Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:37:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
523 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> (snipage)
> > Well, James, we've already had this argument. You know darn well already
> > that all of these things above are goods, rather than rights. And as I've
> > said before, there is no moral right to free goods.
>
> True. I however feel that _as a society_ we choose to do some things,
> and that those things mentioned (and snipped) above are things that are
> worth doing.
If you think they're worth doing, by all means, please go ahead. However
since they involve transfers of wealth from one person to another, my
position is that you ought to do them on your nickel, not mine. I am not my
brother's keeper unless I choose to be. Remember, you've conceded you don't
have a moral right to my wealth in order to further your charities.
> Why are they any less worth doing than say, defending the country, or your
> house by hiring a police force?
These are the fundamental reasons government is constitutued, in order to
protect the rights of the citizens. All rights are property rights. This is
plowed ground. Government does not exist to deliver free goods. It exists to
protect rights, which are rights of action, not rights to goods.
> note, what exactly did I say: That I am a communist in the Marxist sense,
> not a practical sense...
Good, because communism is impractical. As we've proven by practical
experience, the closer a state gets to communist, the worse off it is. So if
you're not a practical communist, what are you then? Marx wanted to see the
state wither away and be replaced by a stateless society in which the
workers owned the means of production.
If we posit that what is meant by that is as little government as possible,
and that the workers (that subset who are shrewd enough to invest their
pennies in the stock market and therefore collectively own IBM and all the
rest) own the means of production, why then, sign me up. Marx is a
libertarian! WE want less government too.
> I _know_ that communism does not work in total, but neither
> does capitalism either.
This statement needs proving. Conversely to communism, the closer a state
gets to lassez faire capitalism, the BETTER off it is. Again, plowed ground.
> > Not sure where you are going with that. What is the appropriate level of
> > military expenditure if you're not trying to be the world's policeman and
> > not trying to project your force around for "economic" advantage? A lot less
> > than we spend now, and possibly less as a percentage of GDP than we spent in
> > 1914.
> Lets put it this way: it costs the Canadian Taxpayer about 11 billion cdn to
> keep me employed. (thats about 8-9 bil. USD). Canada has a armed forces that
> could not defend 1/10th of what we have in the way of territory. Extrapolate
> that to the US, and say that you reasonably would want to be able to defend
> your territory at 10x what Canada can manage right now. That takes you to 90
> billion dollars of taxes (about 1/3rd of Canadas budget, IIRC). That is for a
> reasonable "defensive" military. (and about 1/3rd the cost of the current US
> military). That money, as you point out, has to come out of the pockets of
> _someone_.
Conventional thinking. Therefore constraining.
Let's put it *this* way. What is the proper function of defense?
That is, we should defend against *what*? A conventional invasion? A nuclear
attack? Terrorist activity? Piracy? Also, do you use your own force to
project into other countries, is that a function of defense?
What are the tools needed in order to defend against these threats? You
assume a large, well equipped standing army is required, which means you're
assuming either a defense against invasion or force projection. Conventional
thinking.
Aim by aim, examine whether it's reasonable to want to do it (piracy on the
high seas, for example, is not properly the function of any government in
particular to prevent, but more properly the function of the merchants being
pirated upon) and how one best can go about carrying it out...
I posit to you that a large standing army is not required to defend against
invasion, as long as your populace is not willing to be invaded and hasn't
been prevented from maintaining the tools to resist invaders, should they be
foolhardy enough to appear. That includes M1A1s by the way.
I posit to you that the best defense against a nuclear attack is a
splingietron field that makes nuclear reactions just plain not work. What?
We don't have a splingietron field yet? Make sure there isn't some easy and
cheap way to get one before you dump billions into ground based interceptors
or MAD silos.
I posit to you that the best defense against terrorism is to give terrorists
no reason to want to carry out their mischief (and the best way to do THAT
is to not meddle in the affairs of others), coupled with a populace who,
again, are not willing to be terrorised and who have not been deprived of
the tools to make it difficult for terrorists to get away unscathed. That
includes rifles and concealed handguns, good communication equipment and
fast cars.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G3oEv3.H9y@lugnet.com... (...) I've (...) my (...) don't (...) Hmm this sounds very charitable. Personally, I quite happy to be a member of society, and contribute to it passively (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (snipage) (...) True. I however feel that _as a society_ we choose to do some things, and that those things mentioned (and snipped) above are things that are worth doing. Why are they any less worth doing than say, defending the country, or your (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
