[Osborn F Enready]

Castille said: I've been reading some of the stuff posted by libertarians (those guys opposed to taxes and organised government), and I've got some questions for you guys:

Its not about opposed to ALL taxes, nor is it about being opposed to "organized" goverment. It is about sensible taxation for representation, and LIMITED government, not opposition to organized government.

Castille said: 1) Without organised government, the military would not exist, right? I've heard that Osborne guy claim armies can be privatised, or formed from civilian volunteer groups.

First of all, I have never claimed a value to "unorganized government". I have claimed an obvious value exists in limited government, with clear limitations on power both federal and state. I have expressed value in stronger state and local government, as opposed to strong central government.

If you really want this to be a serious debate, try acurately representing the arguments, or not taking it upon yourself to put others arguments in YOUR words.

Yes, military COULD be in private hands and ownership, but that is more along the goals of Autolykos than myself if I am not mistaken. I won't attempt to itemize Auto's positions, or stances, or clarification of his poltical position, but he and I differ, and I don't believe he considers himself a libertarian.

I believe in a strong national defense, but only with strict limitation to keep them reflective of the will of the people, and for defense only. In todays world a modern national armed forces is necessary, but the use of that force and the means of their funding and recruiting are my major concerns, not the idea that they should or should not exist entirely.

I hope this clarifies MY position, since YOU brought me into this debate by wrongly framing my arguments in entirety.

Castille said: Firstly, without centralised command, how will they manage multiple engagements? Organise supply distribution? Maintain established lines? An organised invader could smash through these "civilian armies" by exploiting their lack of organisation.

That is not only not representative of my point of view, but obviously missing all the essential parts of my point of view that make it logical. Where did you get this impression from my words?

Castille said: 3) How can such weak armies fund expensive weapons? I'm quite certain some cheapass "local community army" won't be able to afford a $100M tank division, much less battleships, aircraft, long-range missiles, etc.

Once again, this has little to with Libertarian, OR my perspective.

Castille said: 4) What about training? Without standardised training programs, you won't be able to coordinate operations. One army will be saying "Let's go there!" while the other is running in the opposite direction.

Again..... false questions posed by a false assumption of my position, or the Libertarian position.

Castille said: 5) What about the police force? Private "corporate cops" aren't exactly ideal, and "civilian police" will simply result in lynch mobs, disorganised justice ("Hey Billy-Bob, I reckon we shoulda shoot them fellas for stealing"). As for no police...well that's called the Dark Ages.

ROFLMAO.....

Yea, heaven forbid you trust other people.....only the state. They aren't people.....