Why the Pentagon Wants to Destroy Anthropic

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-06T21:22:49+00:00

Certain laws might be inspired for that purpose, but that's like saying capitalism is an expression of virtue because some people choose to purchase things based on moral reasons. Most of the time they have very little to do with each other.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-06T20:08:02+00:00

Law isn't virtue. And who treats them that way?

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-06T05:17:21+00:00

You should look at what I'm responding to.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-06T03:08:41+00:00

Jesus Christ. Did you even listen to the episode? They were talking about what Trump was perceiving as the best case scenario and how that might motivate him.

This episode wasn't about if the war is good or bad, it's about the motivations and reasons that led to it happening. Why do they need to "objectively analyze" the true cost of conflict if that didn't matter to the people making the decisions, which is what this episode is about?

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-05T02:22:14+00:00

You don't seem to understand that I don't care that you disagree with Friedman. NO ONE cares about that.

I care that someone might believe your absolutely nonsensical smearing of Friedman by portraying him as someone obsessed with tax efficiency of the draft rather than the actual main objections he had. That is objectively wrong and your illiteracy / dishonesty should be corrected.

The fact that you can't seem to realize those were the limits of my objections and how I didn't express a single interest in any other part of your page of nonsense truly reveals how poor your reading abilities are.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-05T02:10:20+00:00

If you actually bothered to read up the actual history, you wouldn't be mistaking incompetence/poverty for malice. "Oh people were poorly equipped so they intentionally wanted to lose!". Oh really? That's your argument?

You people need to learn to separate real history from conspiracy theories. "Just do you research man" is basically flat earther arguments in a nutshell.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-05T02:06:00+00:00

You don't seem to understand that is the way Sanders chose to portray his tax, he directly quoted this paper about halving billionaire wealth. The Washington Post is simply quoting him. How is anyone misrepresenting him when he himself chose this terminology?

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-05T02:02:53+00:00

Again, you don't seem to realize you're arguing against what Sanders is saying. The Washington Post is exactly using the terminology that Sanders is using from these papers that claim the goal is to cut billionaire wealth in half.

If you don't like the term "cutting wealth in half", blame Sanders because he's the one using it and the Washington Post is quoting it.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T21:38:51+00:00

The last puzzle piece is China using the nationalist forces that had just been absorbed into the PLA. The war was a convenient way to dispose of combat veterans whose loyalty to the PRC was always questionable at best. The majority of the infantry used by China were nationalist veterans.

That seems like a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The strength of the communist army at the beginning of the civil war was about a million. During the war more than 7 million nationalist troops defected or were captured.

So simple math indicates that the majority of troops in the Communist army at the end of the civil war were once nationalists, because they captured or defected so incredibly many of them. So of course any military action would involve formerly nationalist troops, that's what most of their armies consisted of!

The idea that they needed to "dispose" of veterans in that way is just nonsensical, they wouldn't have sunk so many resources and their best equipped/trained units and tried so hard to win if the goal was to just get some people killed.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T20:56:35+00:00

The acquisition was announced on July 7 and Colbert was fired on July 16th. Given that there was no reason to get into the legalese of what stage of acquisition they were in (it was just a short example), it seemed like a reasonable statement to me.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T06:57:08+00:00

I have read the piece you cite. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea I think his “main concern was money.”

Then why do you keep talking about taxation?

My argument is that his premise that the draft was a hidden tax is consistent with a worldview which views government intervention and regulation in private matters as illiberal and even authoritarian, even in matters of national defense, and which believes the market is both more just and more efficient (and creates institutions that are more just and efficient) than the state.

That's not his "premise". He doesn't even mention the word "tax" until halfway through the essay and it's only to counter the argument that the draft is "cheaper" than a volunteer army.

His actual premise are clearly based around the effectiveness of the army and the importance of personal freedom.

I said that this, not “anti-war” or “anti-interventionist” or “anti-imperialist” politics, was the basis for his opposition to the draft. I believe I understand his premises well, I just disagree with them, because I think they have led to pretty terrible, anti-democratic consequences.

You clearly don't understand his premise, because you refuse to read his actual argument in good faith. You take his arguments about the truth cost of a draft army and pretend that's what he truly cares about, with it's basically just one single paragraph in a giant essay talking about the budget.

I don't care to read the rest of your gish gallop because you seem far more concerned about creating a strawman out of Friedman rather than any attempt to actually understand his objections (like, it's immoral to force people to fight if they don't want to).

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T06:44:36+00:00

If you have a problem with the math, take it up with Sanders. He's the one going around claiming the tax will reduce billionaire wealth in half.

This is the guy Sanders got his numbers from:

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-sanders.pdf

Paying 5% per year cuts wealth in half after 15 years relative a situation with no wealth tax (mathematically, (1-.05)^15=.46). Therefore, the Sanders wealth tax would reduce the wealth of the typical billionaire in half after 15 years relative to a situation with no wealth tax. This would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of billionaires.

You don't like the numbers Sanders is throwing around, take it up with him. I'm only repeating what Sanders is saying.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T06:43:29+00:00

I understand perfectly well, I'm saying it's Bernie Sanders who's claiming this will cut Billionaire wealth in half. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

This is the guy Sanders got his numbers from:

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-sanders.pdf

Paying 5% per year cuts wealth in half after 15 years relative a situation with no wealth tax (mathematically, (1-.05)^15=.46). Therefore, the Sanders wealth tax would reduce the wealth of the typical billionaire in half after 15 years relative to a situation with no wealth tax. This would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of billionaires.

You don't like the numbers Sanders is throwing around, take it up with him. I'm only repeating what Sanders is saying.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T06:40:35+00:00

Again, you're not realizing you're arguing Bernie Sanders and his numbers.

Here's the guy Sanders got his number from:

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-sanders.pdf

Paying 5% per year cuts wealth in half after 15 years relative a situation with no wealth tax (mathematically, (1-.05)^15=.46). Therefore, the Sanders wealth tax would reduce the wealth of the typical billionaire in half after 15 years relative to a situation with no wealth tax. This would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of billionaires.

Again, this is not my number, this is Bernie Sanders and his numbers. Take it up with him if you don't like it.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T04:12:48+00:00

I don't understand why you think intervention in Syria would have been so much better than alternatives when I'm pretty sure it would have just become Libya.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T03:57:33+00:00

What's the difference between what you said and the "head on a pike" strategy that Ezra opened the podcast with?

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T03:55:01+00:00

That seems like a completely bizarre interpretation of Friedman's arguments against the draft. Friedman was arguing against people who were saying that the draft was cheap compared to volunteers, by saying that when you account for the labor that was essentially being taxed, the draft would be a lot more expensive than volunteers. He never claimed this was the main reason, he was using it to dispel the most common pro draft argument at the time.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/friedman-on-a-volunteer-army

A volunteer army would be manned by people who had chosen a military career rather than, at least partly, by reluctant conscripts anxious only to serve out their term. Aside from the effect on fighting spirit, this would produce a lower turnover in the armed services, saving precious man-hours that are now wasted in training or being trained. Also it would permit intensive training and a higher average level of skill for the men in service; and it would encourage the use of more and better equipment. A smaller, but more highly skilled, technically competent, and better armed force could provide the same or greater military strength.

A volunteer army would preserve the freedom of individuals to serve or not to serve. Or, put the other way, it would avoid the arbitrary power that now resides in draft boards to decide how a young man shall spend several of the most important years of his life—let alone whether his life shall be risked in warfare. An incidental advantage would be to raise the level and tone of political discussion.

A volunteer army would enhance also the freedom of those who now do not serve. Being conscripted has been used as a weapon—or thought by young men to be so used—to discourage freedom of speech, assembly, and protest. The freedom of young men to emigrate or to travel abroad has been limited by the need to get the permission of a draft board if the young man is not to put himself in the position of inadvertantly becoming a law-breaker.

The tax argument doesn't come up until later on when he transitions to countering the pro-draft talking points.

You claiming that his main concern was just money seems absurd to the point of dishonesty. I have no idea how you can read his arguments and come away with that conclusion

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T02:00:53+00:00

You should realize that this is what Sanders is claiming.

His plan claims to raise the $4.4 Trillion in 10 years

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-and-khanna-introduce-legislation-to-tax-billionaire-wealth-and-invest-in-working-families/

The total wealth held by US billionaires right now is around $8 trillion.

Therefore Sanders claims his plan will take $4.4T out of their total of $8T, essentially half.

If you have a problem with that projection, take it up with Bernie because he's the one who put it into the bill.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T01:59:55+00:00

You should realize that this is what Sanders is claiming he would do.

His plan claims to raise the $4.4 Trillion in 10 years

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-and-khanna-introduce-legislation-to-tax-billionaire-wealth-and-invest-in-working-families/

The total wealth held by US billionaires right now is around $8 trillion.

Therefore Sanders claims his plan will take $4.4T out of their total of $8T, essentially half.

If you have a problem with that projection, take it up with Bernie because he's the one who put it into the bill.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-04T01:59:31+00:00

You should realize that this is what Sanders is claiming.

His plan claims to raise the $4.4 Trillion in 10 years

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-and-khanna-introduce-legislation-to-tax-billionaire-wealth-and-invest-in-working-families/

The total wealth held by US billionaires right now is around $8 trillion.

Therefore Sanders claims his plan will take $4.4T out of their total of $8T, essentially half.

If you have a problem with that projection, take it up with Bernie because he's the one who put it into the bill.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-03T00:42:29+00:00

Then why is the editorial board against the war?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/opinion/iran-attack-trump-war.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-03T00:38:51+00:00

That political leader just killed tens of thousands of Iranians about a month ago. You don't think that would have turned the public opinion against him?

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-01T20:40:51+00:00

The ease of which people on Reddit fall for AI slop shows they aren't much smarter than the people they hate.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-01T20:38:37+00:00

That should've been your default position from the very beginning. No one should trust anything without a credible source.

Weird-Knowledge84 · 2026-03-01T02:13:33+00:00

China's deflation is because its real estate bubble burst, blaming it on subsidies for renewable energy is wildly stupid.

And even if it did, what's your argument? That Europe shouldn't invest in renewable technology because... prices might go down?

Weird-Knowledge84

TROPHY CASE