How the hell do you get that? Chewie stated that society needs no protection. That hardly suggests he thinks it's weak. As for your other comments to 13th, I find it interesting how you can refute a person's statement out of one side of your mouth and agree with it out the other.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Do you read?

In Plato's "The Republic" the thing that concerns Plato in making a luxurious city is how to adequately defend it. If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it. Therefore you need an army to defend your society if it is to be healthy from another society. What is so hard to understand about that basic human concept?

If you read carefully "The Republic", Plato says that the porpouse of the warriors is to defend the State, not the society.

If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it.

In what book of the republic did you read this?????????? I can´t remember anything like that, it doesn´t fit with Plato and Socretes philosofy

Thats pretty much the way I read it as well.

Originally Posted by Charge_7

How the h**l do you get that? Chewie stated that society needs no protection. That hardly suggests he thinks it's weak. As for your other comments to 13th, I find it interesting how you can refute a person's statement out of one side of your mouth and agree with it out the other.

no i stated that a STRONG society should need no military to defend it. after centuries of persecution, the eureopen jewish society was not in any sort of position ( or numbers ) to carry on in the face of the nazis.

Ah, well excuse me then. And since the Jews weren't able to defend themselves and thus be able to be a strong society, how does a society accomplish that exactly without defending themselves?

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

If you read carefully "The Republic", Platon says that the porpouse of the warriors is to defend the State, not the society.

If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it.

In what book of the republic did you read this?????????? I can´t remember anything like that, it doesn´t fit with Plato and Socretes philosofy

That's the whole point! In the healthy city there is no need for guardians because there is no luxuries in Plato's healthy city. However, in the 'fevered city' where there are luxuries and wealth, the city needs the guardians to defend against outsiders who would take it from the city.

And what are you people talking about that the society would go on despite who they are being ruled by? Really? Like the Jews got along so well with German occupation. An occupying force can do whatever they want to you society including making everyone slaves or virtual slaves through crushing taxation.

A society without a strong defense will be taken over and assimilated into a society with a strong offense.

03, that depends on the culture of the conquerers.
But the fact is, EVERYTHING will depend on THEM. You will have no control. And yes, defense is primarily to preserve the state, but the state is usually the body that preserves the nation.
The Nation is not a political entity, rather it is a group of people with a culture. I know someone pointed out that there are societies that have many different cultures but then in this case, they have something in common: a tolerating culture that is open to new ideas and other cultures from abroad. This too is actually a cultural trait.
So an example of the military protecting the nation but not really the state. The war against terror at least up to Afghanistan was a protection of the nation, and not the state. No one believes that these guys can take down the US, but the operations were launched to prevent further attacks on the people of the society so that they can be safe and live their lives more normally.

society, so·ci·e·ty

a)The totality of social relationships among humans.

b)A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

c)The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.



If our society had no military to defend ourselves against Hilter, then we today would have a totaly NAZI dominated society were we cannot express our opinnions without approval of NAZI authorities. That means all our mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture, movies, music, ect, would fall under Nazi ideals and influence.

Even if the society were to remain "strong" by covertly keeping its identity, most people would be forced to go inline participating in NAZI doctrine. Even if the society didn't agree with it they would be forced watch people get killed without being able to do anything whatsoever and to go through with the motions of the "hiel Hitler" salute among other stuff.


Would you want to live under this kind of "strong" society? Would you really want to be forced to go "hiel Hitler"? As for me, no thanks. Give me the arsenal of democracy any day.

This thing about needing no defense is a pipe dream in a fools paradise.

and yet after the nazis influence was removed the german society went back to what it was like before