4 ms·

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 gro

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.
    - afarrell 8y ago
      > I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree with. Have any instances of "ceding political control" involved violations of your bodily autonomy or food security? If not, then the "sharply divergent values" are relatively minor compared to historical conflicts among peoples.
- afarrell 8y ago
  > If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it. Okay. But you still haven't solved the practical problem of people being able to violently coerce others. Like, suppose there is an armed group Z of people who wants to control a patch of territory A and force those currently living there to perform agricultural labor and sexual favors for them. How do you prevent them from doing so? How do you prevent the residents of territory A from saying "oh hey, how about we NOT" and forming a military to kill the approaching members of armed group Z? This possibility is what smallnamespace meant by "trivially unstable equilibrium". It is unstable because when you do...whatever it is that you would do to set the world to this state... it wouldn't stay that way. This problem is known as the Security Dilemma.
- afarrell 8y ago
  > This is literally how democracy already works No it isn't. Suppose you have a country C with a legislature of 56 members. Suppose that legislature votes 35-21 to impose a tax on whiskey. So, there is a now through a democratic decision-making process, a law on the books that says that you have to pay a certain amount to the government when you sell whiskey. Now suppose that the residents of some smaller area P of the country say "no." and decide to pick guns and torture the local government official who is responsible for organizing and collecting the tax. How does the will of the majority of the country (as expressed by the legislators' vote) actually result in the tax being paid? (For those unfamiliar with the relevant American history, the answer was that the government sent in an army to enforce collection of the tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)
anon49124 8y ago
Thread A. Correct, weakness always invites aggression. It's human nature. "If you want peace, prepare (as Smedley Butler would: defensively only) for war." The problem is the US' neocolonial, corrupt MIC's blood lies in endless, fruitless war adventures that cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives. And worse, what happens in these wars adventures, like the Roman Empire, is eventually brought home: mass surveillance, drones, perpetual para/militarized occupation forces and so on. Thread B. "Democracy" has more than two meanings. 0. Policy debated and made freely and clearly by common-people's interests. 1. Some people take it to mean unlimited freedom, as in anarchy. 2. In international politics, it's usually a dog-whistle for whatever America "suggests" other countries should do. I can't recommend Chris Hedge's latest book, America: The Farewell Tour highly enough to connect the dots as to why things seem so fucked up and why they're likely to get worse before they get better.

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.
  - afarrell 8y ago
    > I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree with. Have any instances of "ceding political control" involved violations of your bodily autonomy or food security? If not, then the "sharply divergent values" are relatively minor compared to historical conflicts among peoples.
afarrell 8y ago
> If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it. Okay. But you still haven't solved the practical problem of people being able to violently coerce others. Like, suppose there is an armed group Z of people who wants to control a patch of territory A and force those currently living there to perform agricultural labor and sexual favors for them. How do you prevent them from doing so? How do you prevent the residents of territory A from saying "oh hey, how about we NOT" and forming a military to kill the approaching members of armed group Z? This possibility is what smallnamespace meant by "trivially unstable equilibrium". It is unstable because when you do...whatever it is that you would do to set the world to this state... it wouldn't stay that way. This problem is known as the Security Dilemma.
afarrell 8y ago
> This is literally how democracy already works No it isn't. Suppose you have a country C with a legislature of 56 members. Suppose that legislature votes 35-21 to impose a tax on whiskey. So, there is a now through a democratic decision-making process, a law on the books that says that you have to pay a certain amount to the government when you sell whiskey. Now suppose that the residents of some smaller area P of the country say "no." and decide to pick guns and torture the local government official who is responsible for organizing and collecting the tax. How does the will of the majority of the country (as expressed by the legislators' vote) actually result in the tax being paid? (For those unfamiliar with the relevant American history, the answer was that the government sent in an army to enforce collection of the tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)

anon49124 8y ago

Thread A. Correct, weakness always invites aggression. It's human nature. "If you want peace, prepare (as Smedley Butler would: defensively only) for war." The problem is the US' neocolonial, corrupt MIC's blood lies in endless, fruitless war adventures that cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives. And worse, what happens in these wars adventures, like the Roman Empire, is eventually brought home: mass surveillance, drones, perpetual para/militarized occupation forces and so on. Thread B. "Democracy" has more than two meanings. 0. Policy debated and made freely and clearly by common-people's interests. 1. Some people take it to mean unlimited freedom, as in anarchy. 2. In international politics, it's usually a dog-whistle for whatever America "suggests" other countries should do. I can't recommend Chris Hedge's latest book, America: The Farewell Tour highly enough to connect the dots as to why things seem so fucked up and why they're likely to get worse before they get better.