6 ms·

Here is what I responded to: > It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subser

by slg 5d ago

Here is what I responded to: > It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". Basically, the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world. This person equates not "do[ing] it" with "strict pacifism".

s1artibartfast 5d ago
"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity sophacles- stupidly thought this was an "If I dont, someone will" argument Ajedi32- clarifies "the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world" The point is some level of defense is required. This point is completely compatible with not taking a maximalist approach to military. It is also compatible with the fact that even Russia doesn't take a maximalist approach to military. The whole point of the chain is that citizens should not fixate on if companies or people participate in the military-industrial complex because it is good an necessary, but rather what those actors actually doing.
- slg 5d ago
  >"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. >beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity I don't think this an accurate summary of the nuance contained in beloch's comment. I'll specifically highlight what I think was lost by the people who replied: > People working for companies that do defence work have a moral obligation to observe how their labour is used and refuse to give it if the results are unethical. It's no different from soldiers having a moral duty to refuse illegal orders. >To answer your question, I'd say that participating in the defence industry can be justifiable if you remain guided by ethics, and unjustifiable if you abandon them for money. Once the choice is either a yes or no, this nuance is lost. If you set up the choice as between pacifism and military capability, you're tacitly endorsing any form of military capability including nuclear weapons.
  - s1artibartfast 5d ago
    Why do you reject the idea or possibility of yes to military capability, but with ethics or restrictions? It seems obviously possible, and your arguments support it. Where is this tacit endorsement you see coming from? It seems like nobody thinks that way with respect to their employment or support. Anyways, this seems to be more about semantics than substance at this point, if you are arguing it is not binary, and I'm arguing that nobody said it was

by slg 5d ago

s1artibartfast 5d ago

"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity sophacles- stupidly thought this was an "If I dont, someone will" argument Ajedi32- clarifies "the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world" The point is some level of defense is required. This point is completely compatible with not taking a maximalist approach to military. It is also compatible with the fact that even Russia doesn't take a maximalist approach to military. The whole point of the chain is that citizens should not fixate on if companies or people participate in the military-industrial complex because it is good an necessary, but rather what those actors actually doing.

slg 5d ago
>"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. >beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity I don't think this an accurate summary of the nuance contained in beloch's comment. I'll specifically highlight what I think was lost by the people who replied: > People working for companies that do defence work have a moral obligation to observe how their labour is used and refuse to give it if the results are unethical. It's no different from soldiers having a moral duty to refuse illegal orders. >To answer your question, I'd say that participating in the defence industry can be justifiable if you remain guided by ethics, and unjustifiable if you abandon them for money. Once the choice is either a yes or no, this nuance is lost. If you set up the choice as between pacifism and military capability, you're tacitly endorsing any form of military capability including nuclear weapons.
- s1artibartfast 5d ago
  Why do you reject the idea or possibility of yes to military capability, but with ethics or restrictions? It seems obviously possible, and your arguments support it. Where is this tacit endorsement you see coming from? It seems like nobody thinks that way with respect to their employment or support. Anyways, this seems to be more about semantics than substance at this point, if you are arguing it is not binary, and I'm arguing that nobody said it was