• Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    you failed to engage with their actual argument, which was that military spending is absurdly high but always univocally supported by everyone in the establishment and increased with every new budget, but that it’s an uphill fight to get anything new for people who actually need help.

    • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, I engaged with that portion by pointing out I don’t actually believe in standing armies. So defense spending should be close to zero. But, yeah, everyone wants their pork and defense spending is free money to them.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t believe in standing armies? I’m sorry but you’re either 5 years old or incredibly naive.

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a ridiculous goal. Armies aren’t just for waging wars against other people. Emergencies arise where it’s absolutely CRUCIAL you have well trained, organized soldiers ready to respond.

            • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              A trained, voluntary militia is the only way to have ethical defense that can’t be abused. Maybe we don’t get there, but having the goal be more militia vs standing army can be worked out.

              The world won’t always be the same and we should plan for more liberty oriented and equitable outcomes instead of dismissing them out of hand because we don’t think they’re pragmatic today.