3 ms·

I knew the title, not its contents. Thanks. From Wikipedia [0]: > In the booklet's penultimate chapter, Butler recommended three steps to disrupt the war rack

I knew the title, not its contents. Thanks. From Wikipedia [0]: > In the booklet's penultimate chapter, Butler recommended three steps to disrupt the war racket: > 1. Making war unprofitable. Butler suggests that the means for war should be "conscripted" before those who would fight the war > 2. Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it > 3. Limitation of militaries to self-defense Reminds me of a point Danny Sjursen made in his book Ghost Riders of Baghdad [1]. Paraphrasing (badly): Presidents, hawks, and other decision makers have no skin in the game. Their families are safe. They just rake in the dollars. In a conscript army, there is at least a chance that their sons too are sent to die. There might be an expectation that one has to have some experience before taken seriously in these matters. Now it's just poor saps from the Appalachians. Unimportant people dying in unknown places. A small price to pay. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket 1 - https://skepticalvet.com/ https://skepticalvet.com/

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Reminds me of a point Danny Sjursen made in his book Ghost Riders of Baghdad [1]. Paraphrasing (badly): Presidents, hawks, and other decision makers have no skin in the game. Their families are safe. They just rake in the dollars. In a conscript army, there is at least a chance that their sons too are sent to die. There might be an expectation that one has to have some experience before taken seriously in these matters. Important people not having their children in the armed forces is a modern thing. There was a point in time when commanding armies in the field was an all but required resume checkbox for someone in line to inherit the throne and there was no shortage of war back then.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  sharing the cost sounds like a better notion of democracy than sharing the votes
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  What egalitarian times those were.
- gherkinnn 5y ago
  That was my understanding too. Though I don’t know when or why it changed. Was it mechanisation? Or the development of standing armies? Entrenched aristocracy?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>Reminds me of a point Danny Sjursen made in his book Ghost Riders of Baghdad [1]. Paraphrasing (badly): Presidents, hawks, and other decision makers have no skin in the game. Their families are safe. They just rake in the dollars. In a conscript army, there is at least a chance that their sons too are sent to die. There might be an expectation that one has to have some experience before taken seriously in these matters. Important people not having their children in the armed forces is a modern thing. There was a point in time when commanding armies in the field was an all but required resume checkbox for someone in line to inherit the throne and there was no shortage of war back then.

agumonkey 5y ago
sharing the cost sounds like a better notion of democracy than sharing the votes
avgcorrection 5y ago
What egalitarian times those were.
gherkinnn 5y ago
That was my understanding too. Though I don’t know when or why it changed. Was it mechanisation? Or the development of standing armies? Entrenched aristocracy?