What are you calling “a society”?
To oppress the libertyloving proletariat.
How about you give me a straight answer for once? Or is that too difficult for you?
A state is a social fiction that has legal personhood, like a corporation. The state and the corporation were invented about the same time. A warlord is a person who has the allegiance of mean-at-arms and the means of conducting warfare. One is a person, the other is a social fiction.
To serve the president and his cronies.
Yet, all of your what-ifs are pertaining to (as is the entire focus of the thread, essentially) a hypothetical free society. So again, in a free society… You have yet to form a valid argument against said society. If anything, your arguments are actually unfavorable to the current model of the world.
Yeah, I tried editing the post, but the amazing forum software wouldn’t let me. Let me rephrase: isn’t warlordism just statism on a smaller scale?
Yes. That’s the irony.
Let’s try this again. How about you give me a straight answer for once? Or is that too difficult for you?
Just so you know, I have no problem repeating this ad infinitum.
Alright, let me give it a shot. The actual purpose was already given. The purported purpose was to kill anyone attacking the country.
The stated purpose of the military is to enforce foreign policy, and defend the nation and inhabitants. The actual purpose is to enforce the will of the state with violent acts. For this reason they are indoctrinated and socialized as separate from normal society, and made to differentiate themselves through appearance, language, actions and behaviors. This is nothing new, for a time the french made their soldiers wear black moustasches. The state will go to extreme measures to retain its monopoly on violence, thats what all this stuff is about.
Where exactly was the actual purpose already given? And do you really think that the purported purpose is to specifically kill anyone attacking the country?
I’ll go with Malachi’s explanation.
That’s what guns are for.
Are guns the only weapons that military forces possess? Is the purpose of a gun only ever to kill specifically, as opposed to e.g. wounding or even just scaring off?
I would argue that for the purpose of any given discussion, the differences may be irrelevant, however there are fundamental differences aside from scale, in that a warlordship is united by a personality, whereas a state is united by the idea of a shared identity. There may be other differences but it would be a needless digression to explore them. I promise I’m not trolling you.
Nope
Sure, you have a point there.
My understanding is that, historically, warlords have typically been tribal leaders, so there’s also typically a sense of shared identity under warlordism (namely that of the tribe).
This is a very astute question. Militaries have many weapons, and these weapons, even to include guns, have purposes beyond simply killing. Indeed, they are much more effective when used less for killing and more for…other things. Pm me for references lol
So then you agree that the purpose of guns isn’t only ever to kill specifically, which means the purported purpose of a military isn’t only ever to kill specifically - which contradicts what you said previously. So what would you now say the purported purpose of a military is?
Auto, what was your point with the gun thing?