Libertarian Purity Test

[David Floyd]

What would happen to Democracy elsewhere in the world if we abandoned it to its fate?

What do I care? Hell, I don't even support democracy to begin with.

David, you seem to ignore the lessons of history.

Actually I remember quite clearly that over 100,000 Americans died in WW1, over 400,000 died as a result of WW2, 38,000 died in Korea, and 56,000 died in Vietnam. And those are only the "major" wars - 600,000 American deaths in four different wars that we should not have fought in the first place.

Why is a war on US soil not going to happen? Only because you have a large military.

Well, if the presence of a large military is the only thing that deters invasion, why are Canada and Mexico not occupied?

If you didn't, Iraq, or anywhere else, might just invade. What's stopping them if you have no military?

Oh, that little thing called the Atlantic, that other little thing called the Pacific, and that other little thing called logistics.

GP,

So you see no reason for a military because you beleive we have no dangers. Does this mean that in a situation where there are dangers, you would support taxes for national defense?

Irrelevant, but in that case, yes, a military would be useful, provided that it was voluntary in both personnel and funding.

Does it mean that if someone establishes (perhaps they evaluate the threats differently) a threat, than taxes for defense are ok?

No, in the same way that even in the case of invasion, the draft is not OK.

Do you think threats are less likely to exist because of our strong power? That with weaker power, threats might emerge?

No, quite the opposite - if we were weaker and less involved in interfering with other countries, threats would probably diminish. Look at Switzerland, Sweden, etc.

Like bulllies avoiding a strong man...but emerging when they see easy pickings? It's a theoretical question...not a question about immediate spending decisions or geopolitics. I'm asking if you could ever imagine a danger? What if you were France or Belgium (or UK or Germany or USSR or Poland or Hawaii) in the 30's? Do you think there are ever threats requiring defense forces?

I think that those threats you mentioned were ultimately brought about by imperialism, prior warmongering, or other stupid foreign policies.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Drogue, monopolies in the marketplace are rare and shortlived, but not when government establishes or protects them. You claim to be concerned about monopolies yet support a government monopoly over education. Your comments about health care and energy expose an unfamiliarity with market forces. If I have a monopoly over a service and start charging too much, I will not only anger my customers, I will be inviting competitition.

Consider what the medical industry has done with the aid of government. In the early 1900's there were many black colleges catering to blacks seeking an education in medicine. The AMA or it's equivelant of the time lobbied Congress and the various state legislatures to "license" doctors. Around the same time, universities teaching medicine became "accredited" (more government licensing) and black colleges were denied this license as those colleges with accreditation were limited in how many students could enroll each year. This allowed the AMA to limit supply thereby driving up the cost of demand, and black medical students suffered the most by being shut out. Inspite of this, medical costs remained relatively low until government got in the business of paying for it. Since then, medical costs have ballooned (what a surprise). Would that violate your definition of freedom?

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. There is no such thing as "some" freedom, that is a concept promoted by people who don't believe in freedom but at the same time try to convince others, if not themselves, that they do in fact believe in freedom. Your argument that economic freedom should be denied would make us all slaves to those owning our labor. If your body belongs to you with regards to social or personal freedom, why does it cease belonging to you when you use your labor to make a buck?

Numerous white medical colleges were forced out of business too. For example, at the turn of the century Virginia had 6 medical schools, but with the institution of basic requirements for medical education the number declined to only 2. The requirements weren't discriminatory, they merely required that certain subjects be taught in order to guarentee at least some minmum of quality among physicians. You should realise that many people aren't in a position shop around for a doctor. There are still many communities that have only one doctor serving them. Furthermore when you are sick you're not really in the mood to shop around.

[Sava]

Floyd, your type of Libertarianism, in practice, would be exactly like Feudalism. There might not be a monarchy at the head of the state, but society would quickly degenerate into two levels... rich and poor. With rich land owners and poor people working for them. For hundreds of years, people suffered under a system like this. It sucks and its immoral.

Thomas Jefferson believed in public education so that the people could be educated enough to choose their leaders. Without Democracy, there's no way freedom would survive. So while the hypocritical ideologies of true Libertarianism might sound good in your head, they don't translate to the real world.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, if the presence of a large military is the only thing that deters invasion, why are Canada and Mexico not occupied?

Because of the US's military... DUH!

[David Floyd]

There might not be a monarchy at the head of the state, but society would quickly degenerate into two levels... rich and poor.

I've never seen you or anyone else back up that assertion.

With rich land owners and poor people working for them.

You really think a heavily industrialized nation would be transformed overnight into an agrarian one? Please.

Thomas Jefferson believed in public education so that the people could be educated enough to choose their leaders.

Yes, and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. Don't use quotes from people with whom you don't agree, and present those quotes of the proof that a particular idea is good.

Without Democracy, there's no way freedom would survive.

Certainly you can see that democracy destroys freedom too, right?

Because of the US's military... DUH!

*sigh* I see I'm going to have to explain it to you.

Look at things from Canada's perspective. They don't have a big military. By your logic, they should be threatened by the much larger US - or, for that matter, Iraq.

But that doesn't wash, the US has NOT occupied them, and Iraq is NOT in a position to threaten them. The point is, the presence or lack of a strong military is not the only, or even a major, reason for the threat level of a partiuclar nation.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I've never seen you or anyone else back up that assertion.

It's common sense and requires a logical interpretation of the cause and effect relationship of your so-called freedoms translated into the real world.

You really think a heavily industrialized nation would be transformed overnight into an agrarian one? Please.

This has nothing to do with working on the land. The rich will own the land, the people will work for them. Not necessarily on farms, but in factories, or offices, or service related industries. Entepreneurialship as we know it will cease to exist.

Yes, and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. Don't use quotes from people with whom you don't agree, and present those quotes of the proof that a particular idea is good.

Don't even start this debate because you'll lose terribly. Number one, the technology of weapons has changed far too drastically. Sure, I'll agree with you. For 18th century muskets, Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. This is a far cry from the advanced killing machines that years of technological development has spawned.

Certainly you can see that democracy destroys freedom too, right?

Absolute freedom isn't the most important thing in the world... by your argument, people should have the freedom to commit murder Democracy does have its flaws, but it's the best system.

*sigh* I see I'm going to have to explain it to you.
Look at things from Canada's perspective. They don't have a big military. By your logic, they should be threatened by the much larger US - or, for that matter, Iraq.

Don't use logic as an argument because you aren't putting enough logical thought into this. The US isn't in the conquering business. They are in the spreading Democracy and liberation business. Mexico and Canada are free. DUH!

But that doesn't wash, the US has NOT occupied them, and Iraq is NOT in a position to threaten them. The point is, the presence or lack of a strong military is not the only, or even a major, reason for the threat level of a partiuclar nation.

I'm going to pretend you didn't say this. This is borderline sig material. So you're saying that if a one country has a million nuclear weapons pointed at another, they don't feel threatened?

Please think a little more before you respond to me. I want to save you the embarassment of typing something that would be sig material.

[David Floyd]

It's common sense and requires a logical interpretation of the cause and effect relationship of your so-called freedoms translated into the real world.

So I ask you to back something up and you reply "Common sense" - good argument there, buddy

The rich will own the land, the people will work for them. Not necessarily on farms, but in factories, or offices, or service related industries.

So the poor don't currently work for those who are richer than them? I've yet to hear of a factory worker, or a salesperson, who is richer than his boss.

Entepreneurialship as we know it will cease to exist.

That's a pretty bold statement, seeing as how there is no historical evidence from which to draw support for your assertion.

Don't even start this debate because you'll lose terribly.

Number one,

That phrase implies that there is a "number two", yet I don't see one.

the technology of weapons has changed far too drastically.

So has the technology of making newspapers, yet you don't think the people who wrote the 1st Amendment would still believe in it?

Sure, I'll agree with you. For 18th century muskets, Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. This is a far cry from the advanced killing machines that years of technological development has spawned.

Jefferson didn't believe in gun control because he wanted there to be a check on government and oppression. Obviously this applied to 18th/19th century technology, as that is when he was alive. Yet, there is no reason to assume he would not have the same position now - weapons technology has increased across the board, for both individuals and government.

You might argue that the individual is helpless against the government, making gun rights irrelevant, but that is also not true. Sure, if the army rolls 10 tanks up my street to come kill me, my rifle isn't gonna stop them. And, in 1806, if the US government had deployed 20 cannons to shell someone's house, that person couldn't resist effectively either.

But if I get a hundred or so heavily armed people together, I bet those hundred people can stop 10 tanks, just as enough people could be found to stop the government from using 20 cannons in the 19th Century.

And this doesn't even address the argument of police and law enforcement excesses, many of which COULD be stopped by heavily armed individuals.

Absolute freedom isn't the most important thing in the world... by your argument, people should have the freedom to commit murder

I don't quite see how murder is an example of freedom, because your act of murder directly infringes on someone else's freedom. A proper example of freedom is drug use or gambling - those acts hurt no one.

The US isn't in the conquering business.

No, more in the "subjugating everyone to its will" business, but I digress.

What you posted is precisely the point - the relative sizes of armies don't matter in this case, because regardless, the US isn't going to invade Canada.

They are in the spreading Democracy and liberation business.

Really? Rather than pointing out examples from history of how that isn't true, which you already know because I've already pointed them out many times, as has Ramo and others, I'll just

Mexico and Canada are free. DUH!

Mexico and Canada are free? Especially in the case of Mexico - a hugely corrupt government, especially on the state and city levels. And I wouldn't agree that Canada is truly free, either, because of a lack of economic freedom.

Now, on this point, people might point to an example that they see as irrefutable - Pearl Harbor. The Japanese sneak attacked the US Navy, and killed thousands of people. Didn't the US need a military to defeat Japan and defend themselves?

Yes, in order to fight a war, the US needed a military. What people who make that example miss, though, is that the US never should have been in Hawaii or the Philippines or Guam or Wake to begin with - or, for that matter, in California. Those places were acquired as a result of aggressive and imperialistic wars against weaker powers. Thus, the US became a victim of aggression as a direct result of their own blatant aggression.

Seems to me that the efficient solution would have been not to fight the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars. Then the US wouldn't have been in the Pacific at ALL, thus eliminating any possibility of a Japanese sneak attack.

This is borderline sig material. So you're saying that if a one country has a million nuclear weapons pointed at another, they don't feel threatened?

And I take it you would feel safer if both countries had a million nukes pointed at each other? Why don't you ask people alive during the 1960s how that was?

Further, atomic weapons are a special case - there is no defense against them. If someone wants to badly enough, they can destroy your country and there's nothing you can do about it, provided they have enough nukes. More nukes doesn't make the situation any safer - in fact, it can make it worse.

A better example for you to use would have been a real example from history using conventional forces, not some contrived example you pulled out of your ass.

Please think a little more before you respond to me. I want to save you the embarassment of typing something that would be sig material.

Actually, I'd put that last quote in my sig, but I like my current one, and their are length restrictions. Oh well.

[Sava]

Have you been drinking FLoyd? That's all I have to ask. Speaking of sigs... Boris used to have a great one about arguments... anyways, I'm going to follow its advice.

[David Floyd]

Coupla glasses of wine with Christmas dinner, like 5 or 6 hours ago.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Speaking of sigs... Boris used to have a great one about arguments... anyways, I'm going to follow its advice.

Damn, looks like I win AGAIN

[Sava]

These forums need a "sigh" smiley... anyways, don't think yourself a winner... I would abstain myself from argument with Dahmer about the immorality of eating human beings

[TCO]

Floyd, while aggressive actions may cause threats to emerge, don't you see that weakness may as well? Do you think every recipient of a war or invasion is guilty of imperialism or bad policies? Are you a pacificst? Do you think there are no evil people/countries in the world that may choose to pray on others? Also, Switzerland is a curious example considerning their emphaisis on defense and very serious national service and reserve system. (I worked there...and saw it.)

[David Floyd]

Floyd, while aggressive actions may cause threats to emerge, don't you see that weakness may as well?

I would say that people acting aggressively causes a LOT more wars than people acting passively.

Do you think every recipient of a war or invasion is guilty of imperialism or bad policies?

In recent (past few centuries) major wars, that's probably true. As to before then, I don't know enough about the period to comment, although in general, I can state that aggression causes war.

Are you a pacificst?

Almost.

Do you think there are no evil people/countries in the world that may choose to pray on others?

There are evil people, but I fail to see how you can label an entire group of people as "evil".

Also, Switzerland is a curious example considerning their emphaisis on defense and very serious national service and reserve system.

And do you really think that their national service and reserve system deters invasion, or, for that matter, terrorism?

Hitler could have taken over Switzerland pretty easily, and Osama bin Laden could crash planes into buildings there. But I don't think the Swiss military/reserve system was much of a factor there, do you?

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Yes, in order to fight a war, the US needed a military. What people who make that example miss, though, is that the US never should have been in Hawaii or the Philippines or Guam or Wake to begin with - or, for that matter, in California. Those places were acquired as a result of aggressive and imperialistic wars against weaker powers. Thus, the US became a victim of aggression as a direct result of their own blatant aggression."

Mexican American War, AFAIK, was brought about because Texas rebelled and asked of its own free will to become part of the United States, and there was then a boundary dispute between Texas and Mexico. Why do you hold the Mexican claim that the boundary was the Nueces River as the correct one? And that war was what led to us having California.

[David Floyd]

Why do you hold the Mexican claim that the boundary was the Nueces River as the correct one?

The problem I have with the war is not a minor boundary dispute. The US didn't really try to negotiate, or buy the territory, or anything of the sort. Personally, I don't know who was correct in the dispute, and that isn't the point.

The point is that the US used a border dispute as an excuse to conquer a vast swath of land and invade Mexico. If the US had simply chosen to attack and occupy the disputed regions, that's one thing - it's not the correct response IMO, but it is at least a measured and proportionate response. But the Mexican War was conducted very disproportionately to the dispute, which leads me to believe the dispute was simply an excuse.

[Shi Huangdi]

The people of Texas rebelled of their own free will and then chose to join the US, as was their right. We were under no obligation try to buy the territoty or such since it was ours due to the annexation. Once Mexico made a play to reconquer Texas, war had begun and so we were then free to prosecute it.