evil and whose existence as billionaires is a net positive.

But I'm not sure that there's any point. You're not dealing with the consequences.

@gnu2

Do you suggest we nuke the entire area? Or is this some anarchist nonsense?

@HistoPol @donAlvar @afelia @NoFlexZone @Outpatientzero @Lastresponder @palestine

The original plan called for two states. This should be our goal.

@mina @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Hamas is just the Iranian puppet in Gaza. If it goes, Iran remains and it has other puppets.

@HistoPol @mina @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Maybe, but Bibi is not actually committing genocide, and even actual genocide rarely entails complete destruction; some people always escape, and that's often intentional.

So, sure, Hamas' base of operations is bombed to pieces, but millions of Palestinians remain alive and they will be enraged at Israel, therefore easy to convert into supporters and even soldiers.

You really can't shoot your way into a lasting peace.

@HistoPol @mina @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. The IDF clearly could have done this with less collateral damage because, as far as I can tell, they made little to no effort to minimize it.

Having said that, it's not clear just how much it could be minimized. Pretty much any apparent civilian could be a danger, as Hamas is still broadly popular and does not follow any sort of rules of war.

@mina @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Well, the stated goal of the retaliation is to remove Hamas' ability to execute further massacres.

There are good and bad ways of doing this, but while the headlines are full of casualty numbers, they don't actually break down how many of the dead are soldiers.

So I'd say that Israel's reaction is overkill but largely effective. They would have been wiser to combine the carrot and the stick, ruthlessly rooting out Hamas while showering Gazans with kindness by avoiding a humanitarian disaster.

@mina @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Yes, that's accurate. Whereas Bibi is apathetic towards Palestinian deaths, Hamas actively sought this result.

@mina @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Iran is behind both, and it's more dangerous still.

@unktheunk @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Ok, but put yourself in his shoes. What would you do, other than the obvious move of striving to minimize collateral damage?

@morpheo @HistoPol @RD4Anarchy @NoFlexZone @Outpatientzero @Lastresponder @palestine

I am going to report you now for "zionazis". You are an antisemite.

@unktheunk @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

Both have to go, but only Hamas is responsible for what Hamas does.

@HistoPol @mina @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

It's not another front. Again, this was never just about Hamas. Hamas was always acting in Iran's interests.

@mina @HistoPol @dung_eater @palestine @NoFlexZone @Lastresponder @Outpatientzero

You won't see me defending Bibi, either in his goals or competence, but I'm not sure what the alternative would have looked like.

In other words, if there'd been a saner PM, how much more targeted would the retaliation have been?

As much as Bibi is apathetic about killing Palestinians, a lot of the collateral damage can only be blamed on Hamas for committing war crimes by intermingling military assets among civilians, whether in hospitals, homes, or schools... or the tunnels beneath them.

Still, I think there are positive signs lately. Flooding the tunnels is a much more targeted attack, as was assassinating that Hamas leader.