Pretending that military spending is about “protecting your freedoms” is jingoistic (and thus right wing) propaganda.
Also, a few corporations, billionaires, and hectomillionaires get richer every time military spending goes up. Taxing everyone to pay them is a reverse Robin Hood move not in accordance with left wing ideology.
How does a community of people protect themselves if not collectively pooling their money to “buy guns”?
There’s nothing left or right wing here - spending on protection is needed be paying someone else to do it or developing your own guns. So despite the flavorful wording here of “freedom tax” i dont see how this could be anyone’s problem.
You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There’s a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some “shithole country” into the dirt ones every 5 years.
I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries. But unilateral disarmament won’t work when a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.
You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There’s a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some “shithole country” into the dirt ones every 5 years
Fun fact: most of Europe being part of the same military alliances makes the necessary military spending per nation to avoid this MUCH lower than current levels.
Especially when the biggest threat is a country already teetering on the brink of economic and military collapse from overextending itself.
I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries
Agreed.
But unilateral disarmament won’t work
Neither will multilateral unnecessary military spending increases.
a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.
None of which are anywhere near capable of carrying out said “duty” against the full force of two of the biggest military alliances ever, the EU and NATO.
I agree overall. But the irony is that Europe’s cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I’d rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.
I also think that the whole “must spend X” obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC. That doesn’t invalidate all additional spending, especially if temporary, but I think it’s important to recognize the role it has had in shaping the United States (force the poor to join the military) and to vehemently reject that model.
Europe’s cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I’d rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s long past time to wean Europe off of dependence on the US of any kind, but especially military and economic.
I also think that the whole “must spend X” obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC.
That and propaganda on behalf of the European MIC, which is also a thing, though a lot smaller.
That doesn’t invalidate all additional spending
True, but the arguments for it being necessary not holding water does.
especially if temporary
Yeah, because militaries and the rich people and corporations never make sure that “temporary” subsidies and government contracts become effectively permanent 🙄
Yeah, temporary contracts have this tendency of becoming drawn out. This is also why it’s so wild that so many European countries increased military spending before they even knew what to even buy with all of that money.
I don’t get it. Seems like a very center left thing? You socialize the costs for protecting your freedoms - a freedom tax if you will.
Pretending that military spending is about “protecting your freedoms” is jingoistic (and thus right wing) propaganda.
Also, a few corporations, billionaires, and hectomillionaires get richer every time military spending goes up. Taxing everyone to pay them is a reverse Robin Hood move not in accordance with left wing ideology.
How does a community of people protect themselves if not collectively pooling their money to “buy guns”?
There’s nothing left or right wing here - spending on protection is needed be paying someone else to do it or developing your own guns. So despite the flavorful wording here of “freedom tax” i dont see how this could be anyone’s problem.
You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There’s a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some “shithole country” into the dirt ones every 5 years.
I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries. But unilateral disarmament won’t work when a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.
Fun fact: most of Europe being part of the same military alliances makes the necessary military spending per nation to avoid this MUCH lower than current levels.
Especially when the biggest threat is a country already teetering on the brink of economic and military collapse from overextending itself.
Agreed.
Neither will multilateral unnecessary military spending increases.
None of which are anywhere near capable of carrying out said “duty” against the full force of two of the biggest military alliances ever, the EU and NATO.
I agree overall. But the irony is that Europe’s cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I’d rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.
I also think that the whole “must spend X” obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC. That doesn’t invalidate all additional spending, especially if temporary, but I think it’s important to recognize the role it has had in shaping the United States (force the poor to join the military) and to vehemently reject that model.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s long past time to wean Europe off of dependence on the US of any kind, but especially military and economic.
That and propaganda on behalf of the European MIC, which is also a thing, though a lot smaller.
True, but the arguments for it being necessary not holding water does.
Yeah, because militaries and the rich people and corporations never make sure that “temporary” subsidies and government contracts become effectively permanent 🙄
Yeah, temporary contracts have this tendency of becoming drawn out. This is also why it’s so wild that so many European countries increased military spending before they even knew what to even buy with all of that money.
NATO famously was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans [read Europeans] down”.
It is not in our interest to be vassals of the US, as they’ve shown multiple tiimes.
The military spending is not protecting any freedoms