Military secrets

[liberty_student]

@FleetCenturion

If this is part of a larger rant, please enlighten the rest of us, because on the surface, it seems both incoherent and childish.

I think it is pretty clear what I am saying. Any thoughtful libertarian will understand the point I made.

@FleetCenturion

Did it ever occur to anyone that the rise and growth of the Nanny State might have come before this country’s over-use of military aggression and not the other way around?

I’m sure people who are unfamiliar with history have considered it with intensity.

[ClaytonB]

If this is part of a larger rant, please enlighten the rest of us, because on the surface, it seems both incoherent and childish.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the rise and growth of the Nanny State might have come before this country’s over-use of military aggression and not the other way around? Since WWII, that would seem to be the case, especially since the debt run up by social programs has dwarfed that of all the wars we’ve ever fought.

The growth of government causes the Nanny State to expand the military, not the other way around. It is about using force to get other countries to accept our worthless money and absorb our debt, when simple coercion wouldn’t do it.

Does it really matter? Socialized defense has been around for millenia. It’s one of the primary pillars of the State.

Clayton -

[s_burgess]

so american spys should be convicted of stealing infomation.or should spying be only intrusted with our wise overlords."cant have wiki leaks showing corrupt russian mayors or reporters getting shot can we’ ‘’

[Bohemian]

Why would a world without States have a military?

“The Military” would have to demonstrate explicit and tangible damages done by the release of said information. This would be impossible, as the “crime” would be killing mercenaries, not diseminating information. So unless they were physcially pulling the trigger or ordering subordinates to pull the trigger whilst posting information online…

no crime.

[Eugene]

In a world without states there might not be military. I am talking about a world of states and an anarchi-capitalist state. If one of the other states decides to attack the anarcho-capitalist state (just in order to take the land), then the anarcho-capitalist state will have to defend itself. The positioning of its troops might be vital.

[Bohemian]

My position would be unchanged then. Similarly to intoxication not being the crime when a drunk driver wrecks into something, disseminating information you are not beholden to protect is not a crime either. In your more specific example, that doesn’t mean society would have to accept the individual. They could utterly cast them out by refusing to trade with them. However, from a legal standpoint, innocent of any crime.