Two red flags about this community...

[ama_gi]

flag no. 1

Yes, I agree that the 9/11 truthers are full of it.

flag no. 2

I agree that it is sometimes necessary to use force, but I also believe that a warfare state is the greatest threat to our liberty. War brings taxes and inflation, domestic surveillance, silences dissent, nationalizes key industries, threatens democracies, allows executive usurption, war profiteers agitating for war, et. etc. etc. James Madison put it best:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people… inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and… degeneracy of manners and of morals… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare…

Now, if your idea of national defense is an all-volunteer unpaid citizen’s militias banding together to resist foreign invasion, and if all of their supplies are given voluntarily without taxation, I would support it. Noticed I said unpaid citizen’s militias; unpaid citizen’s militias do not stand to profit from war, nor do they have any incentive to obey their superiors should the general decide to crown himself king. They can go AWOL, or join the opposition.

From The Book of Peace

From The Book of Peace, 1845 A people highly moral and highly intellectual, would not endure the existence of such a distinct class as Bacon’s “soldiery professed”. They would realize that the principle of military life resulted in making moral agents machines, free citizens slaves; that a soldier can have no will but his officer’s, and know no law but his commands; with him conscience has no force, Heaven no authority, and conduct but one rule,—implicit, military obedience. If it be asked, ho…

flag no. 3

The right to life is considered a property right, because a person “owns” his or her life; at least that’s how libertarians see it.

[macsnafu]

@snliii

I am a generally pro-war person, because it seems to me that a volunteer force over-throwing potentially threatening states is in everyone’s best interest, except those being overthrown.

Forgive me if someone already addressed this. A “volunteer force” doesn’t have to be a government army. I would have had little problem with an NGO (nongovernmental organization) volunteer force going to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein or hunting down Osama Bin Laden. But not a government army. If the government has any legitmate function (a big IF), it is to protect the rights of its citizens. There is no legitimate reason for a government army to act except in defense of its country, and only to the extent that it is in defense of the country. This explains why the occupation of Iraq is wrong–it’s doubtful that Iraq was ever truly a threat to the U.S. in the first place, and it should be clear that our occupation isn’t protecting us in the second place.

[ventedspleen]

That’s an intriguing idea, especially considering the prominence of private merc forces in this conflict. The neocon financial juggernaut certainly has the capacity to furnish such a force, although international law may have been an impediment. Additionally, private intelligence forces (operating with varying degrees of complicity from governmental intelligence) have been responsible for some of the most dastardly anti-Democratic acts in recent history. Still, it’s an interesting premise, considering most military actions do seem to be privately motivated in one form or another. I’ve also endorsed political militias (within a multiparty framework), as they tend to keep a pretty firm check on unipartisan autocracy (provided they don’t metastasize into outright shock troops or roving terrorists like some of the more radical KKK factions in the 1870s and their main phalanx in the 1920s/50s). I tend to think any organization or group should enjoy the right to regiment themselves if they so wish, provided they operate within some basic humane framework.

[ama_gi]

@macsnafu

@snliii

I am a generally pro-war person, because it seems to me that a volunteer force over-throwing potentially threatening states is in everyone’s best interest, except those being overthrown.

Forgive me if someone already addressed this. A “volunteer force” doesn’t have to be a government army. I would have had little problem with an NGO (nongovernmental organization) volunteer force going to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein or hunting down Osama Bin Laden. But not a government army.

There are a couple of problems with this approach: firstly, military campaigns are hugely expensive. It is unlikely that any non-governmental organization would have $5 trilllion+ to spend on regime change. An NGO would probably be able to aid an existing rebellion, but it could not launch a unilateral foreign invasion.

secondly, It is unlikely that characters like Saddam or Osama would have come to power without Western aid.

thirdly, there are ways of waging non-violent conflict against dictators which can complement or replace violent confrontation, rendering a dramatic “shock and awe” invasion unnecessary.

[Spideynw]

@ama gi

thirdly, there are ways of waging non-violent conflict against dictators which can complement or replace violent confrontation, rendering a dramatic “shock and awe” invasion unnecessary.

Unrestricted trade anyone?

[ama_gi]

@Spideynw

@ama gi

thirdly, there are ways of waging non-violent conflict against dictators which can complement or replace violent confrontation, rendering a dramatic “shock and awe” invasion unnecessary.

Unrestricted trade anyone?

I was not advocating state-imposed trade sanctions, if that is what you are implying; I was suggesting voluntary boycotts, voluntary labor strikes, tax evasion, black markets, pro-freedom publications, infiltration of government offices, protests, sabotage, litigation and legal proceedures, etc. etc. etc. etc. There are a million different ways to defy dictatorships, and practiced long enough and widely enough, can seriously threaten the regime.