The problem is not with a military, it is with paying for something you do not want because others say so
Limited Government opens the door for big government, it is the logical outcome…
This is a fair assessment
“Mises.org is a site focuses on Austrian Economics and the free exchange of ideas. Outside of economics, political philosophy here has no majority. Everyone wants less government but the limited-government vs anarcho-capitalists discussion continues.”
This however I think needs clarification…
“You will find many more anarcho capitalists here since it was effectively started by Rothbard but throughout the libertarian community I have seen many more limited-government libertarians. My only problem is when the anarchists try to define libertarians as anarchists only which is absolutely not true.”
I believe the current state of libertarianism you take your notion from is party libertarianism and lip service from disenfranchised republicans that have flocked to the party standard, let us look up Libertarianism in the Dictionary, the limited government notion is not present…
I am of the persuasion that Spooner, Long and Rothbard are/were Libertarians, and the party became more like the republican party to gain power, compromising principle for political gain…
The Republican party covers a wide birth from the former Republican’s like Arlen Specter to Ron Paul. The Libertarian party has little to do with the Republican party in ideas let alone beliefs.
Are anarcho-capitalist libertarians going to accept that limited-government libertarians (minarchists) are entitled to their opinions?
I personally believe that the only way we are going to move to a more limited government is for libertarians to run as Republicans. Such as Peter Schiff running for Senate as a Republican in Connecticut.
The Libertarian Party has little to do with Libertarian thought either, it is why the republicans that do not want to be republicans anymore flock to the LP, because it is small enough for them to mold to the CON-CHRIST value system of controlling population, and will have to concede if it wants political power, ridding the LP of people that value freedom above all else…
You are entitled to your opinion, you will never hear me say “If you do not think like me you must be slain!” Which is more respect for opinions than the minarchists are giving the Anarcho-Capitalists. I am highlighting the flaws in “limited” government and am met with baseless assertions of how anarchy cannot work, has never existed, etc, I give reasoning, reference to the people who have done the legwork, and all I get in return is the equivalent of holding ears and screaming NO NO NO NO NO…
I am sorry but any compromise of principle for political gain is an affront to the principle…
Who the hell cares about their intent? To put a spin on your first question, what if the neighbor was sending rockets at another neighbor, and some of them (unintentionally) fell on my house. I would still stop him, using force, if necessary. Intent does not matter; actions do. That the Israeli military does not kill citizens intentionally does not make up for the fact that the Israeli military has killed more citizens than the Palestinian military, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc. combined. The fact that they didn’t mean to doesn’t make the citizens any less dead.
3 Who cares? I am not Israeli, I am not Palestinian, it is THEIR PROBLEM, the problem comes here because we allow the authority monopoly that we have become monolith here, exert its will elsewhere… Israel has a military that does not require our tax dollars to support, so long as were are not supporting both ends of the arrangement, it will calm down on its own, the real issue is the support the region gets in order to remain in conflict, it is no longer the center of the earth, the trade routes are pointless now, the fighting is ideological and will not gain any market interest…
Who do you think mercenaries are? 90% of them are former military. There are private military companies, you know. For the most part, given their size, they are far more effective than the regular military.
Choose a few thousand members of the US military. Hand pick the very best of the best. Choose any battlefield on Earth. Xe (formerly Blackwater) would wipe them out in less than a week. There’s a reason for this: mercenaries are flat out better than regular soldiers/airmen/seamen/marines. I’s why the military supplemented their numbers using them. It’s why the company thrives - it provides a level service that were not being met by the regular military. That is, if the military was already good enough, there would be no market for a private firm such as Xi.
To join the US army, one needs to be of a certain age, graduate from high school (or obtain a GED) and meet some very minimal physical requirement that anyone who played high school sports within the past 5 years would certainly meet. That’s it. To be an employed mercenary, and stay employed and alive, one has to be an extremely good soldier.
The make-up of the Republican Party consists of 3 major-groups:
Neo Conservatives
Social Conservatives
Fiscal Conservatives
Absolutely none of the “con-christ” Republicans AKA Social Conservatives want anything to do with the Libertarian party. They have an annointed leader, Mike Huckabee and out of the third parties they align with the Constitution Party.
My interaction with con-christs is that they split between the two, most looking at the LP as the party next up for power if the republicans fall away…
I did… But then I was a minarchist… Besides I am certain that if Paul got a shot to do anything substantial as president, he would be shot…
So you have spoken to social conservatives who’s only platform requirements are pro-life and the bible and they wanted to join the LP party? I have a hard time believing that. I have seen no remote evidence of this.
So, you believe that the State (and its military) is the most efficient way of providing for defense?
If yes, how do you know? Do you get a bill from the State?
Are you able to compare their fees for service rendered against other companies providing the same service?
And you still haven’t answered the question… why is it just, and justifiable for the majority to take money by force from the minority to support the majority’s military? (p.s. you cannot resort to puerile cop-outs like, if you don't like it you can leave,'' or that’s just how it is.‘’) I suppose you will answer that it is more efficient to take from the minority? Political means have always been more efficient than economic means (for those in control anyway).
And what you are saying here is that you’re special… you belong to something bigger than yourself. In the words of Albert J. Nock, speaking on the true nature of the State:
``The mass-man, ignorant of its
history, regards its character and intentions as social rather than anti-social; and in that faith he is
willing to put at its disposal an indefinite credit of knavery, mendacity and chicane, upon which its
administrators may draw at will. Instead of looking upon the State’s progressive absorption of
social power with the repugnance and resentment that he would naturally feel towards the
activities of a professional-criminal organization, he tends rather to encourage and glorify it, in the
belief that he is somehow identified with the State, and that therefore, in consenting to its
indefinite aggrandizement, he consents to something in which he has a share he is, pro tanto,
aggrandizing himself.‘’
You just contradicted yourself and failed in your own non-moral disgust test. Clearly a military combatant that kills non-combatants is something that should be shunned from civilized society. Based upon your own measures, is not this person a threat to society? You said:
``I see it as an act that could eventually effect me. I see it as an act that could eventually effect others and obviously negatively effects the little girl. But that’s got nothing to do with morality. I see it as something that can’t be condoned because to condone it would bring about more of it.‘’
I suppose in this instance you cannot see how it would eventually affect you?