4 ms·

Are you advocating for the military to not exist?

by borski 8y ago

jstanley 8y ago
Yes
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
If the military didn't exist there would be no need for the military to exist, except possibly as a specialised civil emergency service. This would free up more than $1.5tn annually. If we got rid of nation states at the same time, we might actually start to get something interesting done as a species.
- borski 8y ago
  Idealistic as that may be, we will always need a protection force.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    According to this article: https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394 https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-weste... Western militaries have killed at least 4 million people in foreign countries in the last ~30 years. That's not my kind of "protection force". The most sickening part is that we're paying for this, with our taxes. We're paying for people to go to foreign countries and kill people on our behalf. In the name of "protection".
    - borski 8y ago
      With all due respect, just because casualties happen in war does not mean we shouldn't have a military. You could make an argument for slimming it down, and that we've overextended our military capabilities past where they need to be, and into foreign soil where we shouldn't have been. I might even agree with aspects of that argument. But to advocate for removal of the military leaves the US vulnerable to anyone who hasn't gotten rid of theirs (read: the rest of the world). We fought to get out from under British rule, so that we could establish a democracy and not live under a monarchy. If we abolish the military, there is literally nothing stopping someone from coming in and ending this experiment in democracy that has lasted as long as it has.
    - Retra 8y ago
      That's really a problem with the politicians, not the military.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. 'No military anywhere' seems to be a trivially unstable equilibrium. If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them? Even if 99.99% of the world would prefer to not have any military and keep it that way, all it takes is a tiny minority of defectors from the norm. > If we got rid of nation states at the same time Right, so how do you resolve disagreements when people want different things? Should we have a world democracy, where China and India get about half the total vote? Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may have sharply divergent values from you, including on this very topic?
  - jstanley 8y ago
    > If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them? Just because some people might do it doesn't mean you need to do it as well. If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it. > Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may have sharply divergent values from you, including on this very topic? This is literally how democracy already works.
    - borski 8y ago
      > This is literally how democracy already works. Wrong. We are able to elect our leaders through our democratic process specifically because we are able to protect ourselves from autocratic regimes coming in and taking over. "Get rid of the military" is an idealistic view that does not take into account the reality that countries will always have different views, ideas, and opinions, and will fight for what they believe in. Before the military, there were militias.
      - jstanley 8y ago
        > > This is literally how democracy already works. > Wrong. What I meant by that is that most people have sharply divergent values from me. I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree with.
- gwright 8y ago
  Perhaps you are trolling, but if not... In the absence of a nation-state framework I think things would rapidly devolve into some sort of feudal state framework perhaps with some interesting "armed-corporation" variations. Probably lots of violence and death until some new meta-stable configuration established itself. Civilization is fragile.
  - afarrell 8y ago
    I think in the era of mass literacy, language, religion, and ideology would re-emerge as the boundaries between communities and armed groups.
    - baud147258 8y ago
      I'd add race and culture as another possible boundaries.
- chriselles 8y ago
  While I agree in the theoretical sense, that does not reconcile with practical reality. Much like Communism and Libertarianism being great in theory, but failing in reality.

Are you advocating for the military to not exist?

by borski 8y ago

Are you advocating for the military to not exist?

jstanley 8y ago

Yes

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

If the military didn't exist there would be no need for the military to exist, except possibly as a specialised civil emergency service. This would free up more than $1.5tn annually. If we got rid of nation states at the same time, we might actually start to get something interesting done as a species.

borski 8y ago
Idealistic as that may be, we will always need a protection force.
- jstanley 8y ago
  According to this article: https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394 https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-weste... Western militaries have killed at least 4 million people in foreign countries in the last ~30 years. That's not my kind of "protection force". The most sickening part is that we're paying for this, with our taxes. We're paying for people to go to foreign countries and kill people on our behalf. In the name of "protection".
  - borski 8y ago
    With all due respect, just because casualties happen in war does not mean we shouldn't have a military. You could make an argument for slimming it down, and that we've overextended our military capabilities past where they need to be, and into foreign soil where we shouldn't have been. I might even agree with aspects of that argument. But to advocate for removal of the military leaves the US vulnerable to anyone who hasn't gotten rid of theirs (read: the rest of the world). We fought to get out from under British rule, so that we could establish a democracy and not live under a monarchy. If we abolish the military, there is literally nothing stopping someone from coming in and ending this experiment in democracy that has lasted as long as it has.
  - Retra 8y ago
    That's really a problem with the politicians, not the military.
smallnamespace 8y ago
And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. 'No military anywhere' seems to be a trivially unstable equilibrium. If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them? Even if 99.99% of the world would prefer to not have any military and keep it that way, all it takes is a tiny minority of defectors from the norm. > If we got rid of nation states at the same time Right, so how do you resolve disagreements when people want different things? Should we have a world democracy, where China and India get about half the total vote? Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may have sharply divergent values from you, including on this very topic?
- jstanley 8y ago
  > If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them? Just because some people might do it doesn't mean you need to do it as well. If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it. > Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may have sharply divergent values from you, including on this very topic? This is literally how democracy already works.
  - borski 8y ago
    > This is literally how democracy already works. Wrong. We are able to elect our leaders through our democratic process specifically because we are able to protect ourselves from autocratic regimes coming in and taking over. "Get rid of the military" is an idealistic view that does not take into account the reality that countries will always have different views, ideas, and opinions, and will fight for what they believe in. Before the military, there were militias.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      > > This is literally how democracy already works. > Wrong. What I meant by that is that most people have sharply divergent values from me. I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree with.
gwright 8y ago
Perhaps you are trolling, but if not... In the absence of a nation-state framework I think things would rapidly devolve into some sort of feudal state framework perhaps with some interesting "armed-corporation" variations. Probably lots of violence and death until some new meta-stable configuration established itself. Civilization is fragile.
- afarrell 8y ago
  I think in the era of mass literacy, language, religion, and ideology would re-emerge as the boundaries between communities and armed groups.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    I'd add race and culture as another possible boundaries.
chriselles 8y ago
While I agree in the theoretical sense, that does not reconcile with practical reality. Much like Communism and Libertarianism being great in theory, but failing in reality.