Don't get me wrong undisputed, I'd love to see the military budget shrunk drastically but there's a world of difference between a smaller military and your stated goal of no military.
Past the point of deterrence military dollars are a waste - which is probably a sixth or so of current. But the core expense of deterrence is absolutely not.
I think it's ridiculous to spend exorbitant amounts of money (stolen with taxes) and debt on a non-existent threat.
Things are non-existent only so long as they're not in your base of knowledge.
I have no idea how many genuine military threats the U.S. faces currently, but it is my honest to goodness opinion that if the U.S. army spending and size was curtailed to the level that many Democrats and anti-war folks want, then we'd be in big trouble.
The case could be made that the army can be reduced, and many of the bases we have overseas in low-risk areas could be shut down, but the assumption that we are safe from attack is pure idiocy to me. The U.S. is untouchable BECAUSE of its naval and aerial supremacy, not in spite of or because of some other reason.
The only issue with reducing the size of the army is that it forces the U.S. to be a purely defensive force and incapable of exerting its powers far beyond the range of ships.
I think it's ridiculous to spend exorbitant amounts of money (stolen with taxes) and debt on a non-existent threat.
Things are non-existent only so long as they're not in your base of knowledge.
I have no idea how many genuine military threats the U.S. faces currently, but it is my honest to goodness opinion that if the U.S. army spending and size was curtailed to the level that many Democrats and anti-war folks want, then we'd be in big trouble.
The case could be made that the army can be reduced, and many of the bases we have overseas in low-risk areas could be shut down, but the assumption that we are safe from attack is pure idiocy to me. The U.S. is untouchable BECAUSE of its naval and aerial supremacy, not in spite of or because of some other reason.
The only issue with reducing the size of the army is that it forces the U.S. to be a purely defensive force and incapable of exerting its powers far beyond the range of ships.
Why are we so lightly weighing the value of our allies here? Does the US have to be able to defend itself from the entire Globe? no. Hell the US technically wouldnt need any military force as long as potential enemies know that our allies would react quickly and efficiently. We happen to have a hell of a lot of allies. Cut the US military to 10% of it's current power and there is still China, the UK, France, Canada, Russia, Germany... etc etc etc... Some country in Africa or the Middle East isnt going to suddenly be able to invade without repercussions.
Rothbard speaks about complete disarmament - I was responding to the context of military disarmament not just nukes. Remember undisputed dislikes the idea of ANY military as per Rothbard.
Then I am not certain that I shall ever read Rothbard. Do you think that such idealism is fundamentally flawed in that ignore human nature? I would like to be persuaded why his books are worth the time to read when such an error is present. (is the error there or is just my perception that is wrong)
Rothbard is not for complete disarmament of everyone, only of the state.
From The Ethics of Liberty:
"IF EVERY MAN HAS the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property—to defend it by violence against violent invasion. Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights—such as Mr. Robert LeFevre—are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property.
Furthermore, if every man has the right to defend his person and property against attack, then he must also have the right to hire or accept the aid of other people to do such defending: he may employ or accept defenders just as he may employ or accept the volunteer services of gardeners on his lawn...
It should further be clear from our discussion of defense that every man has the absolute right to bear arms—whether for self-defense or any other licit purpose. The crime comes not from bearing arms, but from using them for purposes of threatened or actual invasion. It is curious, by the way that the laws have especially banned concealed weapons, when it is precisely the open and unconcealed weapons which might be used for intimidation." - Murray Rothbard
His position is that security or defense from invasion should be provided by the market.
Another fun quote on gun rights from an earlier anarchist Lysander Spooner:
"This right of resistance is recognized by the constitution of the United States, as a strictly legal and constitutional right. It is so recognized, first by the provision that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury” --- that is, by the country --- and not by the government; secondly, by the provision that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This constitutional security for “the right to keep and bear arms, implies the right to use themes much as a constitutional security for the right to buy and keep food would have implied the right to eat it. The constitution, therefore, takes it for granted that the people will judge of the conduct of the government, and that, as they have the right, they will also have the sense, to use arms, whenever the necessity justifies it. And it is a sufficient and legal defence for a person accused of using arms against the government, if he can show, to the satisfaction of a jury, or even any one of a jury, that the law he resisted was an unjust one."
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
For a New Liberty says quite differently - saying that assuming all needs are met by people being properly empowered that violence would become unnecessary - admittedly I've not read anything but that work of his though from what I can see on my shelves.
However he did go on to admit in the same work that it was idyllic and not realistic and that defense would be required. But that wasn't his ideal.
Not exactly shocking that his idealism trickled out of his work in 20 years of reality - considering he considered it an unrealistic goal initially anyhow. But you still see hints of it in your own quote where he references the negative of intimidating others with visible weaponry.
You try to present his works as "We'll create a new Rome with the Huns trying to beat down the doors that we'll stave off with our guns" which is absolutely not something I've seen in early Rothbard. (Nor does that fit what most libertarians besides bunker-dwellers feel)
For a New Liberty says quite differently - saying that assuming all needs are met by people being properly empowered that violence would become unnecessary - admittedly I've not read anything but that work of his though from what I can see on my shelves.
However he did go on to admit in the same work that it was idyllic and not realistic and that defense would be required. But that wasn't his ideal.
Not exactly shocking that his idealism trickled out of his work in 20 years of reality - considering he considered it an unrealistic goal initially anyhow. But you still see hints of it in your own quote where he references the negative of intimidating others with visible weaponry.
You try to present his works as "We'll create a new Rome with the Huns trying to beat down the doors that we'll stave off with our guns" which is absolutely not something I've seen in early Rothbard. (Nor does that fit what most libertarians besides bunker-dwellers feel)
"If, as libertarians believe, every individual has the right to own his person and property, it then follows that he has the right to employ violence to defend himself against the violence of criminal aggressors. But for some odd reason, liberals have systematically tried to deprive innocent persons of the means for defending themselves against aggression. Despite the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the government has systematically eroded much of this right."
In the same chapter he also refers to empirical evidence supporting the right to bear arms:
"Have handgun bans really greatly lowered the degree of violence in society, as liberals claim? The evidence is precisely to the contrary. A massive study done at the University of Wisconsin concluded unequivocally in the fall of 1975 that "gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate of violent crime." The Wisconsin study, for example, tested the theory that ordinarily peaceful people will be irresistibly tempted to shoot their guns if available when tempers are being frayed. The study found no correlation whatever between rates of handgun ownership and rates of homicide when compared, state by state. Moreover, this finding is reinforced by a 1976 Harvard study of a Massachusetts law providing a mandatory minimum year in prison for anyone found possessing a handgun without a government permit. It turns out that, during the year 1975, this 1974 law did indeed considerably reduce the carrying of firearms and the number of assaults with firearms. But, lo and behold! the Harvard researchers found to their surprise that there was no corresponding reduction in any type of violence.
And clearly, "if reducing handgun ownership does not reduce homicide or other violence, a handgun ban is just one more diversion of police resources from real crime to victimless crime.""
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Past the point of deterrence military dollars are a waste - which is probably a sixth or so of current. But the core expense of deterrence is absolutely not.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Things are non-existent only so long as they're not in your base of knowledge.
I have no idea how many genuine military threats the U.S. faces currently, but it is my honest to goodness opinion that if the U.S. army spending and size was curtailed to the level that many Democrats and anti-war folks want, then we'd be in big trouble.
The case could be made that the army can be reduced, and many of the bases we have overseas in low-risk areas could be shut down, but the assumption that we are safe from attack is pure idiocy to me. The U.S. is untouchable BECAUSE of its naval and aerial supremacy, not in spite of or because of some other reason.
The only issue with reducing the size of the army is that it forces the U.S. to be a purely defensive force and incapable of exerting its powers far beyond the range of ships.
Why are we so lightly weighing the value of our allies here? Does the US have to be able to defend itself from the entire Globe? no. Hell the US technically wouldnt need any military force as long as potential enemies know that our allies would react quickly and efficiently. We happen to have a hell of a lot of allies. Cut the US military to 10% of it's current power and there is still China, the UK, France, Canada, Russia, Germany... etc etc etc... Some country in Africa or the Middle East isnt going to suddenly be able to invade without repercussions.
Rothbard is not for complete disarmament of everyone, only of the state.
From The Ethics of Liberty:
"IF EVERY MAN HAS the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property—to defend it by violence against violent invasion. Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights—such as Mr. Robert LeFevre—are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property.
Furthermore, if every man has the right to defend his person and property against attack, then he must also have the right to hire or accept the aid of other people to do such defending: he may employ or accept defenders just as he may employ or accept the volunteer services of gardeners on his lawn...
It should further be clear from our discussion of defense that every man has the absolute right to bear arms—whether for self-defense or any other licit purpose. The crime comes not from bearing arms, but from using them for purposes of threatened or actual invasion. It is curious, by the way that the laws have especially banned concealed weapons, when it is precisely the open and unconcealed weapons which might be used for intimidation." - Murray Rothbard
His position is that security or defense from invasion should be provided by the market.
Another fun quote on gun rights from an earlier anarchist Lysander Spooner:
"This right of resistance is recognized by the constitution of the United States, as a strictly legal and constitutional right. It is so recognized, first by the provision that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury” --- that is, by the country --- and not by the government; secondly, by the provision that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This constitutional security for “the right to keep and bear arms, implies the right to use themes much as a constitutional security for the right to buy and keep food would have implied the right to eat it. The constitution, therefore, takes it for granted that the people will judge of the conduct of the government, and that, as they have the right, they will also have the sense, to use arms, whenever the necessity justifies it. And it is a sufficient and legal defence for a person accused of using arms against the government, if he can show, to the satisfaction of a jury, or even any one of a jury, that the law he resisted was an unjust one."
However he did go on to admit in the same work that it was idyllic and not realistic and that defense would be required. But that wasn't his ideal.
Not exactly shocking that his idealism trickled out of his work in 20 years of reality - considering he considered it an unrealistic goal initially anyhow. But you still see hints of it in your own quote where he references the negative of intimidating others with visible weaponry.
You try to present his works as "We'll create a new Rome with the Huns trying to beat down the doors that we'll stave off with our guns" which is absolutely not something I've seen in early Rothbard. (Nor does that fit what most libertarians besides bunker-dwellers feel)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Ctrl+ F search: Gun Laws
It's pretty similar to what I quoted above.
"If, as libertarians believe, every individual has the right to own his person and property, it then follows that he has the right to employ violence to defend himself against the violence of criminal aggressors. But for some odd reason, liberals have systematically tried to deprive innocent persons of the means for defending themselves against aggression. Despite the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the government has systematically eroded much of this right."
In the same chapter he also refers to empirical evidence supporting the right to bear arms:
"Have handgun bans really greatly lowered the degree of violence in society, as liberals claim? The evidence is precisely to the contrary. A massive study done at the University of Wisconsin concluded unequivocally in the fall of 1975 that "gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate of violent crime." The Wisconsin study, for example, tested the theory that ordinarily peaceful people will be irresistibly tempted to shoot their guns if available when tempers are being frayed. The study found no correlation whatever between rates of handgun ownership and rates of homicide when compared, state by state. Moreover, this finding is reinforced by a 1976 Harvard study of a Massachusetts law providing a mandatory minimum year in prison for anyone found possessing a handgun without a government permit. It turns out that, during the year 1975, this 1974 law did indeed considerably reduce the carrying of firearms and the number of assaults with firearms. But, lo and behold! the Harvard researchers found to their surprise that there was no corresponding reduction in any type of violence.
And clearly, "if reducing handgun ownership does not reduce homicide or other violence, a handgun ban is just one more diversion of police resources from real crime to victimless crime.""