"I’m currently attempting to do that and they display no capacity to understand where I’m coming from. They even said that welfare is socialism, but not warfare. All I’ve done is try to show that they are funded the same way, I’ve tried to explain military Keynesianism, I’ve tried to show how it suffers from central planning, but it’s not working.
Any suggestions?"
You rely on something, which, unless thought through carefully, is a giant contradiction, therefore convincing somebody will likely fail.
You assume, that when and whereever the state puts his hands upon, he only brings inefficiency or at his fullest poverty, slavery and death. And then you claim, that the state is inefficient at war.
Well, poverty, slavery and death sounds like a good way to win the war, if it is the fate of the enemy. The only issue left is whether the state can target his destructive power at the enemy, but states often managed to do that.
Even Mises argument, that the central planners have no way to estimate, what is needed, because they have no prices to judge from is no longer true in war - dead enemies and conquered or razed cities are not an exact estimate how sucessful the war is conducted, but a rough estimate they are.
The link you sent mentioned “state” in three different definitions and “government” in two. It mentioned “public” (which is many times a euphamism for state or government) twice. Please recheck what you linked.
All of these definitions reveal the proponents of war as socialists. State defense socialists to be more specific. They believe in the state ownership, management, and direction of national defense. They suffer from the same economic calculation problems as any other socialist institution.
If he says something like “BUT WE NEED DEFENSE or the evil terrorists will rape us”, ect…
Just politely tell him that this is the same exact argument socialist use to justify healthcare, social security, and just about every other socialist organization out there.
Actual conservatism is a dying breed. You are best off showing how modern “conservatives” have nothing to do with conservatives, are essentially left wing, and are at best only mildly reactionary (and as a net ineffective) to the typical leftist drivel. It probably won’t help you to persuade anyone, because people are retarded, but it may be more fun.
The very meaning of “national” always refers to some ownership by the State. “national” means owned by the State (or by the “people” if you believe the Democracy nonsense). You might as well substitute “national” for “socialist”, for they practically refer to the same thing.
Ask your socialist [conservative] friends how they can possibly define “national” without referring to State ownership. That’s your proof right there.
I think there’s a distinction to be made between State socialism and voluntary socialism. State socialism would be a type of socialism, and that’s the only point I’m trying to get across to somebody who claims that they abhor socialism. The military is a version of state-enforced socialism.
“I think it would probably be easier to convince socialists that ideal or ends of socialism cannot be achieved by the state.”
Why?
The ideal end of war is the utter destruction, humilation or submission of the enemy. Why on earth do libertarians think, that the state is unable to be sucessful there?
The State is successful in that aspect. The end of socialism/communism can’t come from the State because the State is dependent on those things in order to seem legitimate and have purpose while it thrives the entire time on capitalism. You can blow up all of the socialistic populations you want (assuming everyone is a 100% socialist); it will never help. If they’re trying to hurt you in the first place, then, by all means, hurt them back, but a free society will come about when individuals change and leave their ignorance behind.
I do not think I can correctly understand what the author of the theme means with “war=socialism”. socialism is a state of affairs where the State owns all the means of production. there is an aggregation of the productive relationships that brings about a social economic structure of society - which means that there is no private property and no division of labour to form based on it. this constitutes a monopolistic judicial, legislative and political superstructure, and leaves no room for opposition.
if a State, for example the USA, decides to make certain good a public good, this would mean that this particular good is supplied through political-governmental process (As Buchanan theorises it). so the supply of this one good is socialistic because the government is the only supplier of it and accordingly has increased its ownership of the means of production neccessary to produce it. but this is not a socialism as a whole because there still exist other means of production that are privately owned and the executive branch can not decide on its own to wage a war, because it does not have the legislative power to do so. so war is socialistic(government increases its control) and not socialism(total government control is absent).
Remember, there are different types of socialism. There is State (or Scientific) Socialism and Utopian (or Anarcho) Socialism to name two of the more well known. You might as well be inquiring whether this individual is a “Statist” or not. I think you might do well to show how defense of the general welfare may better be served through privatization than by a continued nationalization policy.
As someone who was once in the military (2001-2006) and who likely held the same exact position on militarism during that time I will tell you that it will likely be a lengthy process to convince them. All you can do is encourage some critical thought. If, as others suggested before you can get a foot in the door and reveal an inconsistency in their logic then perhaps they will chew on that for a while and perhaps it will lead to a shift in their way of thinking. I know it wasn’t an over night change for me. I would encourage patience and avoid getting too aggressive in your arguement…Something I still struggle with.