Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Why Military is a Right-Wing Concept

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 2:24:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay. Let's say you've got the Republic of Republica. It has a population of approximately 5 million people. Of those, approximately 120,000 serve in the Armed Forces of Republica.
What do you have here, exactly? Well, you've got 120,000 people who went through extensive military training, are equipped with weapons that could tear your car to shreds (though they'd probably just fire a bullet through your windshield) etc. Let's not even get started with aircrafts, battleships, and tanks. Meanwhile, everybody else has rifles (if they're lucky). And almost every adult has a car. That's about it. The populace does not have military training, or military equipment.
So let's say that one day a dictator takes over the Republic of Republica. He has the backing of the army. Having a Pro-Democracy mindset, the people try to remove the dictator from office.
Easier said than done. The average one of these soldiers, properly trained and wielding weaponry more advanced than that used by the Soviet Union in the year 1980, could kill an average of 40 civilians before being killed or incapacitated. Thus, if you do the math, those 120,000 soldiers are capable of killing or subduing 4.8 million civilians who are equipped with non-military equipment.
Assuming that women, children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped, infants, and the sick would not participate in this war (nor would a somewhat large, apathetic percentage of the eligible populace), the rebellion would not stand a chance.
The ratio of civilians to soldiers is large, but this is compensated for by the killing capabilities of the average soldier. Thus, that small percentage of the population is as strong as the entirety of the civilian populace.

My point is, the minority has way, way, way too much power over the rest of the populace. Even if this power is not used, the mere potential that it will means that there is a power inequality in that nation.
Thus, a Left-Wing nation would either abolish or keep very small its standing army.

This principle, thought up by myself, is what I call "dynamic egalitarianism". That is, equality of power. Also, I apologize if at some point I've already made this thread.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:37:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The problem with that is a country does not always choose to go to war. Sometimes another country decides there will be a war.
If your country has a very small low budget army the other country will be tempted to go to war with you.
Is there a solution to this problem?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 2:04:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe that war is a type of mental illness.
The people who get this disease, get it at the same time everybody else does. Therefore they appear to be normal.
I didn't read that somewhere. This is an original concept which I thought up completely by myself. Are you impressed Praesentya?
Kaynes
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 2:53:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why you are wrong :

Lenine
Staline
Mao

The military is a mean to an end. It is neither left not right. Everything d"pends on why you want of need more military. You can be very interventionist and at the very left of the spectrum. At the same time libertarien are at the far right and are against every form of military or intervention whatsoever.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 3:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 8:42:49 AM, Praesentya wrote:
Are there possibly other forms of power that factor into "dynamic egalitarianism?"

Sure, you can have a fair voting system and a system of law that is impartial and unbiased, but whoever is capable of forcing their will on others is the one who truly has power. Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority. The only way to counteract such an entity or person is someone/something else which has equal or greater amount of power.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 4:08:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 2:24:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Let's say you've got the Republic of Republica. It has a population of approximately 5 million people. Of those, approximately 120,000 serve in the Armed Forces of Republica.
What do you have here, exactly? Well, you've got 120,000 people who went through extensive military training, are equipped with weapons that could tear your car to shreds (though they'd probably just fire a bullet through your windshield) etc. Let's not even get started with aircrafts, battleships, and tanks. Meanwhile, everybody else has rifles (if they're lucky). And almost every adult has a car. That's about it. The populace does not have military training, or military equipment.
So let's say that one day a dictator takes over the Republic of Republica. He has the backing of the army. Having a Pro-Democracy mindset, the people try to remove the dictator from office.
Easier said than done. The average one of these soldiers, properly trained and wielding weaponry more advanced than that used by the Soviet Union in the year 1980, could kill an average of 40 civilians before being killed or incapacitated. Thus, if you do the math, those 120,000 soldiers are capable of killing or subduing 4.8 million civilians who are equipped with non-military equipment.
Assuming that women, children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped, infants, and the sick would not participate in this war (nor would a somewhat large, apathetic percentage of the eligible populace), the rebellion would not stand a chance.
The ratio of civilians to soldiers is large, but this is compensated for by the killing capabilities of the average soldier. Thus, that small percentage of the population is as strong as the entirety of the civilian populace.

My point is, the minority has way, way, way too much power over the rest of the populace. Even if this power is not used, the mere potential that it will means that there is a power inequality in that nation.
Thus, a Left-Wing nation would either abolish or keep very small its standing army.

This principle, thought up by myself, is what I call "dynamic egalitarianism". That is, equality of power. Also, I apologize if at some point I've already made this thread.

"Right" and "Left" are contextual. The political right and left today largely favor a military of some sort, from what I know. Just like government is neither a right nor a left concept.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 4:58:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.

George Bush never said that, as far as I know.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:00:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 4:58:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.

George Bush never said that, as far as I know.

Well, I made that post based on the assumption that he did, purely to make a point. I'm sorry if he didn't actually make that statement.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:08:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 5:00:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:58:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.

George Bush never said that, as far as I know.

Well, I made that post based on the assumption that he did, purely to make a point. I'm sorry if he didn't actually make that statement.

There are two sides of the Right-Wing "coin". There's the Libertarians who believe that the only way to eliminate inequality is to eliminate freedom, which in their opinion is too high a cost.
Then, there's the side of the Right-Wing that literally encourages inequality in itself. Also it is Pro-rich people and pro-certain group(s) while against the poor and/or against certain groups. The second group is generally more authoritarian.

That is, there's the Pro-Freedom Right and then there's the Pro-Inequality Right. George Bush seems to have fallen into the latter category, for the most part.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 5:08:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:00:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:58:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.

George Bush never said that, as far as I know.

Well, I made that post based on the assumption that he did, purely to make a point. I'm sorry if he didn't actually make that statement.

There are two sides of the Right-Wing "coin". There's the Libertarians who believe that the only way to eliminate inequality is to eliminate freedom, which in their opinion is too high a cost.
Then, there's the side of the Right-Wing that literally encourages inequality in itself. Also it is Pro-rich people and pro-certain group(s) while against the poor and/or against certain groups. The second group is generally more authoritarian.

That is, there's the Pro-Freedom Right and then there's the Pro-Inequality Right. George Bush seems to have fallen into the latter category, for the most part.

... I agree for the most part.

By "freedom", you mean pure capitalism, correct?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 5:10:45 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:08:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:00:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:58:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.

George Bush never said that, as far as I know.

Well, I made that post based on the assumption that he did, purely to make a point. I'm sorry if he didn't actually make that statement.

There are two sides of the Right-Wing "coin". There's the Libertarians who believe that the only way to eliminate inequality is to eliminate freedom, which in their opinion is too high a cost.
Then, there's the side of the Right-Wing that literally encourages inequality in itself. Also it is Pro-rich people and pro-certain group(s) while against the poor and/or against certain groups. The second group is generally more authoritarian.

That is, there's the Pro-Freedom Right and then there's the Pro-Inequality Right. George Bush seems to have fallen into the latter category, for the most part.

... I agree for the most part.

By "freedom", you mean pure capitalism, correct?

It means freedom. Capitalism is one aspect of it.
I'd only condone forced equality when the alternative is the violation of somebody's rights by another.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:15:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That is, for example, the taking away of the right to own slaves was justified because this freedom only resulted in the violation of the rights of others.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 11:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 2:24:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:


Rebellion scenarios generally play out differently because the people whom the military are fighting aren't some invaders, but the supporting mechanism for the military itself. It'll also tend to by asymmetric warfare, which has different rules of engagement.

I also think that the military isn't antagonistic towards freedom per se, but only when it is unbalanced, like any power. The Roman military, for example, didn't become an organ of oppression until the Marian Reforms weakened many of the restrictions on military powers in the name of efficiency and competence.

And I don't think that it's relevant to the left-right paradigm, and that that particular binary is a silly way of classify political beliefs anyway, which obscures far more than it elucidates.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Alex_Zarvalas
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 9:05:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm a fairly leftist person myself, but Kaynes could not have said it any better. The military and war isn't a matter of left and right, it's a matter of who's left (and not the political left). If your military isn't strong, then your country better do some sucking up to the hegemonic power. Unfortunately, that's how it is.
Marked_Of_Kane
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Vox_Veritas

The supposed power of the millitary you merely assume. You assume that military personel are willing to shoot to kill their countrymen - including collegues, friends and members of their family - to maintain their allegiance to the commander-in-chief. You suppose that the millitary will run over the majority of civilians by using their firepower - and not be demolished by a resistance-mob (or interfering foreign forces)... and you assume that this concept is right-wing, even though a dictatorship would topple a democratic right-wing as well.

Mind to elaborate further how your theory works?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:24:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 5:13:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:10:45 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:08:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:00:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:58:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2015 4:09:27 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:09:25 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
" Voting really doesn't mean squat when the Government doesn't honor the decisions of the majority" - George W Bush

Bush would be the one to know. The endorser of the American oligarchal system would be one to know.

George Bush never said that, as far as I know.

Well, I made that post based on the assumption that he did, purely to make a point. I'm sorry if he didn't actually make that statement.

There are two sides of the Right-Wing "coin". There's the Libertarians who believe that the only way to eliminate inequality is to eliminate freedom, which in their opinion is too high a cost.
Then, there's the side of the Right-Wing that literally encourages inequality in itself. Also it is Pro-rich people and pro-certain group(s) while against the poor and/or against certain groups. The second group is generally more authoritarian.

That is, there's the Pro-Freedom Right and then there's the Pro-Inequality Right. George Bush seems to have fallen into the latter category, for the most part.

... I agree for the most part.

By "freedom", you mean pure capitalism, correct?

It means freedom. Capitalism is one aspect of it.
I'd only condone forced equality when the alternative is the violation of somebody's rights by another.

How is capitalism one aspect of freedom as long as private property rights are backed by force, a.k.a. government, which is specifically designed to restrict "freedom" (supposedly)?

I'd only condone forced equality when the alternative is not appeasing as many people as possible, and only then under certain circumstances.

What objectively defines what "rights" someone has? I don't think that anything does, and I am extremely doubtful of ideologies such as Objectivism (not saying that I think you are a Rand-ite) that use "rights" and "moral absolutes" to justify themselves.
You can call me Mark if you like.