danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (12/08/84)
[] >National defense is one of the few enterprises for which a unified effort >is far superior to a disjointed one. Therefore having two or more >"national defense corporations" would be utterly disasterous[sic] Furthermore, >these companies could use their own resources to police the nation. There have been recent postings to the effect that the Irish with their disjointed armys, did very well indeed against the Brits. A single unified army is of course best for meddling in the affairs of others. It does not follow that one army is the ONLY way to defend our homes. (With a libertarian army we are ONLY talking about the best way to defend our homes.) Libertarians have an instinctive distrust of centralized authority, making the one army concept impossible. An army that specializes in , for example , the defense the west cost of the U.S. would not necessary be the people you should give money to for the defense of the Rocky Mountains or the deep south. As with all things free market forces can determine what is best, not bureaucrats. Small regional specialized armies, do not face the terrible specter of a single catastrophic defeat that looses the entire nation to the enemy. One can make a case for the argument that Ireland would have been conquered in much less time if the English had faced one single army run by the local "government" ! The fear that the National army will 'turn' on the population and enslave them , is one of the best arguments against nonlibertarian government ALL national armys are financed with money collected using force, as a result they have ALL enslaved their indigenous populations to one degree or another. It is fuzzy thinking however to transfer this current problem , to proposed Libertarian solutions, without some thought. A small local libertarian army will have few full time career people on the staff,(the limitation of volunteer funding make this unavoidable.) The backbone of libertarian defense is (and MUST be) the civilian soldier , they outnumber professional career soldiers by at least 1000 to one. In the Swiss tradition a majority of these civilian soldiers will probably keep their battle rifles and ammunition at home , they have access to cashes of sophisticate weapons, they know how to use their weapons. The relationship of the libertarian 'professional' soldier to the citizen soldier is much like the relationship between a professor and a student. The professional has a PHD in soldiery , he holds week-end and summer camp classes. He is a teacher , and in times of crises a leader he is NOT the army , the citizens are the army. Full time military types are visible , and accountable to , the community by virtue of the fact that they are perpetual involved with fund raising activities. This is markedly different from our current system. An army that is distant , unaccountable ,or aloof to the needs of the community, will find it's funding will dry up overnight. There is simply no opportunity for these individuals to get together and "take over". danw
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/09/84)
> There have been recent postings to the effect that the Irish > with their disjointed armys, did very well indeed against the Brits. > A single unified army is of course best for meddling in the affairs > of others. It does not follow that one army is the ONLY way to > defend our homes. (With a libertarian army we are ONLY talking about > the best way to defend our homes.) If the Russians invade Canada, for instance, I think that this would be a very good reason for "meddling in their affairs". Isolationism only makes sense if there is a balance of power without your interference, which certainly isn't the case now. > Libertarians have an instinctive distrust of centralized authority, > making the one army concept impossible. I don't know how valid "instinctive distrust" is as a basis for political philosophy. > An army that specializes in , for example , the defense the west > cost of the U.S. would not necessary be the people you should give money > to for the defense of the Rocky Mountains or the deep south. As with all > things free market forces can determine what is best, not bureaucrats. Free market forces in defense?? This is silly... A defense is one of the only things that you have to spend a lot of money because you don't want to have to use it. Please explain to me how the law of supply and demand applies for armies, if they are never used. > The fear that the National army will 'turn' on the population > and enslave them , is one of the best arguments against nonlibertarian > government But has that ever happened? It tends to happen in third-world nations, but that is a result of their undeveloped political traditions and unstable governmments. > ALL national armys are financed with money collected using force, > as a result they have ALL enslaved their indigenous populations to one > degree or another. I don't think this is a very good comparison. Try taking a poll with the question, "Do you want to disband the army?" and see how many people consider themselves enslaved. Wayne