Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: disjointed armys Message-ID: <11@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 12:03:16 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.11 Posted: Sun Dec 9 12:03:16 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 05:04:45 EST References: <746@oliven.UUCP> Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 45 > 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