Why I am a Militarist -- Rubinshteinic Philosophy On Militarism
- Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein
- May 10, 2021
- 7 min read
Updated: Jan 29
(Definition of militarism; Only 2 and 3 apply to this article: Militaristic - definition of militaristic by The Free Dictionary)
(This can be seen as an extension to my political philosophy of Rubinshteinism/Political Rubinshteinism)
The article "Why I am a Militarist -- Rubinshteinic Philosophy On Militarism" presents a clear and direct argument for militarism, emphasizing its importance for national security and survival. It uses historical and contemporary examples to illustrate the practical implications of military strength. The balanced perspective acknowledges the need for balance in military spending, as excessive military spending can detract from other important areas like education and healthcare.
The critique of John Lennon's idealistic views adds depth to the discussion, challenging the practicality of a world without countries and militaries.
The philosophical depth of the article is tied to broader questions about self-defense, rebellion, and the nature of peace, encouraging readers to think beyond immediate political considerations.
The article's relevance to current events, such as in Libya, makes it relevant and timely. Emphasis on self-defense resonates with fundamental human concerns about safety and security. The realistic view that wars are often avoided due to their high financial cost aligns with the overall argument for maintaining military strength.
Overall, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein presents a well-reasoned and thought-provoking argument for militarism, rooted in practical considerations and philosophical depth.
********************
The Importance of a Strong Military
Unless you are a very fortunate, small paradise of a nation such as Andorra or Liechtenstein, it is the nation's armed forces that ensure its survival for decades or even centuries. That is because, should you not have a big enough or a competent enough military, then your country is likely to be in danger either from the inside or outside of its borders.
Countries like Liechtenstein simply do not need a standing military because it's unnecessary to their vastly-lucky, consistent geopolitical situation.
Even if you live in a stable region, having a powerful military will ensure that such status quo will resume. For example, if it weren't for South Korea's military strength, it wouldn't be a formidable adversary to North Korean aggressive desire to unify the Korean peninsula. Therefore, it is imperative that every country that wishes for the safety of both itself and its citizens allocates a significant enough portion of its budget to the military.
A military, however, does not need to have a pompous budget in order to function effectively. You don't need, for example, to have an army stronger and more advanced than that of the United States in order to protect yourself from regional threats; that is of course unless you're being invaded by them, which means something has to be done.
However, since superpowers like the U.S. has international standing military-wise, you might not want to be too much aggressive with the armed power you have as a political leader. So what if you despise someone in your geopolitical region? Consider their allies.
It is important to find a balance between having a strong enough military to deter aggression and not spending so much on the military that it comes at the expense of other important needs, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Fail to keep a proper financial budget between the departments of your government, and it can have an impact on the military as well.
The North Korean armed forces may be large in size, but they may die due to starvation, to the point that they may raid their own citizens just to survive. If the North Korean government spent enough on argiculture, as well as other ways to gain food, this wouldn't happened. And of course, it's quite demoralizing when the troops that suppose to protect you, attack you just because they are hungry.
On Self-Defense
Rationally, every nation has the right to protect itself. That may be true to an extent even on the individual level. Regardless of this premise, some nations may believe that counter-attacks are also legitimate forms of self-defense. Whether this is true or not is a matter of debate.
The premise itself, nonetheless, is true to Japan and its Self-Defense Forces, the same as it is for tyrannical North Korea and its People's Army, as the suffering of its populace does not necessarily legitimize invasion and attempted liberation. Why? Because they have the right to protect themselves as well, no matter how righteous such invasion is. Furthermore, a successful liberation attempt might even worsen the situation, should the next local government be incompetent. That is the case with Libya, that remained unstable even 10 years at least after their dictator's death.
Can we really say Libya has been improved just because of the world's good intention to liberate it from its tyrant?
I believe one of the reasons why there aren't many wars in the world today is due to how expensive they are. It's more than just keeping the peace, but it also could be the abysmal financial cost of wars, while trade is far more preferable to sacrificing your army and its many expensive war machines in battle.
However, it does not at all mean that we should just dismantle countries' militaries in the name of world peace. It's impractical as this situation can be abused. That is why I am not a pacifist.
Critique of John Lennon's Words
John Lennon has said something interesting in one of his songs: "Imagine there are no countries; it isn't hard to do". Is it, really? Dismembering the militaries of all nations, including nations themselves would quickly lead to chaos and disorder, unless some kind of an international security force is to be strong enough to preserve the safety of all nation-less humans. And even then, that security force can become corrupt and make use of little-to-no opposition from the rest of the world.
The only such alternative I can think of are superheroes, which of course are too fictional to become a reality. Such people might save much money as they require less maintenance than an artillery division... But still, it is too impossible to have a single hero or heroine eliminate an entire terrorist organization. If that was only possible.. They can grow corrupt themselves, either way.
As long as there is a desire in one or more people to rebel by breaking the law or threatening the lives of someone, there will always be a need for security that is used to protect people from others. Should there be a total death to the desire to confront someone to the point of threat, John Lennon's vision will remain highly impractical.
And for that, people need to know that they may be punished, either by imprisonment or by execution, in order to keep people in line. Whether or not execution is a fair method of punishment, is a different matter. This is why guns are needed -- to serve as a counter-threat against those who might consider defying the law and the safety of the nation, both from external and internal spaces.
The reason why the U.S. allows private possession of arms comes from its constitution: To allow its citizenry to protect themselves from a corrupt government and/or tyranny in the name of freedom. Of course, this has its downsides as well in America, like people who abuse this constitutional right and become mass shooters like a certain philosopher I covered on Philosocom before. (Note: his shooting occurred in Finland, but I believe he would've done the same, per his radical philosophy, if he was American).
You can say, therefore, that there is a certain "good" in weaponry, even if they kill others. Not all uses are for the greater good, but when they are, they can prevent a lot of suffering that would otherwise have happened. Either way, it is necessary that we protect ourselves because, as long as there are other human beings, there will always be a potential threat on our lives. And that is one of the reasons I prefer to isolate myself from this violent world, and focus my work. I've been traumatized enough.
Conclusion: Force As Necessary for Security
Peace is a desired state for many: A world without brute conflict. But achieving and maintaining peace is a complex challenge. The contradiction between pacifism, the rejection of violence, and the need for military power is a hindrance to an effective, long term solution to security.
While the desire for peace in pacifism is understandable, history is filled with examples of aggressors who exploit the good will of others, from Emperor Caligula to love-bombing cult leaders. However, without the capability for a measured counter-offensive against their authoritarian power, true peace can remain elusive. The burden often falls not on the peaceful, but on those who disrupt the peace.
Even in a hypothetical post-apocalyptic scenario, the need for security persists. An armed force wouldn't just defend against external threats, but also potential internal strife. Rebellion can lead to a domino effect of punishment and stricter controls on the entire community. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. This is evident in the July 2023 military coup in Niger, a revolutionary takeover which harmed the West African nation, deteriorating its many developments.
The approach to achieving peace, however, depends on the political climate, and pacifist deeds can be too impractical to be categorical imperatives. Instead, the path for national improvement lies in reform, addressing the root causes of discontent, which are individual to each country, democratic or authoritarian like Myannmar.
And under an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, armed resistance may be the only viable option, although a risky one. Underground movements, like the entire Polish Underground State, are difficult to organize, but can offer a spark of hope in such oppressive situations when are forces to be reckoned with.
Nonviolent movements, while admirable, face significant challenges in implementation. Though successful examples like India's Gandhian movement exist, their effectiveness depends heavily on specific contexts (AKA, cultural tendencies for harmony thanks to spirituality).
Ultimately, the quest for peace requires a nuanced understanding of power dynamics. While pacifism offers a moral ideal, a world without the capability for self-defense is a world ripe for exploitation. The goal is to find the right balance, where force serves as a check-and-balance mechanism and not a threatening trigger, leading to social harmony.
Comments