9 ms·

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two cen

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. Where possible, militaries should not be used, because violence is a terrible thing... and that is something most military personnel already know. But absence of a military often produces means slaughter by another. In practice, countries only independently exist if (1) they have a military or (2) they have an ally with a military who is willing to use it on their behalf. If a country is unwilling to work out its defense, another country will be happy to take it over.

Eupolemos 8y ago
This could be true, but I don't think it is. There's a lot of money to be made in making weapons if there's a war. And the US is constantly waging wars, rarely with victory-conditions thought out in advance. As long as the money-makers continue to find excuses rather than reasons for waging war, I think there's solid grounds for not wanting to participate.
colonelxc 8y ago
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Given that the author or me does not have power to force everyone act the same, it is more reasonable to act with assumption that other people do their thing. So, if there is already more support for military that I find optimal, it makes sense not to support it altrough in different situation I might decide differently.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 50656E6973 8y ago
    >Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. That seems entirely too tyrannical, imperialistic, and egotistical to be practical. Where does having freedom, humility, and an open mind fit into that maxim? I.e. being willing to accept that all humans (including ourselves) can be misguided, or that someone else could know what is better for them than me?
    - Retra 8y ago
      If all humans can be misguided, any principle which accounts for it will be universal. If someone else could know better than you, you can also account for that in a way that other people could be equally well served by. So there isn't anything contradictory or inhibitory there. Perhaps you are not seeing the generality implied by the term "universal?" The contrapositive here is to not act in a way that assumes other people are incapable of, unworthy of, or disadvantaged by following your example. There is nothing here that implies one can't be humble or liberal. To put it in less gentle terms, the point is that if you don't intend for other people to emulate you, then there is no point to your life in human society.
- amoitnga 8y ago
  What is the point of sharing the article then? If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?
  - ikeyany 8y ago
    The title is "Why don't I take military funding?" not "Why you shouldn't take military funding".
orf 8y ago
> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin: "more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and this narrative benefits them a whole lot. There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.
- manfredo 8y ago
  The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia, or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”. So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet trains.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe. Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.
docbrown 8y ago
>This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. Based on the below passage, I do not believe they are advocating for military abolition at all. Your comment implies they want to rid the US of any and all military force but his argument is against the violence that stems from militarization. He wants more peaceful solutions while maintaining military security. >A true defense of our country would require both resources and research into non-violent conflict resolution methods. Both of these exist, but are starved compared with the technologies of warfare.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
I don't think the author is against the military, but rather against violence. Quoting from the article: "There are even signs that the professional military is reaching a clearer understanding than civilian policy-makers of the weaknesses of violence, and the strengths of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. We may be moving toward the day when trained, disciplined soldiers will be able to move into a situation of conflict and restore civility and peace without loss of life. That's a day worth working for. [..] However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways." Furthermore, I don't think the author argues for "all Americans to not take military funding": "No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work." Which is fair enough. I think the article is considerably more nuanced than your response makes it seem.
8bitsrule 8y ago
I read most of the piece and the statement: Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work. does not translate to "recommends that society do nothing". So your extrapolation doesn't work, nor does it address the thrust of the piece.

Eupolemos 8y ago

This could be true, but I don't think it is. There's a lot of money to be made in making weapons if there's a war. And the US is constantly waging wars, rarely with victory-conditions thought out in advance. As long as the money-makers continue to find excuses rather than reasons for waging war, I think there's solid grounds for not wanting to participate.

colonelxc 8y ago

I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marcoperaza 8y ago
I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
- watwut 8y ago
  Given that the author or me does not have power to force everyone act the same, it is more reasonable to act with assumption that other people do their thing. So, if there is already more support for military that I find optimal, it makes sense not to support it altrough in different situation I might decide differently.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  >Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. That seems entirely too tyrannical, imperialistic, and egotistical to be practical. Where does having freedom, humility, and an open mind fit into that maxim? I.e. being willing to accept that all humans (including ourselves) can be misguided, or that someone else could know what is better for them than me?
  - Retra 8y ago
    If all humans can be misguided, any principle which accounts for it will be universal. If someone else could know better than you, you can also account for that in a way that other people could be equally well served by. So there isn't anything contradictory or inhibitory there. Perhaps you are not seeing the generality implied by the term "universal?" The contrapositive here is to not act in a way that assumes other people are incapable of, unworthy of, or disadvantaged by following your example. There is nothing here that implies one can't be humble or liberal. To put it in less gentle terms, the point is that if you don't intend for other people to emulate you, then there is no point to your life in human society.
amoitnga 8y ago
What is the point of sharing the article then? If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?
- ikeyany 8y ago
  The title is "Why don't I take military funding?" not "Why you shouldn't take military funding".

orf 8y ago

> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin: "more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and this narrative benefits them a whole lot. There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.

manfredo 8y ago
The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia, or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”. So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet trains.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe. Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.

docbrown 8y ago

>This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. Based on the below passage, I do not believe they are advocating for military abolition at all. Your comment implies they want to rid the US of any and all military force but his argument is against the violence that stems from militarization. He wants more peaceful solutions while maintaining military security. >A true defense of our country would require both resources and research into non-violent conflict resolution methods. Both of these exist, but are starved compared with the technologies of warfare.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago

I don't think the author is against the military, but rather against violence. Quoting from the article: "There are even signs that the professional military is reaching a clearer understanding than civilian policy-makers of the weaknesses of violence, and the strengths of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. We may be moving toward the day when trained, disciplined soldiers will be able to move into a situation of conflict and restore civility and peace without loss of life. That's a day worth working for. [..] However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways." Furthermore, I don't think the author argues for "all Americans to not take military funding": "No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work." Which is fair enough. I think the article is considerably more nuanced than your response makes it seem.

8bitsrule 8y ago

I read most of the piece and the statement: Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work. does not translate to "recommends that society do nothing". So your extrapolation doesn't work, nor does it address the thrust of the piece.