doug, I don't know how good I am on speculating the workings of a future free society outside of the social mechanisms that have demonstrated to work in the past. Profit-making organizations, cooperative systems, mutual aid societies and volunteer groups all use somewhat different methods of payments, and any or all of them provide protection, either on an individual basis or group coverage. None of them would, under normal circumstances, engage in offensive coercion, and relatively few would be able to provide more than protection and defense more than would be needed to protect person and property, if for no other reason than the risk of liability in such situations.
It does sound like you prefer a militia to a military, if I'm not mistaken. Most states had militias up until the end of the 1800's when they were nationalized (I think under Cleveland, but I'd have to check on that) due to the railroad strikes at the time. Now, of course, the states' guard units are under the control of the office of the U.S. President. Cheers! Just Ken doug craig wrote: > BTW my last post was cut up by the moderator.I still > believe we are arguing two differnt things.I believe > in a free country you can have a military. All people > of course would join by choice.The money could come > from user fees(if you are a shipping company and > wanted protection you would pay for it, also a private > company could does this).I also believe in my > Libertarian my country would be safer and just as free > as yours. I believe in your Libertarian world you > would be speaking German or Russian because they would > have over run you.You talk about in a free country we > would be able to produce quickly weapons to protect > ourselves.It took america some time to gear up for > WWII.If we had been attacked first it might have been > a differnt story.The kind of weapons we would produce > to protech ourelves for that kind of attack would be > WMDs(which you would have destroyed) > I do not believe we are that far apart in our > thinking.where do you think we disagree. > 1 Draft I dont believe in it > 2 Finance of military-user fees or lottery money or > contract money > 3 Army. more like the national gaurd train on a > regular basis but not standing > 4 US Navy Standing navy > 5 milary should de for defending not pre emptive > > > --- Kenneth Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:kgregglv%40cox.net>> wrote: > > > 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> > > <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> > > > > > <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 > > > === message truncated === > [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/
