3 ms·

That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an A

That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?

leephillips 5y ago
Costa Rica is a wonderful place that has benefited from spending funds that used to go to maintaining the army on improving civil society. But this is not even close to a pacifist success story. The army was abolished by the man who became president by winning a civil war. Costa Rica maintains armed forces to patrol the border, combat drug trafficking, and maintain internal order, as well as an armed police force. But they don’t call any of these things “armies”. They have a defense alliance with the United States. If another country tries to invade them, the US will use violence to defend them. Is it pacifism to depend on someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for you? Costa Rica only exists as a country because they successfully used violence to repel a private army raised by a US citizen who wanted to annex them to the US. Call me pessimistic if you want. I prefer to believe that I have a realistic view of the role of violence in the world.
burnafter184 5y ago
I'm no historian, so this is a very rough synthesis: In history there's a handful of cases where there have been what are viewed as probably warless societies. Honestly I wouldn't say they fared any worse than warring states. Indus Valley Civilization, Rapa Nui Civilization, Early Sumeria... I'm sure there's countless others in reality but those are what I recall off the top of my head. I find it difficult to actually piece together a narrative where war is actually a necessity. Empire itself, abstracted, is really just the displacement of toil which isn't a "necessary evil" by any means. And by far and large that is what virtually all war has been predicated on up to World War 2 which justified itself with teleological underpinnings like Marxism and Fascist ideologies; perhaps a few exceptions being outright hostilities triggered by emotional kings. Ultimately it's survivorship bias, but the surviving population is selecting for all the worst conceivable parameters, which in turn has perverted our whole understanding of civilization. It's made it seem as if war is necessary, that defense strategies and assets must be in place, etc... I don't think this is really the case, but creating a policy system that is totally forbidding of the powers necessary to conjure the public force is a difficulty in and of itself. I do also suspect that people who do tow the line of government aren't self-contained individuals, they do themselves require laws, governance, and espouse things like inevitable war are exactly those predisposed to causing it, and they're projecting themselves.
- klipt 5y ago
  Since this is Hacker News, I think a simple tech analogy is that you can do about as well without any national security as you can do without any cyber security. If you don't believe in threats, why use https?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Because otherwise paranoid browsers warn about possible warp core meltdown.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?

leephillips 5y ago

Costa Rica is a wonderful place that has benefited from spending funds that used to go to maintaining the army on improving civil society. But this is not even close to a pacifist success story. The army was abolished by the man who became president by winning a civil war. Costa Rica maintains armed forces to patrol the border, combat drug trafficking, and maintain internal order, as well as an armed police force. But they don’t call any of these things “armies”. They have a defense alliance with the United States. If another country tries to invade them, the US will use violence to defend them. Is it pacifism to depend on someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for you? Costa Rica only exists as a country because they successfully used violence to repel a private army raised by a US citizen who wanted to annex them to the US. Call me pessimistic if you want. I prefer to believe that I have a realistic view of the role of violence in the world.

burnafter184 5y ago

I'm no historian, so this is a very rough synthesis: In history there's a handful of cases where there have been what are viewed as probably warless societies. Honestly I wouldn't say they fared any worse than warring states. Indus Valley Civilization, Rapa Nui Civilization, Early Sumeria... I'm sure there's countless others in reality but those are what I recall off the top of my head. I find it difficult to actually piece together a narrative where war is actually a necessity. Empire itself, abstracted, is really just the displacement of toil which isn't a "necessary evil" by any means. And by far and large that is what virtually all war has been predicated on up to World War 2 which justified itself with teleological underpinnings like Marxism and Fascist ideologies; perhaps a few exceptions being outright hostilities triggered by emotional kings. Ultimately it's survivorship bias, but the surviving population is selecting for all the worst conceivable parameters, which in turn has perverted our whole understanding of civilization. It's made it seem as if war is necessary, that defense strategies and assets must be in place, etc... I don't think this is really the case, but creating a policy system that is totally forbidding of the powers necessary to conjure the public force is a difficulty in and of itself. I do also suspect that people who do tow the line of government aren't self-contained individuals, they do themselves require laws, governance, and espouse things like inevitable war are exactly those predisposed to causing it, and they're projecting themselves.

klipt 5y ago
Since this is Hacker News, I think a simple tech analogy is that you can do about as well without any national security as you can do without any cyber security. If you don't believe in threats, why use https?
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Because otherwise paranoid browsers warn about possible warp core meltdown.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]