Machjo Posted August 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 I can tell you enjoyed the military and especially not having to worry about your essentials. Heck, I did. I did run into quite a few personality conflicts, the main reason I didn't last long; but I wont' deny that I enjoyed the experience. It was like being paid to play war games all day. The responsibility of providing your essentials was given to government and paid for out of the economy which I am sure you never considered but certainly enjoyed the benefits and lack of responsibility towards having to supply them to yourself. What makes you think I never considered it. I think my having started this vey thread pointing out the parallels between militarism and socialism shows quite clearly that I'm well aware of the economic burden the military places on society. It's purpose is expressly the defense of the nation. Whatever its purpose is, it's still socialist. The goal of an ideological socialist[/] government is to make the government the single controller of all organizations according to it's ideal. In order to do so it requires control of the nation's economy so it can sustain itself and it uses the police and military to ensure all organizations buckle to it's ideal. That would be a totalitarian nation. Socialism is an evolutionary process toward that State. It seems innocuous at early stages but soon overrides the will of the people and becomes more important as an institution than the society it is contracted to protect. I wouldn't go that far. I should also point out that I'm not necessarily using the word socialist here in a negative sense (even I agree that some degree of socialistic economic policy is needed in a society, such as providing education to those who can't afford it, etc.). My main point in starting this thread was in the irony of those who oppose every possible kind of socialism to whatever degree often being the most fanatically in favour of considerable increaes in military spending without seeing the parallel. And though I agree with the need for a military force to some degree, I also agree that there must be limits placed on it. Militarists seem to disagree with this. A free republic would have a government, an organization and thus necessarily socialist in structure, but it's purpose would not be to control the economics of the nation it governs. It would only ensure the people had the freedom and security necessary to the creation of an economy. I think what you're describing there is not a socialist state but a socialistic state, suggesting a state that borrows those socialist ideas that serve the people, but not accepting socialism so dogmatically. In that sense, such a state could be capitalistic and socialistic simultaneously but to varying degrees, choosing pragmatically according to whatever works to achieve its ideal objective of serving the betterment of the people. A government that lets the people create the economy by protecting the sanctity of person and property, basically making it safe to produce wealth and retain it, will see wealth develop. A government that doesn't protect those rights, or is untrustworthy itself to maintain that right, creates instability in the economy and is not conducive to the production of wealth. If wealth can be taken away at the government's whim or at the hands of criminals and thieves who are not held to respect the sanctity of person and property, no one will make the effort to produce it. I can agree to that to some degree. Extreme, pure, dogmatic socialism is a burden that grinds society to a halt. Yet my point was that militarism in that sense is the same. If the government increases military spending, it has the same effect as when it increases other types of spending that don't invest in the people. It's but a burden on the society. At least education spending is an investment in the people. And this is where I'm often dumbfounded when a person will support massive hikes to military spending yet oppose any increase in education spending on the grounds that it will mean higehr taxes taking investment away from business. Won't increased military spending have the same effect, minus providing a better educated workforce that business can benefit from? It just seems that supporters of militarism who dogmaticlaly oppose anything remotely socialistic essentially believes in a contradiction, showing a total lack of consistency in his economic beliefs. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 It just seems that supporters of militarism who dogmaticlaly oppose anything remotely socialistic essentially believes in a contradiction, showing a total lack of consistency in his economic beliefs. Well, I've said my piece on this and understand your view. I suppose the military should be a private force of mercenaries if one is consistent in his view. A threat to a nation from aggressive external governments, or subversive internal and external forces to the stability of the form of government of that nation, requires a military proportional to the threat in order to sustain any kind of economic stability and confidence of the people that the sanctity of person and property is secure. The size of a mercenary army would respond to the proportionality whereas a government standing army would not necessarily have that tendency. In third world countries, more often than not, the top priority of government is not the sanctity of person and property, but the protection of the government which results in economic instability with government often being the biggest threat to the general populace and the creation of wealth. Generally, militarism is associated with the right wing and I think you are attempting to reconcile why the right wing on this forum are against socialism but seem ok with militarism. It is a bit easier to understand if the right and left political spectrum is abandoned and it is viewed from the perspective of a "no government - total government" spectrum. The right wing on this forum are not socialist in it's concept of social engineering. These would be the conservatives here. They do believe in some structure in society but would prefer it be a tacit and common understanding of the individuals in the formation of the society rather than a government engineered society. A military to defend against socialist governments that would engineer society is in keeping with their beliefs. They are not necessarily militaristic but are willing to fight. This is smaller government than what the social progressives, the left wing is demanding so is merely less socialistic. Militarism is not really a right wing concept. The Nazis and the Fascists who were militaristic are not right wing but socialist in nature so belong on the left wing with other socialists. Socialists of today like to divorce themselves from militarism. They are the caring-sharing compassionate type - so long as they can use the law to enforce their ideals. They unwittingly grow and centralize the power of the State and the State will, in order to defend it's growth and secure it's power, grow the military itself. After all someone must enforce all the laws that the left demands be enacted so that their fellow man is restrained from acting in an uncivilized manner, like hogging all the profits from the economy, and trampling on the rights of minorities or women or gays or labour or the poor and homeless - the more vulnerable of society. I don't think anyone advocates that but the left likes to think their should be laws about it - it's safer. Meanwhile, government becomes overbearing, all-powerful and ends up their greatest enemy. Of course, the right wing must be to blame. But conservatives of today, the paleo-conservatives that is, do not wish such a big government. The neo-conservatives are formed from the ranks of impatient left-wingers who want to entrench the authority of the State and are fearful of losing already won socially progressive ground. As I say, the left and right wing spectrum is confusing until you see who is calling for big government with lots of social engineering which indubitably requires, policing and a military to defend the government's position and the government itself. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 The thread title should have read Socialism vs. Moralism vs militarism. As I see it lefties place more emphasis on social engineering whereas righties place emphasis on moral engineering. The result is mutual assured dictatorship no matter which way we turn. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well, if I'm not responsible for your education, then why wouldI be responsible for your defense? It is in fact possible to arm myself and defend my own private property and to hell with your defence along with your education. In theory perhaps but hardly relevant to a modern world. Go ahead, defend your own property. How well will you fare against a modern army? Or a cruise missile? "The most expensive military is the one that proves only second-best."---Robert Heinlein Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 In theory perhaps but hardly relevant to a modern world.Go ahead, defend your own property. How well will you fare against a modern army? Or a cruise missile? "The most expensive military is the one that proves only second-best."---Robert Heinlein The same applies to education. Let me reword your sentence if I may: "Go ahead, educated your own kids only. How well will your property value and community development fare against increased local illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums? Or general poverty?" Just as having each person defend his own land would still allow the enemy to control pretty well everything else (as is the case in Afghanistan, we can'd deny that NATO does essentially control most uninhabited land), so having each person educate only his own family would likewise allow ignorance to conquer the rest of the country. Isn't it the same? Yet we insist that to defend the country, we need a modern army, but for everything else, we should just let free markets raign and somehow other people's misfortunes will not affect us. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 The same applies to education. Let me reword your sentence if I may:"Go ahead, educated your own kids only. How well will your property value and community development fare against increased local illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums? Or general poverty?" Why would "educating" your own kids increase local illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums? That sounds more like not educating your kids! But you will notice that a public "education" with no child left "uneducated" - "education" guaranteed in other words, there is illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums. Is it possible the State is not "educating" our kids? Socialism is not static. It progressively grows the State. What may originally be perceived as legitimate reasons for government, e.g., relinquishing the use of the initiation of force to a monopoly, for the purposes of justice, safety and security, becomes a relinquishing of responsibility for other things such as highways and roads, and energy management and then regulation of food standards and then housing standards and then social security and unemployment insurance and then education and healthcare and then further regulations on all of the above, and then restrictions on ownership and a determination by government what you can and can't own, what employment you are suited for, the square footage of housing you are allowed to have, until finally whether or not you can be determined to be a "useless eater" and/or unproductive parasite or destructive influence upon society and not worthy of life. That's the progression. Today's conservatives are attempting to stem the tide of progressive socialism and liberals are attempting to continue the progression which rides the coattails of the "collective good". Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Why would "educating" your own kids increase local illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums? That sounds more like not educating your kids! But you will notice that a public "education" with no child left "uneducated" - "education" guaranteed in other words, there is illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums. Is it possible the State is not "educating" our kids? Right now we have public education, which we can equate with common defense. Within this context, you're not educating just your own kid, but the neighbour's too. On the other hand, the total privatization and deregulation of education, would equate with personal defense of one's property, whereby you'd be teaching your own kid with no guarantee that the kids in the rest of the community would receive eny education. The parallel is the same. Without a common defense, you might succeed in defending your own corner of Canada, but the rest of the country would go to waste. With no common responsibility for the community, you might be able to ensure your own kids get an education, but couldn't guarantee that the country doesn't reach third world status within a generation. Socialism is not static. It progressively grows the State. What may originally be perceived as legitimate reasons for government, e.g., relinquishing the use of the initiation of force to a monopoly, for the purposes of justice, safety and security, becomes a relinquishing of responsibility for other things such as highways and roads, and energy management and then regulation of food standards and then housing standards and then social security and unemployment insurance and then education and healthcare and then further regulations on all of the above, and then restrictions on ownership and a determination by government what you can and can't own, what employment you are suited for, the square footage of housing you are allowed to have, until finally whether or not you can be determined to be a "useless eater" and/or unproductive parasite or destructive influence upon society and not worthy of life. That's the progression. Today's conservatives are attempting to stem the tide of progressive socialism and liberals are attempting to continue the progression which rides the coattails of the "collective good". I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're suggesting that we need to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, then I can agree with you. However, when the government increases military spending as part of a recession stimulous package, is that what the military is for, job creation? Isn't that socialist too? Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Right now we have public education, which we can equate with common defense. Within this context, you're not educating just your own kid, but the neighbour's too. On the other hand, the total privatization and deregulation of education, would equate with personal defense of one's property, whereby you'd be teaching your own kid with no guarantee that the kids in the rest of the community would receive eny education.The parallel is the same. Without a common defense, you might succeed in defending your own corner of Canada, but the rest of the country would go to waste. With no common responsibility for the community, you might be able to ensure your own kids get an education, but couldn't guarantee that the country doesn't reach third world status within a generation. It is easy to be overwhelmed as an individual and have the sanctity of person and property violated whether by another individual or a group of individuals. I understand that you feel an education is necessary for someone to improve his position in life, and really that is all anyone is attempting to do, improve his ability to sustain himself and the people and things he cares for. However, it must be noted that forcing an education on someone that he doesn't want is an infringement upon that individuals sanctity of person and property. You can argue all you like that a public education is necessary and you or the State shall decide what is best in education for all individuals, and under certain circumstances on an elementary level I might agree, but enforcing your idea or the State's idea of what education "everyone" should have is an attempt to regulate and impose the will of another, the State's or the collective will, upon people's lives. So it is not a parallel form the perspective of the individual. It may be a parallel from the perspective of the State or the collective since that is what they do. As for the military. It is debatable whether or not a standing army is necessary and situations may dictate it necessary. Once again it is not an infringement upon the individual to protect his sanctity of person and property. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're suggesting that we need to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, then I can agree with you. However, when the government increases military spending as part of a recession stimulous package, is that what the military is for, job creation? Isn't that socialist too? That is what I am suggesting but realizing that socialism must be recognized for what it is and voting for favour and privilege by forming special interests and making demands for largesse from government leads to divisiveness and inequality that is always met with further devisiveness and inequality in attempts to correct initially created inequalities and divisiveness that government creates. Society may harbour inequalities and divisiveness within itself however those must be allowed to evolve. Further and deepening animosities and divisiveness are all that government can create in making laws to correct them. Underdogs and minorities must find their position in society as any individual must without favour from government. They must be guaranteed the sanctity of person and property by government, which is governments proper mandate, but they must not attempt to create "level playing fields" and "social justice" by punishing one group or aiding another, no matter how nicey-nice or compassionate that may seem. Once they start doing so you have started the process toward the eventual attainment of the totalitarian state where the State authority is the only one with social and economic priority. Edited September 7, 2009 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.