Political & socio-economic nerd-rage thread. page 11

[Chaohinon]

The military has created all of its own problems, and I have no shame in saying we'd be much better off without it.

If the world were truly as dangerous as they'd have you believe, then how come countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, etc. haven't been faced with their own terrorist threats ala 9/11? Perhaps because they're not guilty of mass-murdering innocents and blowing up hospitals.

If anything, the military puts us all in danger by bullying the rest of the world and then claiming to represent us. The rest of the world sees the actions of "our" military, associates it with the average american joe, thus making us all look evil. It's really the exact opposite of a shield.

Besides, even a libertarian-style, "private" military is inherently dangerous and predisposed to fascism, because the culture of blind obedience and servitude is an incubator of authoritarianism. This is why the founding fathers preferred a loose federation of militias over a standing national army.

[canio6]

If there's an obvious threat, would it not be in each person's self interest to take up arms and defend themselves? With anarchism, civil society would still exist, but all interaction would be voluntary including defense.

It would, but I do not have that much faith in people. Perhaps it is because of our current nanny state, but I think many would lay down like sheep and be slaughtered.

Honestly, what I would settle for at this point in the US is more state and local govt autonomy, i.e. downsize the federal govt. Any system that moves closer to the principal being his own agent is a move in the right direction.

I can definitely agree with that. I also think that was the way the government was intended to be.

I was referring to the psychopaths that sent you guys to Iraq.

I know. I was being willfully obtuse, and was trying to imply that to the boots-on-the-ground the politics matters far less than to the talking heads at home.

[Chaohinon]

You can't act like military service is somehow above politics and ideology. The two are inseparable.

[js290]

It would, but I do not have that much faith in people. Perhaps it is because of our current nanny state, but I think many would lay down like sheep and be slaughtered.

I'm going to respond to this only because I think you set it up perfectly. So, this is not directed against you, but at those who defend statism. We have a system where people have lost faith in each other, yet we have faith they will follow arbitrary laws under threat of force? What kind of society is that? And would it even be considered a "civil" one? Who benefits from such a society?

[js290]

If anything, the military puts us all in danger by bullying the rest of the world and then claiming to represent us. The rest of the world sees the actions of "our" military, associates it with the average american joe, thus making us all look evil. It's really the exact opposite of a shield.

[canio6]

I'm going to respond to this only because I think you set it up perfectly. So, this is not directed against you, but at those who defend statism. We have a system where people have lost faith in each other, yet we have faith they will follow arbitrary laws under threat of force? What kind of society is that? And would it even be considered a "civil" one? Who benefits from such a society?

I have faith that they will follow arbitrary laws under threat of force because most people do. I do not agree with this in principle, but it works in reality. Most Americans are law-abiding. Whether the laws are correct or just is another matter. As to who benefits, well, obviously those in power, though one could argue that everyone benefits from an orderly society. The benefits under a more free system (for lack of a better term) could be much greater. I would like to think they would be. I'd like to say that if the yoke of oppression was thrown off my fellow man would rise to the occasion, and undoubtedly many would. Though looking back at our country's history, this does not really hold true. Take the revolution for example - everyone seems to get a hard-on for citizen militias. Free people banding together to get slaughtered by the British. America had to formalize its army under a Prussian to start winning. So while, I would like to think a citizen up-rising to make us a free nation would be lovely on paper, in reality I think a lot of people would die. (Though as I do not have much love for most people, I can't even say this is a bad thing, just the reality)


Edit: my preferred solution would be to slowly abolish the over-reach of government. We did not get from the Revolution to this mass government overnight and I do not think we can abolish it quickly. A slow draw down of services and removal of government from our daily lives would give people time to get used to the idea.

[js290]

Edit: my preferred solution would be to slowly abolish the over-reach of government. We did not get from the Revolution to this mass government overnight and I do not think we can abolish it quickly. A slow draw down of services and removal of government from our daily lives would give people time to get used to the idea.

Yeah, incremental changes would likely be better. A sudden change may be for the worse. Hard part is getting people to think about these problems differently rather than spew the establishment propaganda.

[magicmerl]

Like everyone in this thread is doing.

[j3nn]

Uh,what? You mean like when China invaded Nepal? Your arguement is that the US would be harder to conquer if there was no centralised government?

No. My argument is that the US wouldn't be very appealing to invade if there wasn't an over-sized military that tries to police the entire world (we are the aggressors in most cases), no tax collection, no uniformity. Millions of individuals that have already resisted taxation and tyranny and aren't setting up military bases in other countries and spreading colonialism really don't have a reason to be invaded and conquered -- what would the motive be? The non-aggression principle means being friendly with all of your neighbors. Our government is the one that is offensive. Most of our collective enemies do not have issue with our people, but with our government.

Germany never had a plan to invade the USA. Never. Their only 'plan' was to conquer all of europe and dig in,then hope that the lily livered democracies in the UK and USA would have no stomach for further war. They never even had a coherent plan to conquer england.

Right. It wasn't on the immediate radar. The distance, the costs, the collateral damage were too great. And if I were going to invade a country, I would certainly consider the people who are well-endowed with arms to also be a quantifiable deterrent, especially if my military and other resources were already stretched thin.

Point being that if all individuals took the responsibility and protected themselves and their property similar to the way Switzerland does, and practiced the non-aggression principle (neutrality and defense against aggressors), there is no need for a standing military, but there can always be (voluntary) privatized organizations that people want to contribute to or participate in. It wasn't until we put sanctions Japan's oil supply that we were officially involved in WWII; that was an act of aggression that resulted in (un?)intended consequences.

Yes, yes you have. But in all fairness,there were several thousand americans that died in the twin towers, so doesn't that justify over half a million dead Iraqis? Plus the various war crimes and what not in Afghanistan and Guantanamo?

Absolutely not! All of Bush's wars were wrong, and the fact that Obama has continued them and created his own are even worse. 9/11 is the result of our military presence and arrogance... everywhere. We have been the aggressors for decades.

I think you are assuming that the publically stated goals of the US are the actual goals of the US. Bringing peace, freedom and the american way to poor benighted heathens is how the US government sells their wars to the US public.

Nope. I know the difference between what the government and media and public education system tells us and what the reality is: The US military industrial complex is a product of corporatism, greed, and corruption. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and "democracy." Hence why I used quotes.

I think that there are two reasons for war:
1. You hate the buggers and want them dead (otherwise known in these enlightened times as 'ethnic cleansing')

Yes. This is the mentality of some; neo-cons, Palestian-sympathizers, liberal African-country sympathizers, etc. Different social ideologies, similar reasons for justifying war.

2. It's an extension of economic policy (these are the types of wars that the US engages in)

Agreed.

Really? I thought collectivism was the basic fabric of society?

Says who? In your opinion, perhaps. But you cannot speak on behalf of all individuals. Collectivism uses sweeping statements and ideals and disregards the minority, even if the "minority" happens to be as large as 49%.

Bullshit. The answer is that all of europe enjoyed a huge wealth surge (essentially by pillaging the wealth of the entire americas),which created a new class of gentleman scholar, who all decided that they wanted to discover everything they could about the universe, and now had the wealth and the leisure to pursue their ambitions.

Because all innovation came from people who were already rich and powerful? No. Most innovation in America came from entrepreneurs who raised their own capital without the use of coercion and violence (e.g., government privileges). Once again you are confusing capitalism and freedom with corporatism and free market-state collusion. They are two worlds apart.

As to why the industrial revolution didn't occur 2000 years ago,might I suggest that in a way, it actually did? The greeks/egyptians had a tremendous period of scientific and technological progress.

Yes, there were small bursts of innovation before the industrial revolution, but it was usually stop-and-go and often co-oped by governments and rulers and slave-drivers and churches and other parts of the elite ruling class; it never had the momentum that it had until people had the time and freedom to actually be innovative without someone or something standing in their way.

I don't think that competition is something that is inherently bad or evil. But there's a reason why the world has pretty much always revolved around china,usa and europe. (Hint: it's not 'freedom'). Those are the three large temperate continents in the world, which gives those regions a tremendous resource advantage.

But before America existed, it was just as undeveloped as any other developing country. It's geographical location is an advantage, but that's not the sole factor. There are many countries that have ideal geo- and topographical land, too. Canada and Mexico are resource-rich, too. And how do you account for the success of small countries like Japan, Switzerland, etc. They are not too far behind the US in economic prosperity. Perhaps if they had more of the one element that Americans enjoyed for many years: Freedom -- Americans don't have as much freedom today as we had in years past, to our detriment.

Well, I think that this can be viewed within the paradigm of 'war-as-extension-of-foreign-policy' that I suggested earlier. Of course the US doesn't want to go to war with it's allies (except Saddam Hussein). It wants it's allies to help it overwhelm the real opponents.

Our current foreign policy is horrendous.

In the current geopolitical world, the US is squaring up vs China. China and the US are both nuclear powers so of course they can't attack each other directly. But the US will be 'attacking' (either physically or economically) strategic allies of china.

Many countries have nuclear weapons; Israel has 300. Mutually assured destruction is a powerful deterrent, hence armed citizens being an unappealing target. Wars are now progressing to economic wars, and our Federal Reserve is biggest offender.

[Urban Forager]

First I want to make an observation; I find the 2 terms used in this thread, Statists and Anarcho-Capitalists problematic.These terms are unnecessarily opaque. From what I've gathered in this thread a Statist is a Liberal Reformist who believes the role of government to to mitigate the effects of capitalism and an Anarcho-Capitalist is a Free Market Entrepreneur who believes that the less government the better.

Statist and Anarcho-Capitalist are both on the same train and that train is headed straight off a cliff.

The Statists want to make every one as comfortable as possible and feel there must be some sort of governing structure to ensure that it happens. The most perceptive of this group want to find a way to slow the train down.

Anarcho-Capitalists want to be able to sell seats on that train unencumbered by regulations. The few in this group who are aware of where the train is headed think they should be rewarded for their cleverness.

Neither group is really saying anything new. One thing to keep in mind is: there is no way to change the trajectory of the train, the tracks were laid long ago, thousands of years ago.