You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Response: Is It Evil To Join The Military?
Here's what I don't get.. The poster wrote
"The politicians base their military decisions on the lucrative interests of their partners in the war manufacturing industry - the guys that build the tanks, drones, jets, etc - which receive trillions of dollars that were stolen from you."
.. and you responded
"I wholeheartedly agree with you here. And I've actually seen it!"
Am I missing something? If you've seen this and agree, you already lost your argument.
So you're saying that because I've seen the results of the military industrial complex while on a deployment, I'm either evil or a dupe? That's rather... confusing.
What funding politicians acquire for budgets and who they employ to execute those contracts is almost entirely out of the hands of 95+% of military personnel.
Perhaps we've crossed lines on what the argument actually is? I'm arguing that its possible to be NEITHER a dupe or an evil baby killer AND join the military. Not sure how actually seeing what the military industrial complex looks like overseas negates my argument?
Well, if you KNOW they're acting on profit and illegitimate motives, I'm curious why you'd argue in their defense.
If we look at this from a standpoint based strictly on evidence, then yes. Joining the military DOES make you a dupe. Mainly because every single war in history has had a fabricated motive when the true, proveable initiative is power for special interests. This is proven, using economics and history.
Therefore, you would be duped into joining because you had no knowledge of how government or war actually works and that soldiers are not fighting in defense of freedom, but instead fighting an offensive battle to promote the growth of the wealthy who influence the military.
Enjoy your day.
Because I'm not childish enough to believe that this is a simple black and white topic of "corruption" vs "non-corruption". There are legitimate threats in this world. How I think they should be approached and how elected politicians and un-elected bureaucrats decide to approach it are two different things, in or out of uniform.
I like the majority of the voluntaryist/anarchist principles that I've been seeing in here. I'm curious as to why there is antagonism towards one population known for an appreciation of individual liberty (combat veterans are big into this).
Not a very wise strategic move. We should be natural allies, but I feel like I'm arguing in a college classroom with kids fresh out of their parents houses proclaiming how things should be without discussing how to practically get from A to B.
Childish was the operative word I was going to use...
This has been one of my biggest issues with anarchism/voluntaryism. I don't feel like the vast majority of our citizens are capable of rationally deciding how to handle these threats. Further, many of these threats will require the intervention of those that are skilled in handling them (with military, police, intelligence experience). Either way there will be military organizations. I much prefer an organization with some semblance of fighting for ideals or a cause, than one that is simply sold out to the highest bidder. In fact, in the case of mercenaries, the question of is it evil to join becomes even more relevant. It seems to me that many of the anarchist elements on this platform repeat themselves and stick to a script ad nauseum that doesn't work in the real world. The real world is messy; and good and evil aren't always black and white (like you said). These people seem to rely far too much on society always doing the right thing, which doesn't always happen.
There is no reply available for your comment in another thread, so I'm sorry for replying out of thread.
Did @smooth explain the shared payout to your satisfaction? Now that you know how it actually works, I hope you will be able to understand why I said what I did.
Cheers