Eh, if I knew how to do that, I would be a household name worldwide, not shitposting on Lemmy.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict. Most people already aren’t. Soldiers need to specifically be trained to kill, because that’s not something the majority of people want to do.
If the general says “fight!” And the foot soldier says “no, I think I’d like a nap”, does the war happen?
So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.
And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that’s what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don’t want to actually stand by them.
Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict.
Great! That’s what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you’re “trying to make people uninterested in conflict,” why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?
What a load of horseshit. That’s a blatant contradiction, it’s blatant hypocrisy.
Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you’re using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren’t completely contradictory.
I don’t even know what your approach is, apart from disagreeing with people.
But yes, in a multipolar world where every pole feels like they have a chance to make the world unipolar with them on top, the end result is conflict. This is what happened between 1945-1991, where there was a multipolar world and a whole lot of proxy war.
I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South. Essentially a unipolar Korean peninsula. Because if NK thinks they can win a war against SK, they will go to war. That’s why they maintain a massive military presence and routinely send raiding parties across the border. By “accident”.
I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South.
That’s not how that works, my dude!
How the fuck is it remotely “anarchist” or “anti-militarist” to support a state intimidating people into submission through military force? That’s absolute nonsense. Basically every power-hungry dictator since the dawn of time has been exactly as “anarchist” as you. “I don’t want to use military force to make those people submit, I just want to intimidate them into submission. But I will use force if I have to.”
Forget about the Roman Empire, fucking Ghenghis Khan held that position!
At best you can argue that you’re just trying to enforce the status quo. Which is about the least “anarchist” thing you could possibly do! It’s fucking ridiculous! There is zero difference between your position, and someone who is full on, 100% statist, full on, 100% in favor of imperialism. Zero difference whatsoever. The only distinction is in rhetoric.
Even then, while you try your best to maintain the empire, you’re not even taking the right approach to it. I know you want your empire to span the entire globe, I know your ambition is to stamp out, sorry, intimidate into submission, anyone who would dare to stand against your authority, but I’m telling you it’s just not possible. If you try to hold everything, you’re not going to wind up not having any empire at all. The empire is overextended and if it collapses, which it is on track to, then you won’t be able to make anyone submit to your authority. And the world will be thrown into chaos, potentially even setting of global thermonuclear war.
You have to restrain your ambition, my liege, your lust for power and authority, at least a little bit! If you just accept that you can only dominate and control part of the world, instead of being dead set on total domination, then we can actually achieve some degree of peace and stability. No matter how much you want world domination, it’s just not sustainable or viable. I’m sorry, liege, I know how much you hate the idea that anyone could be free from your authority, but it’s just something you have to accept.
When you talked about “abolishing the state,” obviously.
This is the deterring Korean War 2 approach.
Sire, I fear that your focus is misplaced. There is a growing threat of banditry within your own realm, sire. These are no ordinary bandits, my lord, they are organized and well equipped. I fear they are plotting to seize your throne, milord. The rabble is discontented, there are whispers that the king cares not about protecting the people, that they cannot afford to pay the apocathary for treatment when they fall ill, and that even basic necessities have become harder to come by. I even have reports sire, that even the loyalty of the guardsmen is in question, as many are loyal to the bandits. Even the courts and magistrates are not free of their influence. And let’s not even discuss the state of your treasury.
You must turn your focus inward, my liege, for the security of the realm. Let us appease our allies with gifts and honeyed words, but not allow ourselves to be drawn into their campaigns. If we try to aid them while there is turbulence at home, it will only create more problems, my liege. I beg you, my liege, put aside your pride and ambition and see reason! I know you long for the field of battle, that the tribulations of the peasants bore you, but it is upon their backs that your power rests, lord. They will only answer the call of battle if they see that you are a wise and cautious ruler, who tends to his realm.
By the way I’ve been skipping over your chargpt bullshit.
Not a single thing I’ve said has been chat-gpt.
Yeah. Can’t really abolish the state when the state is being conquered by another, more oppressive state.
Right, so then it’s exactly what I said. You are not an anarchist, you do not believe in abolishing the state, that is purely rhetorical. You are an imperialist who believes in maintaining the empire (badly), and who likes to pretend that you’re not.
Okay, then your shitty attempts at fantasy writing. Basically your second paragraphs in most of your posts I’ve just not bothered to read.
You really don’t understand the concept of harm reduction, do you? A less oppressive state is better than a more oppressive state. Abolishing the state is less likely with an opporessive state.
Eh, if I knew how to do that, I would be a household name worldwide, not shitposting on Lemmy.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict. Most people already aren’t. Soldiers need to specifically be trained to kill, because that’s not something the majority of people want to do.
If the general says “fight!” And the foot soldier says “no, I think I’d like a nap”, does the war happen?
So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.
And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that’s what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don’t want to actually stand by them.
Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.
Great! That’s what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you’re “trying to make people uninterested in conflict,” why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?
What a load of horseshit. That’s a blatant contradiction, it’s blatant hypocrisy.
Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you’re using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren’t completely contradictory.
…wut?
I don’t even know what your approach is, apart from disagreeing with people.
But yes, in a multipolar world where every pole feels like they have a chance to make the world unipolar with them on top, the end result is conflict. This is what happened between 1945-1991, where there was a multipolar world and a whole lot of proxy war.
I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South. Essentially a unipolar Korean peninsula. Because if NK thinks they can win a war against SK, they will go to war. That’s why they maintain a massive military presence and routinely send raiding parties across the border. By “accident”.
That’s not how that works, my dude!
How the fuck is it remotely “anarchist” or “anti-militarist” to support a state intimidating people into submission through military force? That’s absolute nonsense. Basically every power-hungry dictator since the dawn of time has been exactly as “anarchist” as you. “I don’t want to use military force to make those people submit, I just want to intimidate them into submission. But I will use force if I have to.”
Forget about the Roman Empire, fucking Ghenghis Khan held that position!
At best you can argue that you’re just trying to enforce the status quo. Which is about the least “anarchist” thing you could possibly do! It’s fucking ridiculous! There is zero difference between your position, and someone who is full on, 100% statist, full on, 100% in favor of imperialism. Zero difference whatsoever. The only distinction is in rhetoric.
Even then, while you try your best to maintain the empire, you’re not even taking the right approach to it. I know you want your empire to span the entire globe, I know your ambition is to stamp out, sorry, intimidate into submission, anyone who would dare to stand against your authority, but I’m telling you it’s just not possible. If you try to hold everything, you’re not going to wind up not having any empire at all. The empire is overextended and if it collapses, which it is on track to, then you won’t be able to make anyone submit to your authority. And the world will be thrown into chaos, potentially even setting of global thermonuclear war.
You have to restrain your ambition, my liege, your lust for power and authority, at least a little bit! If you just accept that you can only dominate and control part of the world, instead of being dead set on total domination, then we can actually achieve some degree of peace and stability. No matter how much you want world domination, it’s just not sustainable or viable. I’m sorry, liege, I know how much you hate the idea that anyone could be free from your authority, but it’s just something you have to accept.
I think you’re responding to the wrong person dude. When did I say this was the anarchist approach?
This is the deterring Korean War 2 approach.
When you talked about “abolishing the state,” obviously.
Sire, I fear that your focus is misplaced. There is a growing threat of banditry within your own realm, sire. These are no ordinary bandits, my lord, they are organized and well equipped. I fear they are plotting to seize your throne, milord. The rabble is discontented, there are whispers that the king cares not about protecting the people, that they cannot afford to pay the apocathary for treatment when they fall ill, and that even basic necessities have become harder to come by. I even have reports sire, that even the loyalty of the guardsmen is in question, as many are loyal to the bandits. Even the courts and magistrates are not free of their influence. And let’s not even discuss the state of your treasury.
You must turn your focus inward, my liege, for the security of the realm. Let us appease our allies with gifts and honeyed words, but not allow ourselves to be drawn into their campaigns. If we try to aid them while there is turbulence at home, it will only create more problems, my liege. I beg you, my liege, put aside your pride and ambition and see reason! I know you long for the field of battle, that the tribulations of the peasants bore you, but it is upon their backs that your power rests, lord. They will only answer the call of battle if they see that you are a wise and cautious ruler, who tends to his realm.
Yeah. Can’t really abolish the state when the state is being conquered by another, more oppressive state.
By the way I’ve been skipping over your chargpt bullshit.
Not a single thing I’ve said has been chat-gpt.
Right, so then it’s exactly what I said. You are not an anarchist, you do not believe in abolishing the state, that is purely rhetorical. You are an imperialist who believes in maintaining the empire (badly), and who likes to pretend that you’re not.
Okay, then your shitty attempts at fantasy writing. Basically your second paragraphs in most of your posts I’ve just not bothered to read.
You really don’t understand the concept of harm reduction, do you? A less oppressive state is better than a more oppressive state. Abolishing the state is less likely with an opporessive state.