KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/16/86)
[ I'm going to give up my profitable business of selling widgets
and join the army while my compeditor keeps selling widgets ...
It is up to each individual. Anyone who thinks defense of a their
free country is sufficiently important, and that they can contribute
more to its defense by joining the military than by donating money to
it or by continuing to produce widgets, will do so.
Many people, especially people under 30, are not yet doing anything
important. They won't have the widget magnate's dilemma. The widget
maker could probably contribute more to the effort by donating money.
Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when coerced is
not worthy of being defended.
(pick the wrong time [to re-arm], and you spend big bucks on
weapons that will be obsolete when you need them).
Wrong. Since the most important purpose of defense is deterrence, a
weapon that never needs to be used is the most successful weapon of
all. There is no wrong time to re-arm. People won't pick fights with
us if they know we can blow them away. We are paying for peace, not
for war. And if there is a war, we are paying for its shortness and
painlessness. This can only be done by always being prepared for a
long and painful war.
We can best lead by example. If we adopt a truly free civilization,
other countries will do the same after they see the results. Perhaps
eventually we won't need any sort of defense.
...Keith
[ Sorry, but telling an under-30, "You're not doing anything
important, go join the army" won't work. Hell, I'm under 30, and I'm
not going to join an army just so widget salesmen can keep on making
widgets. What if I have a job I like, working for the widget saleman,
making a comfortable living? I'm not going to give that up (i.e. the
'widget saleman' argument extends to all of the employed).
No wrong time to rearm, huh? Go tell the Polish Lancers of 1939.
Tell the Russians of 1914, or 1905. Tell the 'Devastator' pilots of
the USN in 1941. Build a lot of the wrong thing (or the right thing
that gets old) and that's all it is - the wrong thing. You can paint
'Peace saving weapon' on it all you want, but if it doesn't work
against what the other fellow has, then its no good. But once again,
we digress.... - CWM]
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/23/86)
From: WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Defense
> Do you really think that Qadaffi and
> Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US?
I can think of several people whom I trust less than Khomenei or
Gadhafi. What makes Americans so damn trustworthy, anyway?
What I mean was, do you believe that for every individual American,
Qadaffi is more trustworthy than that individual? Since you seem to
think that Qadaffi should be allowed to have nuclear weapons but that
no individual American should, I guess you do.
My point is that it is easy to find flaws in libertarian thought.
These always take the form "If you give a person freedom X, he might
abuse that freedom". This is true. But it is debating in a vacuum.
We are comparing a libertarian system to the present system, not to
some hypothetical ideal world in which everyone is peaceful and sits
around in white robes doing whatever people do to pass the time in
utopia.
In particular, according to currently accepted international norms,
it is ok for any national government to have nuclear weapons, even if
that government is a single individual. It is not, however, ok for
individuals who are not kings or emperors to have nuclear weapons.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like nuclear weapons. I wish they
didn't exist. But they do. As long as anyone has them, I think
everyone should be allowed to have them. I would support an
international agreement that nobody is to have them, if it applied to
everyone everywhere, if it had no conditions attached, and if we had
some way to verify compliance. But as long as one person or
government anywhere has one, I think you or I should be allowed to
have one too.
> Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when
> coerced is not worthy of being defended.
Strange. If you don't need to defend your country (you are not at
war), a strong case can be made for not having a draft. You seem
to be advocating a mandatory draft, ...
If you had read my messages you would know that I totally oppose a
draft even during wartime.
... How is a nuclear war, fought with 19,000 strategic and
possibly 31,000 tactical nuclear weapons "painless". It might be
short, but its effects would certainly last a long time.
Another straw man. I do not advocate nuclear war. Or any war,
unless we are actually invaded.
...Keith
-------