3 ms·

I mean, if you're advocating just ditching this whole democracy / republic thing, that's probably a reasonable way forward. Unfortunately it's not as simple as

I mean, if you're advocating just ditching this whole democracy / republic thing, that's probably a reasonable way forward. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that: Americans are pretty evenly split into thirds on whether the military is funded too much, just right or not enough[1]. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/181628/americans-split-defense-spending.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/181628/americans-split-defense-sp...

knieveltech 10y ago
I always find it amusing when people point their fingers at democracy over the failings of capitalism.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  Without capitalism you wouldn't have an international communications network to moan about capitalism on.
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    Incorrect. Initial research and construction of said network was a DoD project. Additional build-out of said network was handled largely by state run telecoms. You forget that privatization of the telecoms industry is a relatively recent occurrence. If anything, without capitalism access to the network would be substantially cheaper than it is today.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      Putting aside your odd belief that the USSR would have built international fiber-optic lines, last-mile broadband, and iPhones, it's neat how as soon as it's needed for the socialist argument all of a sudden the military is a force for good. Maybe you want to take that up with all the other people in this thread screaming how evil it is because it prosecuted someone for stealing and distributing classified information.
      - knieveltech 10y ago
        I have no idea what you're talking about and suspect you've brought some baggage into the conversation. It's instructive that you think iphones are in some way relevant to the argument.
        mzw_mzw 10y ago
        They're highly relevant given that they're how huge numbers of people access the Internet. Would a socialist system have produced smartphones? Also, if by "baggage" you mean "basic knowledge of 20th century history" then yes, I've got some of that. You should try it too.
        knieveltech 10y ago
        Neither of us can credibly answer if a socialist system would have created cellphones. A socialist system certainly put both the first man-made object and the first man in orbit, so it's certainly not out of the question. A more interesting question is would a socialist system have designated smartphones worthy of the R&D & manufacturing efforts or would they have merely been brushed off as substandard replacements for existing personal computing technology if multi-billion dollar international firms weren't burning cash on marketing to convince people that they needed them in the first place.
eloff 10y ago
Too bad. Imagine the paradise your country could be if you just kept a huge nuclear weapon stockpile for deterrence and defence and got rid of everything else. $600 billion a year that could go toward raising the standard of living for Americans and funding health and science. Sure some other parts of the world will go to shit, but that's not your problem and everybody else hates it when you get involved anyway. I often thought if I could run for president, that would be my platform. But I'd never win. If it even looked like I could win, I'd die under mysterious circumstances. I don't think it's possible for anyone to scale back the military to that extent. There's too much money involved and vested interests will do anything to maintain the status quo.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > Too bad. Imagine the paradise your country could be if you just kept a huge nuclear weapon stockpile for deterrence and defence and got rid of everything else. The people currently moaning about drones and soldiers (weirdly, only American drones and soldiers, they never seem to have problems with anyone else's) would instantly start screaming about nuclear weapons instead. And what are we supposed to do if someone calls our bluff? Actually nuke them? Yeah, I'm sure that would go over well with that crowd. > But I'd never win. If it even looked like I could win, I'd die under mysterious circumstances. You've been watching too many movies.
  - eloff 10y ago
    Yeah, nuke them. Like it's any different anyway. If you invade a nuclear nation, you're going to get nuked. Which makes it idiotic to invade them. That's why regime's want nukes so badly, it makes them untouchable. And yes, if you try to shutdown a $600 billion dollar a year industry, someone who benefits from that system will defend their way of life by bumping you off. Politicians have been offed for much lesser things. Don't kid yourself that everyone plays by the rules.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      > Politicians have been offed for much lesser things. [citation needed] Seriously, you are incredibly confident that anyone advocating real change in the United States will be murdered. Not verbally attacked in the press or by their opponents, but murdered. So you should have no trouble naming, say, five. Go ahead.

knieveltech 10y ago

I always find it amusing when people point their fingers at democracy over the failings of capitalism.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
Without capitalism you wouldn't have an international communications network to moan about capitalism on.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Incorrect. Initial research and construction of said network was a DoD project. Additional build-out of said network was handled largely by state run telecoms. You forget that privatization of the telecoms industry is a relatively recent occurrence. If anything, without capitalism access to the network would be substantially cheaper than it is today.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    Putting aside your odd belief that the USSR would have built international fiber-optic lines, last-mile broadband, and iPhones, it's neat how as soon as it's needed for the socialist argument all of a sudden the military is a force for good. Maybe you want to take that up with all the other people in this thread screaming how evil it is because it prosecuted someone for stealing and distributing classified information.
    - knieveltech 10y ago
      I have no idea what you're talking about and suspect you've brought some baggage into the conversation. It's instructive that you think iphones are in some way relevant to the argument.
      - mzw_mzw 10y ago
        They're highly relevant given that they're how huge numbers of people access the Internet. Would a socialist system have produced smartphones? Also, if by "baggage" you mean "basic knowledge of 20th century history" then yes, I've got some of that. You should try it too.
        knieveltech 10y ago
        Neither of us can credibly answer if a socialist system would have created cellphones. A socialist system certainly put both the first man-made object and the first man in orbit, so it's certainly not out of the question. A more interesting question is would a socialist system have designated smartphones worthy of the R&D & manufacturing efforts or would they have merely been brushed off as substandard replacements for existing personal computing technology if multi-billion dollar international firms weren't burning cash on marketing to convince people that they needed them in the first place.

eloff 10y ago

Too bad. Imagine the paradise your country could be if you just kept a huge nuclear weapon stockpile for deterrence and defence and got rid of everything else. $600 billion a year that could go toward raising the standard of living for Americans and funding health and science. Sure some other parts of the world will go to shit, but that's not your problem and everybody else hates it when you get involved anyway. I often thought if I could run for president, that would be my platform. But I'd never win. If it even looked like I could win, I'd die under mysterious circumstances. I don't think it's possible for anyone to scale back the military to that extent. There's too much money involved and vested interests will do anything to maintain the status quo.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
> Too bad. Imagine the paradise your country could be if you just kept a huge nuclear weapon stockpile for deterrence and defence and got rid of everything else. The people currently moaning about drones and soldiers (weirdly, only American drones and soldiers, they never seem to have problems with anyone else's) would instantly start screaming about nuclear weapons instead. And what are we supposed to do if someone calls our bluff? Actually nuke them? Yeah, I'm sure that would go over well with that crowd. > But I'd never win. If it even looked like I could win, I'd die under mysterious circumstances. You've been watching too many movies.
- eloff 10y ago
  Yeah, nuke them. Like it's any different anyway. If you invade a nuclear nation, you're going to get nuked. Which makes it idiotic to invade them. That's why regime's want nukes so badly, it makes them untouchable. And yes, if you try to shutdown a $600 billion dollar a year industry, someone who benefits from that system will defend their way of life by bumping you off. Politicians have been offed for much lesser things. Don't kid yourself that everyone plays by the rules.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    > Politicians have been offed for much lesser things. [citation needed] Seriously, you are incredibly confident that anyone advocating real change in the United States will be murdered. Not verbally attacked in the press or by their opponents, but murdered. So you should have no trouble naming, say, five. Go ahead.