I'd like to revisit the bullet point I made that brought out such opposition.

"6) If we still live in a world were war takes place then all citizens of the country would be required to serve in the military, much like Isreal. the reason here is that those that have served would be less likely to blindly send others to die. Ultimately if the world became peaceful then these positions could spill back over into the humanitarian areas. "

I think this statement does a reasonable job of stating that if we still lived in a world were war takes place.... Remember just because we build an ideal society doesn't mean that your counties neighbors will share your views or even accept your views. The last part of the sentence say's that if the world becomes peaceful then military service would essentially spill back into humanitarian areas...

I understand the violent opposition to fighting. Very few people want to got to war. But in an ideal society I think every member would share in the DEFENSE of his country. But I also think there is room for non defense military. Genocide comes to mind. Nations involved in genocide need to be stopped. I don't know about you polytrip by my personal inner peace is disrupted when the basic rights of my fellow humans are being violated. Yes there is a certain level of peace that I cannot hold onto because fellow humans are being violated all the time. I don't want to go to war anymore than you do....and honestly I don't believe you'd shoot your fellow soldiers. Frankly If you lacked the courage to stand up for the freedoms and ideals of your ideal society then you'd almost certainly lack the courage to shoot your fellow soldiers who would be doing their best to defend your loved ones.

Honestly I think you read the first part of bullet point 6 and immediately the word draft came to mind. Not exactly what I'm talking about it. It's not a draft like we employ in this country. It's every member of society pitching in to ensure that every other member of society can continue to enjoy the freedoms and ideals of said ideal society. It's not a permanent position.

Believe me when I say that I also have a strong opposition to fighting in a war as we know them today. I don't trust our governments or their intentions. But we are talking about an idea society.....and this ideal society, just like all societies, would have to be defended from those that would aim to destroy it.

The whole point of the argument is that there may be just wars and there may be unjust wars, but if you want to force people into fighting them, you basically say: "i don't care whether you think it's just or unjust, you're gonna fight and possibly kill or get killed because i say so". I cannot see ANY justification for that.

In my country, the same politicians who supported the war in iraq, are in support of a military draft. That means nothing else than that they want to force people to kill or die in their personal military hobby projects.

I have a great respect for people who serve in the military, just as i have a great respect for anybody who makes great sacrifices for what (he believes) is the common good.

But a forced draft is nothing but the most brutal form of rape.

I have nothing against prostitution either and i think it should be legalised everywhere. It may even be a good thing that there are prostitutes doing their job somewhere. But forcing someone to work in the prostitution business....to take that choice out of people's own hands...than what's a normal commercial enterprise, becomes rape.

That's how i see it. It's up to my counscience whether i want to kill or die for some cause. If you take that choice out of people's own hands, it immediately ceases to be a justifiable cause.

I can follow your argument, but in the real world it would result in the government owning my soul, my counscience. I could not live with that. I won't let me be degraded to some peace of flesh.

An army like the japanese, that can only do purely defensive work is a different thing. But of any military mission that on one hand could be just, but of wich the justness eventually is merely a matter of how you look at it, like many humanitarian missions it should be a choice to fight it. If you're a professional soldier, you've made the choice to be send out and to let someone else decide. That's the difference.

So let's just assume that a utopian society existed...like I defined above ( you don't have to agree about it's utopianess..lol). Let's also say this country hasn't fought a war in oh...150 years. For all practical intents and purposes they are a peaceful society. However, realizing that they still live in the less than peaceful world at large they have maintained a military. The only cost of admission to this society is 1-2 years of your time helping in matters of defense. It's not up for debate. If you want to live in this society you have to spend some of your time helping to maintain it's military. BTW Not all military duty involves killing people. Some people in the military are working to save lives. Some would be working to make sure the front lines have food, some are involved in intelligence gathering. Let's be honest here...not everyone is even remotely fit for combat duty and they would only bring the team down if they were deployed in such a fashion.

Would you rather live in the world we currently live in or that country? It's a no brainer for me personally. I'd gladly...ok not gladly, but I'd be willing to fight and die for a society that had all the other aspects I outlined above in heart beat. Where as right now today if I was drafted into the USA military I'd defect from my country because I don't believe in what we are fighting for.

In any event these are all just philosophical discussions. The reality is that we don't now, and will not in our lifetimes, live in any society even remotely close to what I outlined and certainly not like what others have outlines with no money or positions of power.

I guess for me it all comes down to the simple realization that freedom simply is not free unless we start playing make believe that the entire world is part of the utopian society...and if we go down that path then I agree things like military would be senseless and not part of utopia at all. As for things like money...well I think money is required to have a high level society. Whether that money is denominated in cows and pigs or dollars bills is hugely relevant because one gives you the ability to convert your labor into something that can be easily traded for a wide range of goods ans services. While one requires that the pig farmer find only people that needs pigs that also have the goods he needs. Money is actually not the root of all evil. Men are the root of all evil. It's our greed. Our need to be better than Mr. Jones next door. It's the drive to have the red sports car status symbol. It's our need to feel superior to other humans. It appears to me that the vast majority of us on the nexus have all come to the realization that we are not inherently any better or worse than anyone else. This causes a conflict with us because society at large has not spent much time thinking in this way and they certainly have not embraced a "we are one" mentality that it appears so many of us wish for the world.

One thing I suspect we can all agree on comes from Gandhi. We must all be the change we wish to see in the world. That is something that everyone of us can put into action right now today...and literally start making our world a better place!

Peace

Joedirt,

What I dont agree with you is your association between military, and 'contributing'. Society would collapse without doctors or without teachers or a number of other roles (imo much more significant and important for a social and cultural well being than military). Does that mean we have to make it obligatory for people to become doctors or teachers or ... ?

Why cant it just be compulsory to contribute, in one of the many important ways?

First off let me just say that this is just fun thinking.. I'm in no way assuming that I've got the perfect society. It's just fun to debate aspects of it.

With that said, no I don't think it's obligatory for people to become doctors or teachers as those are career choices. As for being more important for social and cultural well being I'm not sure I agree with you because without a way to defend yourself there would be no teachers or doctors. There would be no society....at least not coming from our past. Humans didn't aspire to things like art, music, and science until they had mastered the art of war and defense...Sad? Yes, but true none-the-less. Once a society is stabilized sure it's the teachers and doctors and artists that bring the culture, but none of that exists without general social well being....and it's a commitment to that well being that I think all should take part in. I'm imagining a world were there is a LOT less career military personnel. Most military would be a quick 1-2 years duty that all would take part in. I think there could be a lot of good from this beyond just the defense of the country as during this period you'd have to maintain a high level of physical fitness and a commitment to self discipline and focus....something many in society are grossly lacking in.

The reason it can't just be a compulsory to contribute is because many people would not feel compelled to do so. And really it takes a lot more of a commitment in life to become a medical doctor that it does to become a car mechanic. Unfortunate as it may seem the doctor is going to feel as though his commitment to society is greater than the car mechanic. This gets back to the commune comments above. People want to be equal on paper, but as soon as they feel someone else has an easier ride than they do the jealousy and envy starts.

BTW in the bullet points I threw out I also included #4 which would be an ongoing commitment of some time to community or humanitarian services.

Let's just say that absolute pacifism which completely denies the use of any violence for any purpose is put into effect in an ideal society in which endlessness has in mind. I don't quite know his full vision of an ideal society, but from what I gathered, military would be non-existent while the role of education would be greatly emphasized. If an opposing society suddenly invaded with the intention of violent colonization, how would your rulers (if there are any) act? Would you cherish this pacifist ideal to the extent of the acknowledgment that your society would be doomed? If that's the case, then, bravo, your society would be acting purely on its ideals.

I dont think there can exist one isolated perfect society separated by a fictitious arbitrary border from other non-perfect societies. I believe human society works in semi-separated groups but they are all interconnected. The whole issue of migration is a clear example how politics in other countries will end up affecting your own. The ideal goes by step by step directions into investing in education and sustainable development while gradually reducing military budget, and in long term achieving this global goal.

I dont know how a perfect society would be but I dont think it is an imposed external structure but a result of people who developed themselves. I cannot imagine if everybody was very developed what the social organization would be like, but I may have some suspicions or ideas. I preffer to look, as joedirt said, at the next step and what can we do, because there are so many variables between here and 'perfect world' that I would lose too much time thinking about it all and not work in this moment.

Ah, I see now. Your ideal society would incorporate the whole globe. Let's just say for argument's sake that it doesn't. What would then happen in my aforementioned hypothetical invasion?

I dont know, to be honest I dont like these 'what ifs' scenario because we can imagine just about anything. And in this sense I could just answer you that in this perfect society they would have invented non-lethal weapons for defense which would prevent attackers from invading without having to resort to killing, or whatever.

As I said in the second part of my last post, I dont know what a perfect society would look like, but I have some clues how I think we could get closer, and one of them involves avoiding/discouraging violence/weapons/military/unsustainable developments of all kinds and investing more and more in education, health, sustainability, while trying to favor personal growth.

Its the same as if you ask me: "if they would threaten your son,/daughter would you protect him?", sure I would protect, but with all my being, I would make every effort to avoid getting into a situation where this protection means having to use violence, kill someone else. I've been faced with situations in life that could have turned ugly and through dialogue and strategic actions I was able to prevent further problems, and I believe the same is valid in many of the external policy cases. If western world hadnt armed kaddafi, how could he be bombing civilians? What about taliban? What about all the oil, reconstruction and other dirty interests involved in these wars? If all of this wouldnt have happened, would the world be as unsafe? Would americans be so much of targets? If israel had respected the initial borders in UN treaties when the state was created and wouldnt have kept invading land and creating "protection" walls and measures, would palestinians have the anger that they do and there be so much need for "protection" ? etc etc etc

See, I think that its all a vicious cycle, wars reinforcing the violence, which in long term leads to more resentment and separation, and backfires. Now you can be sure that generations of aghanis and what not will absolutely hate americans and foreigners, while before the whole russia/western world wars, it was a country that was extremely welcoming to foreigners.

I think people nowadays tend to live in constant fear, I hear a lot from Americans here (no offense at all, just a subjective impression I had) talking about arming themselves for protection, focusing a lot on the potential raper/killer/robber around the corner, while in other places people dont think like that, even if its dangerous places. It seems a very cultural phenomenon, and seems this mentality is also reflected on foreign policy too.

I believe the excessive "protection" through guns, fences, walls, has all sorts of psychological consequences for those inside or outside the protection lines. Again, I believe in gradually reducing this in favor of preventive actions

And that would be a reasonable response in this type of discussion; we're all ultimately conversing about idealistic platforms.

I agree with you 100% on this.