3 ms·
Are these notions applicable in practice? Could a society without a state hold against its neighbors who have governments and armies?
by jojobas 6y ago
Are these notions applicable in practice? Could a society without a state hold against its neighbors who have governments and armies?
- 082349872349872 6y agoKipling's 1894 view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24527260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24527260 To what extent did the turn of that century agree? Among the afghanistani? Among the boers? What about later decades? If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied.
- jojobas 6y agoTheir fathers might have lied, but their nephews lived a jolly good life, donchathing? (Afghanistan was a waste of time of course, other colonies not so much) No general wants his compatriots dead, but the will to sacrifice some for benefit of others seems to advance countries big time.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIn the general case, I doubt fraternisation was a thing in the turn of the century brit army, so while enlisted men may have been compatriots ("people who share a fatherland") of their officers, they literally were neither potes ("mates at the pub", compare symposium) nor copains ("messmates"). In this particular case, there were to be no (in the narrow sense) nephews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Bambridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Bambridge (née Kipling) > "On her death, in 1976, having no children, she bequeathed her property and its contents to the National Trust."
- jojobas 6y agoIn an even more general sense, there were many more people staying in Britain than dying or in fact participating in any war. They got the spoils of war (some more than others for sure). Second Afghan war was mostly fought by Indians too, how's that for benefiting.
- 082349872349872 6y agoColonised with benefits? Emperors (and Empresses) gonna empire. Victoria: Let's you and him fight. Caesar: Divide et impera Phillip: Διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε I wonder how the sentiment was expressed in Sumerian? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221
- darkerside 6y agoThe War on Terror could be construed as an attempt to prove that it cannot
- jojobas 6y agoThere isn't a state more oppressive than what "we" fight in that war. ISIS is pretty much a swearword for a reason.
- darkerside 6y agoBringing ideology into this is a distraction. ISIS is a swear word to you (and most), but do you think they see themselves as evil, or as freedom fighters?
- jojobas 6y agoYou seemed to imply that war on terror is a war on people unoppressed by the state, whereas, ideology aside, people under Taliban and ISIS are as far from that from that as you can possibly imagine. Pretty sure Hitler didn't see himself as evil either. Your point?
- darkerside 6y agoOk, I see where you're coming from now. You are thinking of a specific organization that you believe operates in a way that resembles a state structure in terms of control (or oppression). That's another interesting discussion unrelated to my point. I'm saying that the War on Terror has been waged under the (perhaps false) belief that a powerful state actor is able to eliminate a group of people who are united by an idea, regardless of how good, evil, or ugly that idea might be.