3 ms·

Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. As for the next generation, please, we're all bound by the decisions

Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. As for the next generation, please, we're all bound by the decisions of previous generations all the way back to the founders; that's just how it is. They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no, I don't feel for them. We should be responsible, and only enact entitlements we can afford, but if cut back on the wars, we can afford a hell of a lot.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no They can, but in practice they do not. In practice politicians who mention killing entitlements do not get elected. Politicians know this, and willingly set up "booby traps" -- entitlements that nobody will ever oppose yet cannot be sustained. That's because it gets them elected in the short term, and who cares what happens in the long term? Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. We should strive to avoid the use of violence when it is not absolutely necessary. Unfortunately for your position, there has never, ever been a period when violence was not necessary somewhere in the world. Now perhaps by working to avoid each individual war we eventually get rid of war altogether, but I find that logic very tenuous. Looking at all the reasons for war, none of them have gone away or lessened at all over the course of thousands of years. In fact, from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I also wish that no innocents would ever get harmed, but I wouldn't run up the debt in an effort to prevent this from happening. To me it seems misguided and doomed to a horrible failure involving just the thing you seek to avoid.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. I agree, however I think we make the choice for war far more often than is morally necessary. We don't seem to draw the line at morals, but at whether it's financially beneficial for us. It feels like war has become America's most exported product. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I think you need to re-read what I said, you seem to be going off on a staw-man of your own creation. I merely mention that it'd be great if we could no longer afford war. I was arguing against war, not for using entitlements to pursue the goal of eliminating war.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no They can, but in practice they do not. In practice politicians who mention killing entitlements do not get elected. Politicians know this, and willingly set up "booby traps" -- entitlements that nobody will ever oppose yet cannot be sustained. That's because it gets them elected in the short term, and who cares what happens in the long term? Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. We should strive to avoid the use of violence when it is not absolutely necessary. Unfortunately for your position, there has never, ever been a period when violence was not necessary somewhere in the world. Now perhaps by working to avoid each individual war we eventually get rid of war altogether, but I find that logic very tenuous. Looking at all the reasons for war, none of them have gone away or lessened at all over the course of thousands of years. In fact, from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I also wish that no innocents would ever get harmed, but I wouldn't run up the debt in an effort to prevent this from happening. To me it seems misguided and doomed to a horrible failure involving just the thing you seek to avoid.

gnaritas 17y ago
from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. I agree, however I think we make the choice for war far more often than is morally necessary. We don't seem to draw the line at morals, but at whether it's financially beneficial for us. It feels like war has become America's most exported product. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I think you need to re-read what I said, you seem to be going off on a staw-man of your own creation. I merely mention that it'd be great if we could no longer afford war. I was arguing against war, not for using entitlements to pursue the goal of eliminating war.