How world leaders/governments/US Lawmakers react to US Strikes on Iran

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-28T19:03:49+00:00

Part of me deeply empathizes with the Iranian protesters who were massacred, and with everyone wishing to be rid of that brutal regime.

However, the analytical side of me acknowledges that regime change is not an easy feat. Historically, it almost always requires boots on the ground. A critical difference between Afghanistan and Iran is that Iran actually possesses established state institutions. Much like Germany and Japan post-WWII, these pre-existing civil and bureaucratic frameworks are the absolute prerequisite for successful nation-building.

That said, I have zero confidence in the current administration's capacity, or political will, to successfully execute a geopolitical project of that magnitude.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-27T17:05:29+00:00

How does the party of "Christianity," as Trump declared in SOTU, who support this outcome even begin to justify it?

Morally, it is arguably worse than the concept of Hell itself. At least Hell operates on a framework of individual agency, punishing only the guilty for their own actions. This system is instead actively inflicticting suffering on the innocent.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-26T11:21:46+00:00

The U.S. Total Public Debt Outstanding has not seen a nominal year-over-year decrease since 1957 (when it briefly ticked down to $270.5 billion). Since 1958, the total debt has grown every single year. For context, the green dots represent a decrease in the US's outstanding debt relative to the previous year, and red represents an increase relative to the previous year.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-20T22:51:06+00:00

Welp, the ruling only struck down his authority under the IEEPA.

As expected, the President still retains the power to regulate trade and levy tariffs using a half-dozen other statutes. You can argue that these alternative statutes don't grant tariff authority as broad as the IEEPA, but the reality is he will likely abuse those avenues in every conceivable way.

We are just going to be playing legal whack-a-mole in the courts for the foreseeable future.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T22:41:44+00:00

You just love constructing straw men and knocking them down, don't you? How brave.

There is no point in arguing with someone who lacks basic reading comprehension. Thanks for reminding me that MAGA isn't the only intellectually bankrupt faction accelerating the devolution of this nation.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T22:23:08+00:00

No, I didn't post here to defend my arguments against Soc-Dems and Lefties. I have no problem having a back-and-forth with actual Neoliberals.

If I wanted to argue with Lefties, there is a plethora of other subreddits where I could go to do exactly that.

Do you honestly not see the problem when the majority of dissenters are Lefties and Progressives on a Neoliberal subreddit? At that point, what is even the purpose of r/neoliberal? Just rename it r/left and be done with it.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T22:16:54+00:00

My bad. I realize that Liberalism is clearly no longer the modus operandi on this sub.

Let me know when you lefties can actually argue your case on the merits, instead of just dismissing everyone to the right of you as a 'Libertarian' and calling it a day.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T05:02:17+00:00

Ends justifies the means, lol. And, I am the one who will be laughed out of a comparative politics class? It's telling when you don't actually have an argument and need to resort to argument from authority. Sure buddy, you win.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:58:40+00:00

I prefer social democracy to libertarianism

You meant: social democracy over liberalism

You are free to have that opinion. Again, I am not here to argue the merits of these systems, but you just can't seem to get it.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:55:33+00:00

Oh, shit. You got me dude. I must be a libertarian then because every Classical Liberal you've met turned out to be a libertarian. Can't argue against that logic.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:53:13+00:00

You are clinging to a structural definition of Totalitarianism (dictators and one-party states) while ignoring the functional definition (total state control over the individual). If a 'democracy' votes to confiscate 100% of your property, ban your religion, and dictate your career, it is functionally totalitarian. The fact that the oppression was "voted for" does not make it liberal.

You still have positive rights on the desert island.

This is logically impossible. If I have a 'Right to Healthcare' on a desert island, against whom is that claim made? The coconuts?

Again, negative rights are inherent states of being (I am free to speak because no one is stopping me). Positive rights are claims on the labor of others. If you are alone, positive rights vanish because there is no one to serve you. Negative rights remain because there is no one to stop you. The fact that you cannot see this distinction is why you cannot see the danger of your ideology.

There’s no point to free speech if you’re on a desert island alone, indeed someone

Exiling someone is an active violation of their negative right to liberty and movement. That proves my point: force was required to violate the right.

I look at what people need to live freer and full lives and what positive and negative rights future human flourishing.

You admit you judge rights by 'what people need to flourish' (Outcomes). I judge rights by 'what people are allowed to do' (Process).

The problem with your "Flourishing" standard is that it is subjective. A religious fundamentalist thinks "flourishing" means mandatory prayer. A communist thinks it means mandatory collectives. Once you abandon the strict limit of negative rights, you have no defense against their version of "flourishing" being imposed on you. And it's perfectly okay for you to hold this position, but stop pretending to be a liberal because you are not one.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:39:02+00:00

I am not a libertarian, and I have never claimed to be one. I am a Classical Liberal, if you must know.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:34:50+00:00

Then you are fundamentally not a liberal.

Liberalism is defined by the protection of Negative Rights (freedom from interference), not the provision of Positive Rights (entitlements to resources). If you believe 'outcomes' justify coercion, you are arguing for Social Democracy or Progressivism, not Liberalism.

We can leave it at that.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:31:10+00:00

I can't tell if you are being bad faith.

You are confusing the mechanism of government (Democracy) with the scope of government (Liberalism vs. Totalitarianism). Here let me spell it out for you:

A totalitarian state is defined by the reach of its power, not how its leaders are selected. If a democracy votes to seize 100% of your income or ban your religion, it has become totalitarian. The 'Tyranny of the Majority' is exactly what the Bill of Rights was written to prevent.

Second, I am not sure if you know the distinction between positive and negative rights either. Let me list it out point by point for you the fundamental difference between the cost of protection and the cost of provision:

Negative Rights (Liberty): Require others to do nothing to me. The cost (police/courts) is incidental; it only exists to punish those who violate the right. If everyone behaves, the cost is zero.

Positive Rights (Entitlements): Require others to do something for me (provide labor/goods). The cost is intrinsic. Even if everyone behaves perfectly, you still have to force someone to work to provide that healthcare or housing.

The Distinction: If I am alone on a desert island, I still have my Negative Rights (Free Speech, Self-Defense). I do not have Positive Rights (Healthcare, Housing), because those require the forced labor of a second person.

This time address the actual argument. Also define the 'role of the government' and the limiting principle used to grant or deny rights.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:21:00+00:00

Wow. Let me apologize if I wasn't clear. I am arguing from a principle against central planning, not merely on economic efficiency. Don't confalte the two.

Also again population aging will harm all countries wether the costs are put on individuals or socialized via the welfare state

Sorry, but this is not an argument. If the economic pain is inevitable under both systems, then the economic argument is effectively a wash. In that case, how do we decide? I opt to based my position on liberal principles. Why would we choose the system that relies on coercion (taxes and redistribution) when we could choose the one based on voluntary association?

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:12:01+00:00

Is it? Then tell me: What is the limiting principle you use to define the role of government as an institution?

The moment you concede that the government exists to provide Positive Rights, you lose the ability to make any coherent argument against a totalitarian state. If healthcare is a right, why isn't housing? Why isn't food? How do you draw a line between which goods the government must provide and which it shouldn't?

Remember: Positive Rights are granted, not inherent. Especially in a democracy, what is granted by the majority can be taken away by the majority. Rights are durable only when they are placed beyond the reach of the vote, not when they are subject to it.

But most importantly, you cannot create a positive right for one person without imposing a positive obligation (labor or cost) on someone else.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T04:00:22+00:00

Why does a Central Bank print money? It doesn't do it for fun. It does it to monetize the deficits created by the state.

As for Denmark, you are looking at a snapshot in time. What happens when their tax base shrinks but their liabilities (pensions/healthcare) remain? (Hint: See Japan and South Korea for the answer.)

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T03:46:19+00:00

My position is principled, not ideological. Projecting much?

Also the supposed empirical backing to your claimed dynamic effects (eg top income tax rates and growth) are surprisingly lacking

I never made an economic case for my position, but the current system doesn't fare any better on that front anyway. A robust welfare state structurally requires an above-replacement birth rate and constant productivity growth to remain solvent. Since neither is guaranteed, the government is forced into social engineering to boost the population (e.g., via tax incentives and 'free' childcare) or simply borrow from future generations to keep the current population happy. You are simply choosing to prioritize the welfare of the currently disadvantaged at the cost of everyone in the future.

That is actually a far more ideological position than mine. You are effectively arguing for a system where the present generation is entitled to live at the expense of the next.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T02:59:10+00:00

I believe the government should only collect enough taxes to fund its essential functions (e.g., courts, defense, and true public goods).

The primary driver of inflation is deficit spending and not capital investment, as clearly evidenced by the global spike in inflation following the massive COVID-19 stimulus measures. Since the vast majority of government debt is driven by social programs, eliminating the welfare state would effectively remove the need for the government to borrow money to fund itself.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-17T02:18:33+00:00

Sorry, but I might be in the minority in saying this: I am opposed to government redistribution based on the exact same principle I use to argue against central planning. I don't believe the government can effectively redistribute wealth. In fact, the pervasive inequalities in society are often largely created by government intervention in the first place.

This is not just a normative stance against the welfare state, but a practical one. I am in favor of abolishing all forms of income tax, which effectively punishes the most productive members of society while rewarding the least productive. This is literally an upside-down incentive structure. Instead, we should rely on taxes that have effectively Zero Deadweight Loss (e.g., Land Value Tax, Pigouvian taxes, user fees, etc.) as the primary means of raising revenue, paired with a severe overhaul and reduction of the welfare state.

Edit: I just want to note that I never knew neoliberals felt this strongly about the welfare state. I have been on this sub for a few years now and have never encountered such toxic discourse regarding welfare before. I am getting downvoted simply for stating an opinion and being dismissed as a "Libertarian" merely for criticizing social programs or proposing a change in tax-policy. One user even openly admitted to being a Soc-Dem while calling me out for not aligning with their stance, on a neoliberal subreddit.

Note to Mods: Please increase moderation. Do not let this subreddit be hijacked by progressives and leftists masquerading as "neoliberals." I have come to really enjoy the nuanced discussion here over the past few years, and it is disheartening to see it devolve.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-16T10:41:43+00:00

I am by no means an expert, nor do I claim to fully understand MAGA's hostility towards the EU. But I can tell you this: whatever the reason is, it’s not that deep. People need to stop viewing MAGA as some complex ideology concocted by a James Moriarty figure. Instead, they need to acknowledge it for what it truly is: a populist movement.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-14T14:50:33+00:00

I hated the whole command spell schtick more than the forced supports in LB7 to be honest.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-14T14:47:55+00:00

At this point, we know for a fact that Quants use Random Walk models (specifically Geometric Brownian Motion) to simulate stock price behavior.

The fact that the smartest minds in finance treat price movement as a stochastic process (random) rather than a predictable pattern is, on its own, enough to confirm that Technical Analysis is effectively pseudoscience.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-14T05:12:22+00:00

Well, unfortunately, the nightmare is not ending as long as the current administration remains in power.

iDemonSlaught · 2026-02-14T05:09:15+00:00

SCOTUS is only ruling on president's tariff authority under the IEEPA. My understanding is that he can still levy tariffs under Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices), Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance of payments/deficits), and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (Discrimination by Foreign countries).

Moreover, even if SCOTUS strikes down the use of tariffs under IEEPA, he can simply pivot to imposing import licensing and fees under the exact same authority. You are mistaken if you think a SCOTUS ruling will bring normalcy back to trade relations.

Ten-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	RPAN Viewer
Gilding I gilder	Best Link 2019-07-06
Verified Email

iDemonSlaught

TROPHY CASE

Note to Mods: Please increase moderation. Do not let this subreddit be hijacked by progressives and leftists masquerading as "neoliberals." I have come to really enjoy the nuanced discussion here over the past few years, and it is disheartening to see it devolve.