Libertarianism

[Drewish]

Andrew, we lost ground like crazy at first. MacArthur wanted 200,000 troops in the P.I., the entire US Army wasn't that large when he made the request. And almost all those people that signed up need training, which takes time. We had the 16th largest army in the world, after Bulgaria, in 1940.

And yet the peace time nations who then had to change to a wartime economy were able to defeat the militaristic states of Germany and Japan. Largely due to technological innovations such as radar (thank you Brits) and the atomic bomb. The dominance of Blitzkrieg showed itself to have one fatal weakness (a body of water separating you from the territory you seek to conquer.) And even today, where are these large super military powers that threaten us and require that we have large standing armies?

Even if you demand that we have a large standing army to respond to an attack, and such a threat existed, how would this justify a preemptive strike? Even if we make such decisions with complete disregard for human life, based on nationalistic cost benefit analysis, has the expense of the Iraq war been justified by bringing lower oil prices to compensate for it? We won WWII, and regardless of speculation as to how we might have won it better or more quickly, the resilience and ability of free countries to defend themselves from militarism was tested then and stood firm.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yep, we won, at a terrible price. And it took until August, 1945. If we had the trained men to invade Europe in 1943 the war would have been over much quicker, and perhaps less of Eastern Europe would have fallen to the Soviets. You are like the guys with the $5,000 deductibles. Save a fortune on annual premiums, but if one thing goes wrong...

[Drewish]

Yep, we won, at a terrible price. And it took until August, 1945. If we had the trained men to invade Europe in 1943 the war would have been over much quicker, and perhaps less of Eastern Europe would have fallen to the Soviets. You are like the guys with the $5,000 deductibles. Save a fortune on annual premiums, but if one thing goes wrong...

Bad example, as insurance companies must turn a profit in order to survive, so if one was going from a strictly global efficiency model, there would be no insurance

That said, I hear your intended point, but again, where are these aggressive militaristic nations that are going to attack the U.S., Canada, or an EU nation? And how would having large military presences throughout the world dissuade them from doing so?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Unless you have an subscriber-owned insurance company, similar to State Farm.

So, you don't think we will ever be threatened? A weak US would not be considered a target by anyone? Really? That's very 1930s of you.

[Drewish]

Unless you have an subscriber-owned insurance company, similar to State Farm.

So, you don't think we will ever be threatened? A weak US would not be considered a target by anyone? Really? That's very 1930s of you.

It's the truth though. Who has anything to gain by attacking us? Just some religious terrorists from the Middle East perhaps, and a large military doesn't deter them. You can call my view "outdated" all you'd like. A very common tactic to attempt to discredit a position you have no real response to. I'm sorry that you've invested so much time in studying something now outdated and unneeded. If the Soviet Union didn't attack the US and vice versa, then war between powerful nations just isn't going to happen any time soon. Wars are fought because of tribalism, ideology, or leaders seeing it as a windfall for them. War isn't profitable when fought between two armed nations. Tribalism is dying away in this increasingly global world. The only real danger is religiously based conflict, and considering the power that the Christian fundies wield in the US, our strong military is more likely to be an instigator than a deterrent to that. Embrace the new peaceful future, where conflict is settled in court rooms, and battle plans are formed in board meetings. It is only the nationalistic clinging to military glory of the past that keeps us wasting on guns what should be spent on butter.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A rational reason for starting a war? Really? The most irrational of human behaviors after religion and we need a rational reason for someone to attack us? Was 9/11 rational?

[Drewish]

A rational reason for starting a war? Really? The most irrational of human behaviors after religion and we need a rational reason for someone to attack us? Was 9/11 rational?

I believe I already addressed that above in saying that a large military does not deter the irrational religious terrorists. You're grasping at straws. Do you think that our foreign military bases or huge annual military budget protect us from another 9/11? That's what you're attempting to justify here. Would we have been less able to destroy the Taliban if we had half as many fighter jets, air craft carriers, bombs, and soldiers? The kind of powerless fools who would attack a nuclear power like ourselves do so in ways where a large standing military means nothing. I am not the one caught up in outdated views of military power and strategy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know my history. The libertarian ideal would only work if everybody in the whole wide world co-operated.

[amused]

I know my history. The libertarian ideal would only work if everybody in the whole wide world co-operated.

And if there were only a few million of us, widely dispersed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know my history. The libertarian ideal would only work if everybody in the whole wide world co-operated.

And if there were only a few million of us, widely dispersed.

Which would lead to a collapse of the infrastructure. No more PCs, no more electric grid, no more road network, etc.

[Tero]

I support Lutheratarianism. It envolves being frugal, exchanging casseroles and borrowing tools from a neighbor as long as they are back in an hour.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... and borrowing tools from a neighbor as long as they are back in an hour.

[Drewish]

I'll check back in a day, and see if there's something more than a one liner substance free response made, or if (gasp) my direct questions were responded to

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll check back in a day, and see if there's something more than a one liner substance free response made, or if (gasp) my direct questions were responded to

Well, good luck with that. I prefer quality over quantity in responses.

[Warren Dew]

As somebody who used to be a huge Ayn Rand fan (and then came to the conclusion that she wasn't violent enough), I will admit that under Laissez Faire system the poor would suffer and die.

Do you think the concept of "working poor" is a myth, then? I don't. If nothing else, there are some people who refuse to force taxpayers to give them money, and choose to work for the small amounts they can get even though they're eligible for government assistance.

There's also such a thing as private charity.

People are not all created equal, there is no such thing as "the soul," and the world has little need for more unskilled manual laborers.

I think that actually, there would be a substantially higher demand for manual laborers if the unskilled weren't discouraged from working by the welfare system.