Question for libertarians

[castille]

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:

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.

2) If that is the case, wouldn't that make the army...well, totally crap? 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.

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.

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.

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.

[brien]

Before you begin to create Libertarian Platforms, please go to the LP website and familiarize yourself with the Party. Click on issues and then on Platforms. Please cut and paste the offical platforms for discussion rather than creating what you think they are here.

Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon Preamble As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles. These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

After you become familiar with the Platforms, then come back and ask more relevant questions that are pertinent to the Party and the true platforms, not the ones you imagine or simply create for your own position here. Thanks. We welcome you to the challange.

Here is some Party information on Conscription and the Army

I.7 Conscription The Issue: Any form of coerced national service program is a type of involuntary servitude. Examples include conscription into the military and compulsory youth labor programs. The Principle: Coerced national service programs presume the government can claim ownership of the lives of individuals. Such programs are a form of involuntary servitude and are a clear violation of the US Constitution 13th Amendment. Solutions: All forms of national service will be staffed by willing participants without the need for conscription or other means of mandating such service. When people perceive a just cause, history has shown that they willingly volunteer to serve. Transitional Action: All schemes for automatic registration through government invasions of the privacy of school, motor vehicle or other records should be immediately eliminated. The still-functioning elements of the Selective Service System should be abolished and all associated records should be destroyed. The President should immediately pardon, providing unconditional exoneration, for all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud and other acts of civil resistance.

[castille]

Are you really a libertarian, or a Communist Party bureaucrat?

I'm actually trying to direct my question at the libertarians on this site, not at the Minister of Party Propaganda.

[grandpa]

:(

Yet again, I have to remind people that Libertarianism isn't just a political party. As a Libertarian in the original sense of the word, I am personally quite opposed to state-sanctioned or privately funded armies.

Grandpa h.

[castille]

Um, an army can only be state sanctioned or privately funded. The only alternative to that is a bunch of dudes waving pitchforks (and that's technically privately funded, since they had to pay for their pitchforks).

[brien]

I'm actually trying to direct my question at the libertarians on this site, not at the Minister of Party Propaganda

.


If you can't deal with the Party line, then don't ask the questions. Well I suppose you could, but you will have an exercise in futility. So be my guest.

Furthermore, you can call the platforms "propaganda" all you want, but this is merely rhetoric and only makes you look foolish. So, once again, be my guest.

[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.....

[GHook93]

Quote by: brien Before you begin to create Libertarian Platforms, please go to the LP website and familiarize yourself with the Party. Click on issues and then on Platforms. Please cut and paste the offical platforms for discussion rather than creating what you think they are here. Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee After you become familiar with the Platforms, then come back and ask more relevant questions that are pertinent to the Party and the true platforms, not the ones you imagine or simply create for your own position here. Thanks. We welcome you to the challange. Here is some Party information on Conscription and the Army

That is always you answer, when someone justifiably criticizes the "extremist" libertarian party. Libertarian's in power would be worse than Al Qaeda running the country!

[castille]

Quote by: brien . If you can't deal with the Party line, then don't ask the questions. Well I suppose you could, but you will have an exercise in futility. So be my guest.

So what you're saying is, libertarianism is an ideology of freedom, as long as all its members support the Party line?

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa :( Yet again, I have to remind people that Libertarianism isn't just a political party. As a Libertarian in the original sense of the word, I am personally quite opposed to state-sanctioned or privately funded armies. Grandpa h.

LOL, tells some more jokes. You just validated Castille's point.

[castille]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its not about opposed to ALL taxes, nor is it about being opposed to "organized" goverment.

So you can say, with absolute precision, that you have never suggested or implied a total removal of taxed?

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.

There's no such thing as a "defensive" and "offensive" military force. They can be configured to a defensive role, but would still be capable of offensive operations. Furthermore, how would a completely defensive army deal with pre-emptive threats? Would you prefer to wait for the enemy to burn your farms before reacting?

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

I never mentioned that I don't trust people. Can you provide me with a direct link to a specific quote where I say that?

If you read my post again, you'll notice that I distrust judicial systems based on a disorganised collective, rather than a centralised system.

[brien]

That is always you answer, when someone justifiably criticizes the "extremist" libertarian party. Libertarian's in power would be worse than Al Qaeda running the country!

I make no apologies in referring anyone to the correct and true LP platforms. It is better that they read for themselves the truth rather than my paraphrasing the platforms so weasels can pick them apart according what they think the platforms are in the LP. You want to debate the truth or would you rather debate what you or others would like to frame as the truth. The latter only makes it more convenient for one to twist the arguments to fit their perspective.

Argue the official LP platforms if you wish to argue Libertarian principles. Don't hide behind cowardly insults or false rhetoric comparing Libertarians to terrorist extremists because it really screws your credibility with not only me, but any other rational person. Why should I bother when the starting point is as absurd as you frame it here. Your agenda is as naked as the proverbial jaybird. Later to you.

[Osborn F Enready]

Castille said: So you can say, with absolute precision, that you have never suggested or implied a total removal of taxed?

Not at all, nor is that what I implied. I have often argued from the perspective of having no taxes, as opposed to the taxes we have now as they are, but usually to draw out in my opponent their arguments for the necessity of taxation, and then shredding them when they say that is what we have.

Why not debate the points, and the valid arguments instead of looking for one time sited philosophical hangmen with which you seek to frame MY argument around?

I am here now....

Castille said: There's no such thing as a "defensive" and "offensive" military force.

Really? Strange then that they teach the basics of offense and defensive force allocations, tactics and strategies then isn't it? The military obviously recognizes the difference, so why don't you?

My argument is that force should be limited to the age old concept of defense of people and land. We were not to have an offensive military, and that was not the reasoning used to create it. We are Constitutionally a nation which seeks military isolationism, no entangling alliances with other nations, and no goal of oppressing or changing nations or peoples around the world. We were meant to have a "reactionary" defense force, not an "actionary" or inititator offensive force in role description and application.

Castille said: They can be configured to a defensive role, but would still be capable of offensive operations.

I am talking about LIMITATIONS, not their actual design. Legal limitations, to be beholden to standards, and punishable by such, according to the people they are in place to protect. Clear limitation on the projection of force unless meeting certain qualifiable criteria defined by the people, and determined by their representatives along those strict guidelines. This is NOT what we have had for the last 150 years.

Castille said: Furthermore, how would a completely defensive army deal with pre-emptive threats? Would you prefer to wait for the enemy to burn your farms before reacting?

Imminent threat is a valid argument. The Bush/Iraq War debacle is proof of the folly that this has become of this standard under bi-partisan leadership. The Congress and Senate "lack of"oversight controlled by the bi-partisan monopoly on power for the last 150 years is directly to blame, as they are for the notion of unitary executive, and explicitly unconstitutional war power, as is the War and Emergency Powers Act, as is the unjust view of prohibition except in cases of right violations such as murder, theft or fraud to mention a few.

Let me be clear for you.

The reality of the world demands a competent national defense force, that is capable of REACTING to serious threats offensively if the need arise.

REACTIONARY force is the main thrust of their limitations, not their tactical outlay or abilities if offensive forces are needed. I fully support the specialized interdiction, observation and combat units such as the Navy SEALs, the Army Rangers, Delta Force, as well as other such units. They are surgically capable of using force in offensive high risk situations that are sometimes necessary, while truly at heart being offensive geared operators.

There is a need for both offense and defense ability, but all of that offense should only be, and limited to justification for only DIRECT THREAT to our land, our people, or our national intrests. (NOT corporate intrests, as has often been associated with NATIONAL intrests by lobbyists and special intrest groups)

Castille said: I never mentioned that I don't trust people. Can you provide me with a direct link to a specific quote where I say that?

This is what you said that I was referencing.

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"

What makes the fed or state "title" more apt to pick responsible, law abiding people than private, local or city sources?

Why is a corporate cop, or a civillian cop somehow less professional than state or fed cops? What did you MEAN by that statement if not this highlight of their apparent (to you) differences?

Why can't local authorities be as apt to be effective as more nationalized forces, in your opinion?

[5010]

Without organized gov't, militias could still be publically traded corps that each individual decides to buy or sell stock in and thus gain a proxy vote.

That plus every individual having unrestricted ability to arm themselves would make such a place very hard to invade.

But I agree, there would be some lynchings...

[castille]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Really? Strange then that they teach the basics of offense and defensive force allocations, tactics and strategies then isn't it?

Individual forces can be configured for offensive or defensive operations, but an entire armed forces of a nation cannot. You can lean towards offensive or defensive roles by prioritising certain types of equipment, but there is no way to build a completely defensive army that cannot be used on the offensive.

We are Constitutionally a nation which seeks military isolationism, no entangling alliances with other nations, and no goal of oppressing or changing nations or peoples around the world.

I'm not sure who "We" is (are we talking the Tanzania or something?). However few powerful nations can remain isolationist for long. Putting your head in the sand doesn't make the rest of the world ignore you.

Do you think any nation can become a superpower without offensive actions? Heck, even humans can't become successful without leaving the house.

What makes the fed or state "title" more apt to pick responsible, law abiding people than private, local or city sources? Why is a corporate cop, or a civillian cop somehow less professional than state or fed cops?

Because state-regulated justice is more standardised. There are rules and regulations, accompanied by training. Civilian cops do not have that level of training and discipline, not to mention regulation (if they did, they wouldn't be civilians cops anymore, as any police force regulated by an overarching centralised department is effectively state police).

Neighbourhood Watch might be useful for writing down license plates and reporting litterbugs, but don't expect Joe the Accountant to catch a dozen armored terrorists with AKs.

Why can't local authorities be as apt to be effective as more nationalized forces, in your opinion?

They are, but only when regulated by national authorities.