Comment by robertacion
3 days ago
The last paragraph is a reference to Cato the Elder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
"As a third and final action point, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed."
3 days ago
The last paragraph is a reference to Cato the Elder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
"As a third and final action point, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed."
And speaking of Cato and economic complexity:
As his income grew, Cato also became a regular investor in commercial lending. Although a law from 218 BC banned senators from engaging directly in commercial shipping, Cato formed partnerships of fifty investors that backed the commercial operations of fifty ships. He fronted all of the initial capital and then lent money to investors that they could each use to buy a share in the enterprise. Cato himself entrusted one share to a freed slave who acted as his agent. He then profited from the trading activities as well as the interest on these loans, while following the letter of the law and limiting his direct exposure in case the cargo was lost.
I'll just leave this here: I think the destruction of Carthage was a great catastrophe. Both for the world from a humanitarian perspective and for Rome which squandered a lot of economic generativity.
If Rome had stayed a local power, could a divided Mediterranean have been even more dynamic than a unified empire? Perhaps rivalry between regional powers would have inspired greater human achievement. There certainly would have been wars, but not necessarily more than those the Roman Empire actually fought.
Rome conquered many places without committing genocide. The fate of Carthage stands out even by the standard of the time.
2 replies →
[flagged]
Russia has been embarrassingly bad at conquering Ukraine, but it's truly incredible how thoroughly their talking points have conquered conservatives in the USA. They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia, as if Russia didn't send its conquering army out of its borders and couldn't withdraw that army at any time and be left alone.
>"They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia..."
This has been common among many groups for a long time; I recall the GWB administration proposing a missile interceptor system based in Eastern Europe in the mid-oughts, and Democratic Party members in congress opposed it as 'provocative'. The (Liberal) Canadian government of the time opposed that as well as the Alaska based 'shield' as being 'aggressive'.
I suspect this has something to do with (politically self-identified) disempowered groups generally wanting to 'shoot down' initiatives, but the Trump administration seems to have a different motivation.
5 replies →
Think about what you can see on a political level and now think what you don't see towards children education where Trump started his work in 2017
Well, the nazis tried it with the Jews, now you are trying this with Russians.
I cannot but wish you the same end as that of your nazi predecessors.
Well, the nazis tried it with the Jews, now the Russians try it with Ukrainians.
False equivalency at its best, apart from other missteps you make
1 reply →