That’s true. Much like Brexit in the UK stopped other countries’ appetite for their own brexits.

Oh, thanks for the heads up. That’s good to know.

subsequently, raking the global market (including the US) for weapons that come loose for money

Ultimately they will have to come round to producing their own, no?

buying the weapons Turkey and Greece have in reserve for each other

Ok, this one amuses me

Honestly 0.7 US defence budgets is quite an impressive sum of money for the EU to be able to cough up overnight.

Just curious, how can a right wing-green coalition be viable? Don’t they clash on many major issues? Or to they succeed at walking the narrow tightrope of compromise?

Hofreiter (Greens) put it quite well … something like … not our ideals have changed, but the world has changed, brutally so.

Now that’s the kind of Greens I like to see.

The sooner the rest of the civilised world decouples from that insanity, and hopefully bands together around the common ideals that the US used to (at least pretend to) represent - the better.

The problem is that I feel the rest of the civilized world is going down the same path, and is just several big steps behind…

This is great but IMHO they really need to start building industrial capacity to produce millitary stuff as well. Money’s no use when nobody wants to sell you weapons for it…

And I have no idea what should I be doing.

Imo:

1. Finding other people who feel the same way
2. Organizing/structuring your common discussion and research. I feel like I’ve seen 100 comment sections like this one where people see the problem, the commenters then speculate about the causes/solutions, and then the convo fizzles out without a deeper conclusion being reached. Every day under a new post, again and again. There is clearly manpower and a will to do something, it is just IMHO suffering from structurelesness. The conversation needs to be had once and thoroughly, in some central location that everyone can then be referred to. This way, people can specialize their research efforts, instead of everybody doing superficial research for themselves in isolation.

One centralized discussion I have seen is about the democratic side of the problem and it’s over at https://plurality.net/ (it is a crowd sourced work co-written using github). I think the political/economic side of the debate would benefit from piggybacking off of an existing centralized platform devoted to the cause, like https://generalstrikeus.com/ or some trade union.

I guess that’s essentially what UBI is – benefits, except that they’re high enough and you’re not forced to seek for a job. The negative income tax could perhaps be constantly adjusted to respond to how many humans were currently needed in the economy; although I suppose that the size of the wages themselves would be enough to achieve this. Also, I think UBI could be paid for by taxing the robots, whenever it could be proved that the robot had the same abilities as an employee. The monthly tax could be the size of the replaced employee’s montly salary and it could go directly to the specific person that the robot replaced. Come to think of it, the legal framework could be that only employees are allowed to own robots (and not companies), and the robots would therefore work and earn directly on behalf of that person.