I'm sorry, doug, but I have tried to parse your paragraph to make sense of it and am not sure I can determine the meaning of your statement. Here goes: "They is a real need for a military in a free country(I never said a standing Army)." There will always be emergencies and calamities of one sort or another, doug, but the constant existence of a large military force, such as our current standing army, is just an invitation for disaster. There will always be those who will misuse such power for offensive destruction and proclaim that some other party made them engage in coercion. In a free country, where all have the right to arm themselves with weaponry, people will determine their own needs for armaments. A military organization is not necessary at all moments of time, nor is it desirable. There are many reasons why one should consider a rapid demilitarization in a free country in addition to the misuse of power. A free society is a fast, productive one, which can use the powerful industrial base for the rapid production of newly developed innovations for defense. A socialist society cannot. Socialism is unable to do little more than use the stockpiles of already produced, and rusting, aging, tools or ones that they have stolen from free societies. A free society does not need such aging stockpiles.
"Most of the conflicts America has been involved in are one we should not have been involved in." Yes. "If we did not have the ability to defend ourselves we would be ran over by another country.How would stop an invasion by Cuba,Mexico or China if they invaded tomorrow in your would." I hear people all of the time proclaiming that we've already been invaded by the mexicans, cubans and chinese. I presume, though, that you are talking about military invasion. See my answer to your first question. "From what I am gathering from your writing you would not have a military in any form. (BTW does not the Constitution provide for a US navy) " Probably the best thing that we could do for ourselves and the world would be to disarm the existing military, sell our bases, melt and destroy the WMDs that we have manufactured, and help all of the members of the Department of Defense, State, HEW and all of the other federal agencies go out and get honest jobs. The U.S.A. has demilitarized before (it's not unconstitutional, by the way). Let's do it again! Cheers! Just Ken doug craig wrote: > They is a real need for a military in a free > country(I never said a standing Army).Most of the > conflicts America has been involved in are one we > should not have been involved in.If we did not have > the ability to defend ourselves we would be ran over > by another country.How would stop an invasion by > Cuba,Mexico or China if they invaded tomorrow in your > would.From what I am gathering from your writing you > would not have a military in any form. > (BTW does not the Constitution provide for a US navy) > > --- Kenneth Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:kgregglv%40cox.net>> wrote: > > > I see no connection between a socialist institution > > like the military > > and libertarianism. Libertarianism has historically > > (and correctly so) > > been opposed to a standing army, such as the one > > which taxpayers are > > forced to pay for here in the U.S. > > > > I suppose one can argue for voluntary socialism, but > > cooperatives are > > much different. A voluntary institution does not > > enslave its members > > and force them to continue in such a slave > > relationship over and over > > again when the expected time of the contract is > > over. Even the > > temporary slave relationships which were exacted > > from the scots and the > > irish in the agreements to come to the American > > colonies was only for > > seven years. > > > > Your portrayal of normal people who are not in the > > military is clearly > > mistaken. One can be "Pro-Freedom" AND have fought > > and defended freedom > > without being in a socialist institution. Does > > "Pro-Freedom" mean that > > you must kill another from some other land? > > Obviously not, and I would > > not expect you to claim this is the only meaning > > that you take for > > "Pro-Freedom". Even the most vile socialists don't > > go that far! Does > > "Pro-Freedom" mean living in some state-owned, > > state-controlled > > barracks, marching to some statist tune, crying out > > to kill the enemy, > > falling in line and doing whatever your leader tells > > you to do? Of > > course this has nothing to do with freedom, and you > > know that, unless > > you are completely indoctrinated in statism. > > > > Being "Pro-Freedom" means engaging in life, making > > choices which > > encourage others to be free from coercion, to > > understand the rights and > > principles of freedom, and respecting the property > > of others. You may > > have a much different vision of "Pro-Freedom" than I > > have, from what you > > have said, and I can only see it as a contradictory > > one. Socialism is > > not freedom (save in "1984"). The difference is too > > vast. > > > > Cheers! > > Just Ken > > > > Eric Dondero Rittberg wrote: > > > > > Actually, quite the opposite. I find it hard to > > give the > > > libertarian label to any American who has not > > served in the > > > Military. Hard to justify saying that one is > > Pro-Freedom, when one > > > has done absolutely nothing to fight and defend > > that freedom. > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Kenneth > > Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can think of no institution, save that of > > prisons, which are > > > more > > > > socialist than the military is. Do you honestly > > think that, > > > simply > > > > because you have been, or currently are, > > involved in such an > > > > organization that it is libertarian in any > > respect? I have come > > > across > > > > libertarian prisoners, usually in for > > non-violent offenses, and > > > even a > > > > few people in the military that claim to be > > libertarians, but I > > > see no > > > > connection or affiliation between libertarianism > > and military law, > > > > military installations (at least not until they > > are sold to > > > private > > > > interests), WMDs, biological weapons, standing > > armies, ecological > > > > destruction of wide swaths of land called "test > > ranges" > > > and "proving > > > > grounds" (such as we have here in Nevada), > > deaths of thousands and > > > > thousands of ordinary people, and the like. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you can provide defenses for all of > > these, each of which > > > is an > > > > essential element of the current military. > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > Just Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > doug craig wrote: > > > > > > > > > The military is not anti Libertarian. > > > > > > > > > > --- Eric Dondero Rittberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > <mailto:ericdondero%40yahoo.com>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ummm, geez, I dunno? Maybe to protect > > freedom? > > > > > > Just a guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
