4 ms·

How is the 600 billion spent annually on the military anything of productive value that is in any way significantly different than it getting "pissed away"? It

by shove 9y ago

How is the 600 billion spent annually on the military anything of productive value that is in any way significantly different than it getting "pissed away"? It's offensive to suggest more of that money will get spent on entertainment (etc) than food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses (etc)

DoreenMichele 9y ago
If we do away with the US military, we will promptly be invaded and taken over by someone else. The military allows the country to exist at all. The world is not full of live-and-let-live hippies who all love the US and its people. The military is also a source of medical training, new medical knowledge, various forms of stability, and research that helps create new products. I am advocating for people not being bled by the 1 percent to begin with. Charity never provides anyone a secure, comfortable life. It makes you their bitch and thus de facto undermines quality of life. I want people to have the money they deserve, but not by saying it is okay for the rich to first bleed us and then we will ask for some piddling check afterwards and kiss their butts and say "Thank you, massah." They outlawed slavery in the US. I would like it to really die and not come back from the grave with a new name.
- shove 9y ago
  1) Yeah, the 300 million firearms in the US wouldn't be any impediment at all to an invasion C'mon. There are no barbarians at the gate. 2) Yes, there are good economic side effects that come from spending 600B on just about anything. Lifting people out of poverty a few inches couldn't possibly be less economic waste than grossly disproportionate military spending. 3) You've got a pretty novel definition of slavery.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    You've got a pretty novel definition of slavery. Perhaps. FWIW, my definition of slavery is that the value of your productivity is owned and controlled by someone else, not you. I see the movement towards basic income as the promotion of a world of poor people in chains. Money grows out of power, not the other way around. If money alone created power, lottery winners would all promptly take their place in the halls of power. They don't. Most wind up bankrupt within 5 years.
    - Aushin 9y ago
      FWIW, my definition of slavery is that the value of your productivity is owned and controlled by someone else, not you. I see, so you too consider capitalism a form of slavery.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        When things are done right, capitalism does not have to mean that. Employees can, for example, own stock in the company where they work. Some companies basically insist that employees do so and intentionally develop an employee-owned company culture. Of course, when workers and stockholders are entirely separate classes of people, then, basically, yes. But that is not an inevitable outcome, even though it seems to generally be the state of things currently.
  - shove 9y ago
    (thread fail sorry) Your definition of slavery pretty neatly matches capitalism, I hope you notice ...

by shove 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago

If we do away with the US military, we will promptly be invaded and taken over by someone else. The military allows the country to exist at all. The world is not full of live-and-let-live hippies who all love the US and its people. The military is also a source of medical training, new medical knowledge, various forms of stability, and research that helps create new products. I am advocating for people not being bled by the 1 percent to begin with. Charity never provides anyone a secure, comfortable life. It makes you their bitch and thus de facto undermines quality of life. I want people to have the money they deserve, but not by saying it is okay for the rich to first bleed us and then we will ask for some piddling check afterwards and kiss their butts and say "Thank you, massah." They outlawed slavery in the US. I would like it to really die and not come back from the grave with a new name.

shove 9y ago
1) Yeah, the 300 million firearms in the US wouldn't be any impediment at all to an invasion C'mon. There are no barbarians at the gate. 2) Yes, there are good economic side effects that come from spending 600B on just about anything. Lifting people out of poverty a few inches couldn't possibly be less economic waste than grossly disproportionate military spending. 3) You've got a pretty novel definition of slavery.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  You've got a pretty novel definition of slavery. Perhaps. FWIW, my definition of slavery is that the value of your productivity is owned and controlled by someone else, not you. I see the movement towards basic income as the promotion of a world of poor people in chains. Money grows out of power, not the other way around. If money alone created power, lottery winners would all promptly take their place in the halls of power. They don't. Most wind up bankrupt within 5 years.
  - Aushin 9y ago
    FWIW, my definition of slavery is that the value of your productivity is owned and controlled by someone else, not you. I see, so you too consider capitalism a form of slavery.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      When things are done right, capitalism does not have to mean that. Employees can, for example, own stock in the company where they work. Some companies basically insist that employees do so and intentionally develop an employee-owned company culture. Of course, when workers and stockholders are entirely separate classes of people, then, basically, yes. But that is not an inevitable outcome, even though it seems to generally be the state of things currently.
- shove 9y ago
  (thread fail sorry) Your definition of slavery pretty neatly matches capitalism, I hope you notice ...