A free people do not need an army to protect them.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A free people can protect themselves individually, but when national imminent attacks come to us, we do need a military force to protect us from foreign attacks.

It shouldn't be an "either, or" issue. It's a "both, and" solution.

Except Militias and Standing Armies cannot co-exist. It is impossible. The very nature of a Standing Army erodes and eats away at the Militia until there is either no Militia left, or Militias are so demonized as to be done away with in the conscious of the average person. The Anti-Federalists went over this, much better than I.

Besides, the nature of the Militia is the protection of liberty. The nature of Standing Armies is the erosion of liberty. Cannot co-exist.

 

[eOs]

I thought we were talking about an invasion by a foreign army, not a raid. Why would a foreign army invade and occupy a nation if it had no provocation? And if it did, wouldn't that damn them on the world scene?

I don't know, ask the United States Government, either way, millions die.

 

[Vessol]

I don't know, ask the United States Government, either way, millions die.

If it's a raid or an invasion, militias will unite to repel it. A nation that hires mercenaries to protect them is not a free nation.

 

[libertybrewcity]

And since not every free person is able to protect themselves against an incoming ICBM, from time to time free people find it prudent to form an association of some sort in order to spread defense costs among a larger number of people. Then they hire an army.

yes, unfortunately we have lots of military technology that could obliterate a free society in one second. i believe an advanced military is essential as well as a noninterventionist foreign policy to limit the possibility of an attack.

 

[Vessol]

yes, unfortunately we have lots of military technology that could obliterate a free society in one second. i believe an advanced military is essential as well as a noninterventionist foreign policy to limit the possibility of an attack.

It's not like the government would ever use that advanced military against it's own people

 

[eOs]

If it's a raid or an invasion, militias will unite to repel it. A nation that hires mercenaries to protect them is not a free nation.

So what happens when the group or groups considered to be a free people are outnumbered to the others considered a state or a nation?

 

[Vessol]

So what happens when the group or groups considered to be a free people are outnumbered to the others considered a state or a nation?

They would fight for their freedom.

 

[eOs]

They would fight for their freedom.

Like the Native Americans?

 

[Vessol]

Like the Native Americans?

Patrick Henry had a little known quote that he would use in this situation.

 

[eOs]

Patrick Henry had a little known quote that he would use in this situation.

And the latter you would have received!

 

[Vessol]

And the latter you would have received!

And is there something wrong with that?

 

[Fredom101]

And since not every free person is able to protect themselves against an incoming ICBM, from time to time free people find it prudent to form an association of some sort in order to spread defense costs among a larger number of people. Then they hire an army.

And this is classic collectivism.

The problem isn't people banding together to form an association in order to protect themselves, the problem is those people using the threat of violence to force an entire society to pay for their own defense, whether they agree with the policies or not.

 

[eOs]

And is there something wrong with that?

Absolutely not.

 

[libertybrewcity]

It's not like the government would ever use that advanced military against it's own people

ahh, and that is where we come in to fight for our rights. an advanced military can still be limited. unfortunately, outside corporate and governmental forces get anti-freedom legislation passed the takes away our rights..patriot act? real id? etc, etc. If we minded our own business and had started applying a non interventionist foreign policy we would likely not have these intrusive policies.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And the latter you would have received!

Why do you support the Soviet Union? I don't get it.

 

[libertybrewcity]

And this is classic collectivism.

The problem isn't people banding together to form an association in order to protect themselves, the problem is those people using the threat of violence to force an entire society to pay for their own defense, whether they agree with the policies or not.

this is classic misconstruction of classic collectivism. a biologically and evolutionarily inherent trait is the collective nature of animals, which we are. humans will never completely separate into peaceful individuals that never communicate, and if they do our species will likely fail. we need communication and collectivism to reproduce and protect ourselves. unfortunately, the threat of attack by nations with highly advanced and dangerous weapons is likely. if the military was disbanded, all equipment destroyed, and people were allowed to do whatever they want, an attack from a military might be a likely possibility, would it not? so let's say for instance Iran wanted to attack us. what would stop them? would you rather be blown up or have a 'collective' military that constitutionally protects the people of the US.

 

[Kojac]

Meh, they said the same thing about Washington's army and the British war machine.

A couple of thousand guys in sandals and beat up AK 47s have got us pretty well hemmed up in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

The war engines of the regime are mighty impressive, no doubt.

So were the Red Square military parades in the old USSR.

This bold part, it's not really... true. The problems of those two countries have to do with political strategy, and nothing to do with tactical issues. We have utter tactical superiority. (and yes, I know because I've been there)

The rest is rhetoric, and you're entitled to it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This bold part, it's not really... true. The problems of those two countries have to do with political strategy, and nothing to do with tactical issues. We have utter tactical superiority. (and yes, I know because I've been there)

The rest is rhetoric, and you're entitled to it.

Tactical or political?

Does it make a difference?

130,000 of you are still there, weeks after the day the anointed one said you'd be gone, and years after achieving tactical "victory".

The best weapon system in the world is worthless if used improperly or not at all.

 

[BlackTerrel]

If we were a free and non-interventionist nation, why would another nation invade us in the first place?

Because you have shit that other people want. Why have there been wars for thousands of years?

Maybe the Native Americans should have been non-interventionist. I am sure Columbus would have packed right on up and left them alone.

 

[tremendoustie]

Because you have shit that other people want. Why have there been wars for thousands of years?

Maybe the Native Americans should have been non-interventionist. I am sure Columbus would have packed right on up and left them alone.

No doubt, we need defense. That doesn't necessarily imply a standing army.