I think I am. And there’s no draft, as of now, that I know of. I don’t believe private defense companies (mercenaries) are the way to go. The advantage of the public military is that the individual ceases to exist. Each member is taught to be part of a whole. And as such, they all obey orders that are given to them top down with expert ability. They don’t ask questions, they just do. This is not so with rag tag teams of mercenaries. Soldiers don’t fight for profit necessarily. They also fight because they have been taught that’s all they can do. What I’m trying to say is that the selfish individual is awesome in a market, a serious problem on the battlefield. And by the way, the military has to protect the…group’s private property, not mine specifically, but that’s close enough for me. The price of hiring a team of bodyguards who are totally unreliable and selfish is too expensive to be possible for a large number of people and it’s really unappealing. I get more for less with my tax dollars, in my opinion.
Yes but this happens as a reaction against Israel’s claim of being an exclusively Jewish nation-state. If it were a confederation, or modeled on a system similar the Ottoman rule that allowed many different communities to live right alongside each other in the Levant, there would be no necessity for a state exclusive to Palestinians. It’s doubtful there would be such a people as Palestinians.
I will admit there are some profound similarities. But the truth is that with a truly free market and sound money, goods and services would be made available to just about everyone thereby eliminating the need for welfare.
This is not so, in my opinion, with the military. We need a collective mass of soldiers whose task is simply to protect this country from threats both internal and external. And I’ll admit, having a standing army is dangerous, they could be brought in to suppress civilians, it’s true. But that risk is worth it to me.
Are you going to force me to pay for it? What if I do nto want or need it? Would that make me an internal threat to the country because I am a threat to the internal power of the military?
No, I would not force you to pay for anything. However, I will say that as long as you choose to live in this country, you are, in a sense, agreeing to be governed by its laws. So…you are not a threat. But if everyone agrees we want a military and you do not want a military then you shouldn’t live here. I’m not saying this out of malice. I’m saying this because I don’t think you should be forced to do anything you don’t want to do or pay for anything you don’t want.
So… The government owns my property? You do not agree with the private ownership of property?
Of course I do. But I think it’s naive to imagine a government that won’t confiscate at least a portion of the civilian wealth to pay for the government’s agenda. I have accepted this as a given. What I do not accept is how much money we are paying and what the money is being used for. Ultimately the power of government is the power to tax. And taxes are awful, I hate them. But…I don’t think they are going to be abolished any time soon. But maybe they can be siginificantly lessened. To me, that would be a serious victory.
So the problem is the government…
Get rid of the problem…
If I own MY PROPERTY exactly how do you justify the legitimacy of the state over it, I signed no contract, as far as I am concerned they are another person or group that has some pretentious thought of authority over my property
No the power of government is to use coercion without repercussions. You are just advocating it because it pays for something you want…
-
You sign the contract by living here. You know that. So do I. All we can do is try to get the rules changed. But we have to play by the rules until they are changed. Either way, I don’t want the government to disappear. Your property is never entirely your own. But it’s mostly your own. The question is “how much control do you have over it?”
-
The problem here is that you don’t like the military, I do. So is one of us right and the other wrong? I dunno. What we need is a judge. I believe a vote should be taken. If more people in this country want the military to be dissolved than want it to still exist, then maybe you are right. Otherwise, maybe I’m right.
what is the AE (and everyone here’s) position on the State of Israel and the US relation to it?
Austrian Economics cannot say what is right or wrong but only what effects a given economic policy will have. In this case, giving billions in welfare payments to Israel is a waste of money for US citizens but a boon for Israeli citizens.
My opinion is that it’s a demographic time bomb and the bailouts are wasted on it.
The problem here is that you don’t like the military, I do.
I like them too just like I like the police. When I am victimized, I call the police. But Iraq and Afghanistan have never victimized me, so I don’t like paying trillions for wars against them. The military should be used to defend USA and not go on wasteful, aimless escapades.
Don’t you see the absurdity you are providing? The free market can do everything except the military
Then I propose to you again, create your own standing army and sustain it through your own funds.
Your implicit contract theory is nonsense. The Roderick Long Funny Hat Theory:
I come over to your house and you tell me that while I am at your house I have to wear the funny hat. Well I can’t just say No I am not going to wear the hat and continue to say there against your will. Obviously it is your property and what transpires on it is based on your desires.
Now say I am living next door to you. You come over to my house and say you have to wear the funny hat. You comment that by living near you I implicitly agree to live under your domain therefore you are justified to make any arbitrary rules and make me wear the funny hat. Do you see the nonsense of this suggestion? And under what piece of legislation or law is it said that the US government owns all the land from the east to the west coast? And how can you have ‘half or majority property rights’?
The majority of opinion does not show the morality of the world. One day a majority of people could suddenly start hating redheads and propose to kill them because of such hatred, is that moral?
-
That’s right, because the dynamics that work in a market are not the same that work in a military.
-
I don’t have to create my own standing army. You have to create yours.
-
Your first example is not applicable because we are all living under the same general house (the US) although between states, yes there can and should be different rules.
-
The majority of opinion is the democratic standard of approval. Morality has nothing to do with this really, since morality requires an enforcer. And I don’t believe in God. Do you?
How so?
Well obviously this organization is pushing for a world that is in agreement with my position. I desire no army, just occassional police protection based on need.
The U.S. government should get out of all alliances, bring all the troops back to the United States, end all foreign aid, and allow unrestricted trade with all people.
It should then disband all troops, except maybe those that need to man the nuclear weapons.
Where is the legislation showing that the US government owns all land from east to west?
Actually morality has everything to do with this. By what right do you have to kill, coerce, harm anyone? None. If an individual has no right to do this then a group of individuals has no more right. Is thievery only wrong when someone stopped a thief?
-
Because in a market, individuals have to make choices that fit their own specific situations. No top down system can ever duplicate that individually driven system. An army is one mass of men that act as one. There is no individual will. Only group will. Why do you think they cut your hair, make you wear the same clothes, get up at the same time, say the same things, memorize the same commands, live and breathe as one in military training? It’s all to deindividuate the human being. Make him a part of a collective that acts with total top down control. Individualist driven markets cannot duplicate that kind of collective power.
-
This organization is small and doesn’t represent a large number of the populace. I’m beginning to see that this may be because your system is clearly not broadly applicable. And just out of curiosity, what do your police officers do when you don’t need them? Do they sit idly around? Who pays for this? You personally? Do you have those kinds of funds? And if so, please consider donating to the Jacob Bloom Fund. Lol, just kidding.
What is a bodyguard?
Yes I know, I went through it.
Validity doesn’t come through numbers.
Crime isn’t happening unless I am involved?
-
It’s implied in the US Constitution. But I am a big believer in state’s rights. So it’s like you have one big house and then 50 smaller houses.
-
If I can enforce my will, I can do whatever I want. This is how life works. You know this. This is why I want a small government because I understand that any human or human organization with total power can do anything it wants. The whole point of a democracy is to allow the individuals to act in unison and state their position on policy and who they want representing them in office. Democracy allows the demos to change out its laws and representatives as it sees fit. It’s our job, as the demos, to be informed about policy and what our various representatives will do once we put them in office.
Thievery is always theoretically wrong. But you run into a problem when you put theory into action because things don’t exist without an observer and cannot be punished without an enforcer. I’m speaking in realistic terms, not ideological or theoretical terms. In other words, murder is reprehensible because it represents a threat against every member of the group who has yet to be murdered. But, until evidence can be brought against the accused to prove his guilt, he is not a murderer. And only because we have courts and a prison system that can punish the offender, can his act ever be brought to any kind of real justice. Justice, morality, rights do not exist in vaccuums. They require interpreters and enforcers.