| I agree, and I think there are more nuanced and meaningful historical and especially modern reasons we encourage veterans to turn swords to ploughshares. It’s reasonable to assume that the powers that be may find themselves in situations politically precarious if veterans aren’t able to provide for themselves and those they ostensibly fought for. Veterans know where real and metaphorical bodies are buried, they also know that at a nation scale, the internal problems that face first world nations are usually not logistical, but political. If not for fear of disrupting business interests, UBI in the form of food stamps, housing, and Medicare for all is possible. The veterans know this, because they are fed and housed and medically treated at scale during and after service. However, if everyone receives these same benefits also without service obligations, the ability to offer incentives to service is limited. UBI is a thorny issue due to the complexities of implementing it piecemeal alongside the already-existing status quo. In some ways, a greenfield solution would be easier, but they call those revolutionary changes revolutions rather than evolutions for good reasons. Some stray links for food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swords_to_ploughshares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler |
Oh, I always thought it was a reference to the Roman practice of settling veterans on farmsteads [1].
> if everyone receives these same benefits also without service obligations, the ability to offer incentives to service is limited
I'm not sure we could offer VA benefits to every adult without massively raising taxes. (Also, we treat our veterans quite poorly.)
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/41342861