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

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A standing military is a necessity for the defense of anything sovereign, be it a constitutional republic or a dictatorial empire.

Every member of ours swears to defend the Constitution, and however it may or may not be misused, the problem does not lay with the military itself, but with whoever is at the wheel.

Can your logic get any more circular? If you take the tool away it doesn't matter who's at the wheel now does it? You waiting on the magical holy Angels to come rule us? Why would you give any human that power. Never ceases to amaze me.

Contrary to your belief a Standing Army is NOT a necessity of a free society and the best minds, and proponents of a free society all agree that a Standing Army is a bane to liberty and unnecessary.

You keep talking about defense, but fail to realize that Standing Armies are offensive tools not defensive, and moreover, the problem does lay with the Military because they are a tool of the engine. Without that tool the engine cannot function. A defunct engine is a beautiful thing, euphemistically of course

I'll believe in George Mason, Patrick Henry, George Clinton, and Thomas Jefferson and you can take Mao, Marx, Lenin, Lincoln, Wilson, and the rest of the proponents of a standing army.

God you are so naive. How about you read about Katrina, or Waco sometime. Both involved the Military.

Look at what Washington did to those protesting the excise tax on whiskey.

Standing Armies are NEVER for the protection of a free society. They are a DESTRUCTION to it.

And yes, I am in the Military and I don't care who reads this. If I was in New Orleans during that time I would have physically stopped the confiscation of property, and the imposition of Martial Law. I can't wait 'til I get out. Lovely how the Government forces your hand into joining if you don't want to go into 80,000$ debt to go to their "state" college/schools.

 

[Number19]

...Everything you wrote is wrong...

Not really. You nit-pick at my choice of words, in part. But the period of history to which I was referencing was approximately 800-900.

The Romans withdrew from Britain around 400, so there was a period of 400 years when the feudal system was in its infancy. In 800, Anglo-Saxon Britain was divided into many small fiefdoms, or kingdoms if you wish, with no hegemony. When the Viking raids began around 800, none of these petty kingdoms were able to marshal any defense against the onslaught.

Alfred the Great is the man I was referring to. One of the major things he is known for was his improvements in military structure. This is the little tidbit which I learned on the History Channel. Perhaps you are correct and there were restrictions on possession of weapons at this early time. I don't know. But the genus of Alfred was to realize that the farmers/peasants had to be armed, trained and organized as a fighting force. The result of this strategy led to his victory at the Battle of Ethandun in 878, effectively "saving the foundations of England".

 

[tremendoustie]

what stops these militias from attacking another community? the huns were a small community once, they attacked other communities and joined forces, eventually forming one of the largest empires and killing millions of people.

Let's be clear about are assumptions. We're supposing a nation of mostly peace loving, reasonable individuals, with one bloodthirsty gang, right?

I think there need to be agreements between communities, to come to each other's aid in time of need -- this would apply to the case of defense against a rogue domestic group, as well as a foreign invader.

the indians were brought up as an "excellent example", however, they frequently went to war with each other.

I'm not talking about lots of warring clans. The militias would just be peaceful community organizations, clubs almost, until the need for defense arose.

I care about the people in the town over -- I don't consider them separate, or an enemy, as many native tribes did -- and it's in both of our best interests to agree to aid eachother.

Also, let's note that the natives were outmanned by a huge degree, and centuries behind technologically. It's doubtful that any method of defense would have been effective for them.

Does your world also assume that communities are ruled by every individual in that community?

Define "rule". I think each individual would be free to live as they choose, as long as they don't harm others. If they did harm others, there would be local systems of justice set up to handle it.

If you mean, would there be a command structure at the local militia level? Yes, I would say so. To an extent, in times of general invasion, there might be higher command structures set up to loosely coordinate activities -- but it wouldn't be the total top-down approach we have currently.

Is this realistic? or just a 'perfect world' theory?

I absolutely think it's realistic. It's far more realistic than the idea of having a huge standing army at the beck and command of the government, and it not being abused.

Actually, this is pretty close to the original idea of the founders.

 

[Southron]

...I don't know if y'all are aware of this, but there was a big jump in warfare technology that started in the first World War and is still going.

You, as an individual citizen even with a nice rifle, maybe even some tactical gear, wouldn't stand a chance against even the Canadian military as a citizen militia.

P.S. Every member of the United States' armed forces swears an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Those of us that take that oath seriously would deny orders that turn us against the American people.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

The same logistical rules still apply. Armies are expensive and consume resources. There is not a military in the world that can be sustained forever if the fight is large enough.

Look at the Persian War. This is a great example of a large unwieldy army.

And even though modern armies have advanced tanks, they still need troops on the ground to hold territory. And last I checked, these troops are flesh and blood just like the rest of us.

Bullets kill them as easily as you and me.

 

[libertybrewcity]

Can your logic get any more circular? If you take the tool away it doesn't matter who's at the wheel now does it? You waiting on the magical holy Angels to come rule us? Why would you give any human that power. Never ceases to amaze me.

Contrary to your belief a Standing Army is NOT a necessity of a free society and the best minds, and proponents of a free society all agree that a Standing Army is a bane to liberty and unnecessary.

You keep talking about defense, but fail to realize that Standing Armies are offensive tools not defensive, and moreover, the problem does lay with the Military because they are a tool of the engine. Without that tool the engine cannot function. A defunct engine is a beautiful thing, euphemistically of course

I'll believe in George Mason, Patrick Henry, George Clinton, and Thomas Jefferson and you can take Mao, Marx, Lenin, Lincoln, Wilson, and the rest of the proponents of a standing army.

God you are so naive. How about you read about Katrina, or Waco sometime. Both involved the Military.

Look at what Washington did to those protesting the excise tax on whiskey.

Standing Armies are NEVER for the protection of a free society. They are a DESTRUCTION to it.

And yes, I am in the Military and I don't care who reads this. If I was in New Orleans during that time I would have physically stopped the confiscation of property, and the imposition of Martial Law. I can't wait 'til I get out. Lovely how the Government forces your hand into joining if you don't want to go into 80,000$ debt to go to their "state" college/schools.

yes, so then let's say you have one free society with no standing military and one free society with a standing military. the standing military invades the free society with no standing military. the free society is obliterated from missiles, bombs, a trained military with advanced weaponry, etc. theory failed.

 

[Vessol]

yes, so then let's say you have one free society with no standing military and one free society with a standing military. the standing military invades the free society with no standing military. the free society is obliterated from missiles, bombs, a trained military with advanced weaponry, etc. theory failed.

Costa Rica has no standing army, why aren't their neighbors invading them?

 

[tremendoustie]

yes, so then let's say you have one free society with no standing military and one free society with a standing military. the standing military invades the free society with no standing military. the free society is obliterated from missiles, bombs, a trained military with advanced weaponry, etc. theory failed.

As I recall, the largest most powerful military at the time, called the Red Army, once got their asses handed to them by a bunch of goat herders with IEDs and SAMs.

Your assumption that centrally planned armies are more effective is absolutely false. Relative to a fighting force made up of equally well trained individuals, with equally good equipment, they are unwieldy, slow to react, easy to predict, not innovative, etc. Basically sitting ducks.

If the afghans had had anything even close to the funding levels and human resources of the Red Army, but organized into elite independent militias, the Russians would have been obliterated in weeks, maybe days.

The argument you're making is basically the modern equivalent of a British general saying, "Your bands of men with muskets in the bushes can never stand up to our orderly lines of regulars, who hold rigid formations, follow orders to a T, never innovate, and make excellent bright red targets."

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Costa Rica has no standing army, why aren't their neighbors invading them?

Maybe they don't have anything that Nicaragua or Panama want?

 

[Vessol]

Costa Rica GDP: $48.881 billion
Panama GDP: $40.840 billion
Nicaragua GDP: $16.626 billion

Looks like incentive enough for me. Costa Rica is rich in natural resources.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Maybe they don't have anything that Nicaragua or Panama want?

You mean to tell me that Costa Rica has no natural resources? You should perhaps check your assumptions that everybody is out to attack you. If that was the case, trade would have never arose. Wars are costly, ugly, and the outcome is never pre-determined. Suffice to say the people have to also back the war. There are peace-loving people. I highly doubt the Canadians are going to swoop on down and try and invade the US if we got rid of our Standing Army, and I dare say that with the abolishment of our Standing Army, would come the abolishment of the CIA, FBI, and other paramilitary federal entities. Hence, the violence on the Southern Border would drift away.

Without a Standing Army you could have never passed gun restriction laws of any kind, period. I would be free to own as many M60s, Grenade Launchers, RPG's, Mortars, and other weapons as my heart desires. Mercenaries never fight as well as a Militia, period. Motivation of self-preservation overrules the motivation of monetary gains. Why do you think the Colonists beat Britain? I can tell you for sure it wasn't because any of our regulars 'tactical' or strategic moves. The motivation to win, and fight for our lives, property, and liberty is what won us the war. Then we had to go fuck it all up in 1777 and 1787.

 

[Number19]

...Bullets kill them as easily as you and me.

Only partially true and can lead to sure death if the modern soldier is underestimated. Remember that the modern soldier wears battle armor. You need a head shot straight on or perhaps merely a crippling shot to the thigh.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Only partially true and can lead to sure death if the modern soldier is underestimated. Remember that the modern soldier wears battle armor. You need a head shot straight on or perhaps merely a crippling shot to the thigh.

I think you overestimate. I doubt the Iraqi's and Afghani's have such impeccable accuracy with one of the most inaccurate modern firearms ever devised -- the AK47. Body Armor may stop some 5.56 or small caliber pistol rounds, but it isn't going to do much against a Battle Rifle chambered in .308, .306, 7.56/7.62, or even older 8MM+ WWI/II rifles. You will be surprised how much hurt a properly used, and trained soldier can do with an old K98 Mauser, or even a M1 Garand.

Besides one of the greatest advantages Militia have over standing armies is knowledge of the lay of the land. Also most modern armies are not outfitted for fights outside urban areas.

We also have two oceans seperating us from the rest of the world. I'd say that is an oft overlooked impediment to any invasion. How many countries do you know that are capable of a land invasion against the size of the US, especially against 150,000,000 armed to the teeth militia ready to die in defense of their property, and community? Yeah....definitely not going to happen unless we provoke someone, which is the native tendency of a Government with a standing army. Remove the standing army you will have a de-facto non-interventionist foreign policy, not to mention a much richer nation.

 

[Kojac]

Costa Rica isn't going to get invaded because there are a lot of external stabilizing forces that make it unprofitable or dangerous for its neighbors to try anything, even if they wanted to.

My logic isn't circular on a standing military, especially for the United States; as many problems as we have, we're still the best, and that makes us a prime target.

Please pit any militia in the world against the United States Marine Corps, head to head. There are about 200,000 of us, total.

I'm going to laugh at you if you think you can beat us.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Costa Rica isn't going to get invaded because there are a lot of external stabilizing forces that make it unprofitable or dangerous for its neighbors to try anything, even if they wanted to.

My logic isn't circular on a standing military, especially for the United States; as many problems as we have, we're still the best, and that makes us a prime target.

Please pit any militia in the world against the United States Marine Corps, head to head. There are about 200,000 of us, total.

I'm going to laugh at you if you think you can beat us.

Sure thing. I'm pretty sure the Swiss Militia can take you on toe to toe without a problem, especially considering they outnumber you 5:1 and are generally better trained marksman. I would also have picked any number of militias against the regulars in 1776. Today is no different.

In fact, the Swiss Militia would absolutely annihilate our Marine Corps if we invaded. It's not even close. (Hence why the Swiss haven't been invaded in over 500 years, and that Militias are PURELY defensive forces, so their politicians have no tools to go and try to bully the world -- hence, a de-facto neutral non-interventionist foreign policy)

What is your ultimate goal? Safety & Liberty, or Pride & Chest beating? Somehow I doubt its the former.

 

[Number19]

The defense budget for 2010 is about $1T. I'm willing to compromise and only cut the budget down to $100B. We do that and I'll see how much more we can cut.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The defense budget for 2010 is about $1T. I'm willing to compromise and only cut the budget down to $100B. We do that and I'll see how much more we can cut.

Actually total defense spending is well above 1$T. 1$T is only the on budget items. There are many defense appropriations, both primary and auxilliary off the budget. While a 90% reduction is great, don't let fear of the boogeymans to stop you from going the rest of the way. Besides, it's not like all military spending would cease. I know without a standing army, and the onerous regulations that come with it, I'd be buying myself some M60s, and RPGs. (Maybe pool my resources together with my local community Militia for something more formidable, like a light tank, or some small caliber howitzers to store in the Militia armory)

 

[The Patriot]

Because they weren't allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves, they depending on the State.

The Irish had a stateless society from 650 to 1650, they got raped by the Vikings and conquered by the British.

YouTube - Stateless Ireland

 

[Jace]

A peaceful republic has a military to defend its borders.

An empire sends its military abroad.

 

[tremendoustie]

A peaceful republic has a military to defend its borders.

An empire sends its military abroad.

So the difference between a peaceful republic and an empire is a handful of bad politicians.

Sounds pretty darn tenuous to me.

 

[BlackTerrel]

A peaceful republic has a military to defend its borders.

An empire sends its military abroad.

Yep.