Message from @DefinitlyNotInsane - NL
Discord ID: 510582554697662465
A resource is allocated to those willing to pay the highest price for it. Warfare is saying "I am willing to kill, and die, and so is everyone on my side for this."
warfare doesnt distribute economics as the person with the economic advantage has a way higher change to end on top
I never said it distributed resources equitably.
then how does it in your opinion distribute recources outside of a nation
How does war distribute resources?
The victor of the war gets the resources, on account of being able to dictate terms.
and that is, in your view, the ultimate form of economic distribution?
In that death is the highest price a man can pay, yes.
yes but the person wielding the most resources at the start of the war has an advantage wouldnt "distributing those recourses" be more like claiming them?
if a man pays with his life, he gets no resources in return. Whoever is leading him to his death does.
thats a very good point
Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.
Just because his life is the greatest thing he can give up personally doesn't mean that's all he cares about.
@Bookworm is there any honor in sending people to a higher change of death in exchange for resources?
Inherently? I don't think so. But there certainly can be, yes.
explain further?
Every great nation and society was built upon the blood of its soldiers.
Every advancement and opportunity paid for with their lives. Their sacrifice deserves respect.
>Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.
So you can't think of a scenario where that wouldn't be the case? You really can't imagine a better form of economic distribution?
I'm not sure what you're asking, Crow.
thats not an argument for war containing honor that is an argument for war being usefull to certain nations
@Bookworm you give the impression that since warfare leads to distribution of resources its the best way to do so
i think thats what crow means
and he asks for your standpoint on that
you said warfare is the ultimate form of economic distribution. Are you really telling me you can't think of a better form of economic distribution?
Ah. No, absolutely not. Warfare is incredibly costly, in terms of resources and human lives on both sides. In that regard, it's the *most* inefficient method of resource allocation. Almost everything less than warfare is generally preferable if possible, because you want to obtain the resources for as little as possible.
I call it 'ultimate' because it is the final escalation of cost. You cannot pay more.
one where, idk, "the 1%" send the "the 99%" to harvest resources for themselves at the cost of their lives with the survivors among the "99%" getting mere scraps in return
right
guess thats how america ended up with its 1%
both in situation of war or loans
Well, mostly through resource gathering and smart but ruthless business practices, yes.
smart warfare? like vietnam
or syria
Economics has evolved to the point where few people get rich directly from warfare these days.
or afghanistan
yes but the few people that get rich get so rich they are very close to owning the world