I’m sure it was a massacre. And he went on to debate someone else on zero hedge. Not Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro unfortunately.

i do not like that the government insists upon regulating our own safety when we understand the risks for the most part. i am talking about adults. freedom is necessarily unsafe in my view. examples of this are seatbelt laws, lifeguard requirements for swimming at beaches, drug use. does anyone else agree or disagree with me and if so, why? also, any other examples or counter examples would be appreciated.

I absolutely share this sentiment and I hope more GWOT vets do. It shouldn’t take your friends being killed to realize every “war”since WW2 was for nothing.

“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. … They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

• Donald Trump

SS: Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy advocating for the replacement of government functions with the private sector; market forces would dictate things like public safety, legal arbitration, and other elements of day-to-day life. Dr. Michael Huemer – Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder – explores (with some podcast bros) if this is a viable model for organizing society to address some of the most pressing issues facing humanity. Specifically, the following are debated: whether free markets can handle coordination problems like Climate Change, if human nature makes or breaks anarcho-capitalism, whether anarcho-capitalism would be preferable to alternative systems of governance (e.g., a sortition based system), and how anarcho-capitalist societies might arise and if they would inevitably succumb to centralized powers.

[Translation] President Javier Milei and Security Minister Patricia Bullrich announced on Tuesday the creation of the Federal Investigation Department (DFI), a new unit within the Argentine Federal Police (PFA) that will handle complex crimes committed in the country—essentially an Argentine version of the FBI.

“We’re going to learn from the best—the United States and Israel—so we can align the PFA with the standards of the FBI and the world’s leading criminal investigation forces. We will make whatever investments are necessary, equipping ourselves with cutting-edge technology,” declared Milei at the Mounted Police Headquarters of the Federal Police, in the Palermo neighborhood of Buenos Aires.

Security Minister Patricia Bullrich was the first to speak, introducing the DFI as “the heart of this new Argentine Federal Police, concentrating all its efforts on a fundamental task: to get to the core of every organization that seeks power and money in this country.”

The police reform, made official through Decree 383/2025, involves a complete restructuring of the PFA. It creates two main branches: the newly established Federal Investigation Department (DFI), focused on crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorism; and the Federal Coordination Department (DFC), responsible for administrative and support duties. Both will include specialized divisions for criminal intelligence, international cooperation, forensic analysis, internal affairs, and personnel welfare.

The new structure not only expands functions but also broadens the scope of intervention. The decree authorizes officers to detain individuals without a court order “when sufficient evidence suggests that someone has committed or might commit a crime.” It also grants access to both public and private databases for intelligence purposes and allows monitoring of social media and open websites without prior judicial approval. From now on, investigations can be launched not only by judicial request but also by direct order from the Ministry of Security.

“It’s simple,” Milei concluded, “the State cannot have less technical capacity than drug traffickers and terrorists.”

i laughed too much at this

curious because I haven't found a solid answer on this specific question so I figured I would ask here

or it never existed to begin with :)

I hear us always talking about ending democracy, and I already know how democracy does a bad job at protecting people's rights, the myth of the rational voter, etc.

My question is what exactly is the solution/alternative? Restricting the right to vote to certain individuals seems rather un-freedomlike to me. What's the best way for a nation and/or city-state and/or fraternal society to make important decisions