A Question (or two) for Extreme Libertarians

[orange]

Serious question, not intended to bash beliefs...

Would you be happier (or, would you consider it more desirable) if the following scenario was to occur as opposed to the status quo:

Tomorrow the United States becomes your ideal libertarian state. No military funded by the government, just a national guard of volunteers and privately funded mercinaries; no publicly funded education - only privately funded institutions of learning; abolished taxes, both sales and income; and whatever other libertarian paradise freedoms you can think of...but the day after tomorrow, the United States is attacked (and later invaded) by another state (for simplicity's sake, we'll say China), leading to a string of complete military and strategic defeats due to a lack of military forces or organizational structure to defeat the Chinese Army/Navy/Airforce. Private possessions are seized, many civilians are killed, and eventually the land is subverted, divided, or otherwise destroyed as the entity of the United States.

Now, obviously it would be most desirable in your eyes to have the scenario occur without the invasion, but let's assume that the United States is attacked, invaded, and destroyed with only one day of the previously described libertarian paradise existing. Would you prefer this because, at very least, the moral perfection of our state, for one day, was achieved? Or, in light of the information provided in this scenario, would it be more desirable to simply stick with current system for an indefinite amount of time.

Just curious, again, no insults intended. Anyone can comment, I guess, but mainly looking for the libertarian response.

[Stefu]

I've always wondered about this. I asked this one time, you know, in another form, and from all ideologues, but there were no libertarians answering. (I think that thread had like three replies.)

[David Floyd]

That scenario would not occur, because China does not have the ability to invade the US - or even Taiwan.

Further, why would they? Economic trade and cooperation is much more beneficial to them.

[Sandman]

I believe they use nuclear weapons as deterence for such attacks.

A fatally flawed approach, given the limited shelf life of nukes.

[DinoDoc]

Re: A Question (or two) for Extreme Libertarians

Originally posted by orange
Tomorrow the United States becomes your ideal libertarian state. No military funded by the government,

The military would be funded by the government due to the fact that it is part of the Constitution. Probably not at its current levels though.

the United States is attacked (and later invaded) by another state (for simplicity's sake, we'll say China), leading to a string of complete military and strategic defeats due to a lack of military forces or organizational structure to defeat the Chinese Army/Navy/Airforce.

David, who I assume this thread is for, is in favor of a first use policy wrt nukes in the event of an invasion IIRC.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That scenario would not occur, because China does not have the ability to invade the US - or even Taiwan.

Further, why would they? Economic trade and cooperation is much more beneficial to them.

Again, the idea is to assume that a nation has both the ability and desire to attack and invade. So assume that they do (remember, calling the nation "China" was just to simplify matters)

DinoDoc - Constitution has nothing to do with this. Infact the scenario assumes that there is no constitution, just the ideal libertarian state that David (and others) imagine.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

Tomorrow the United States becomes your ideal libertarian state. No military funded by the government, just a national guard of volunteers and privately funded mercinaries; no publicly funded education - only privately funded institutions of learning; abolished taxes, both sales and income; and whatever other libertarian paradise freedoms you can think of...but the day after tomorrow, the United States is attacked (and later invaded) by another state (for simplicity's sake, we'll say China), leading to a string of complete military and strategic defeats due to a lack of military forces or organizational structure to defeat the Chinese Army/Navy/Airforce. Private possessions are seized, many civilians are killed, and eventually the land is subverted, divided, or otherwise destroyed as the entity of the United States.

Don't you think you ought to ask what this ideal libertarian state would be before defining it for us? Why would the military not be funded by government? You don't think nukes would deter this enemy even if 200 million armed citizens, not to mention the military, militia, navy, etc, weren't a deterant? Asking your question based on how you define the ideal libertarian state is called a strawman.

[Berzerker]

Btw, have you ever seen a graph of military expenditures from various countries? The US spends $400 billion, China spends $42 billion.

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -

Don't you think you ought to ask what this ideal libertarian state would be before defining it for us?

The original question is based on your interpretation of the ideal libertarian state. It simply exists in the United States. It has no regard for the constitution or present laws. Whatever you have in your head for the ideal libertarian state in the US, that's what the state is.

Why would the military not be funded by government?

Well, that part in particular was aimed at Floyd. From what I've gathered from his posts in the past, he does not believe it is right to take money from people to fund the armed forces of a country. It can be funded otherwise, of course, but I think we can all assume that the level of funding would be dramatically different if it had to be privately funded. If, however, you believe that funding the military through government funds (IE a tax of some sort) adheres with your system, go for it. But at least keep in mind the scope of the military with regards to the tax. A small tax obviously can't support a large military.

You don't think nukes would deter this enemy even if 200 million armed citizens, not to mention the military, militia, navy, etc, weren't a deterant?

Nukes perhaps, but 200 million armed citizens? Do you honestly see 200 million armed citizens fighting to protect the nation? And with what? Again, even lightly arming 70% of the nation would require quite a bit of cash - and where are you going to get it from? The militia is the only thing up there that seems viable, and a semi-professional opposing army, especially in greater numbers, wouldn't have too large a problem defeating a militia - wouldn't you say? A navy is something else that would have to be maintained and funded - but how, without some large tax - could you continue to fund it?

Asking your question based on how you define the ideal libertarian state is called a strawman.

I asked the question based on how YOU define the ideal libertarian state. Just because I placed some things that I've heard libertarians say into the scenario doesn't mean you have to adhere to them. Explain how you would fund the navy/army/militia/national guard that you speak of...but understand that a national lottery and bonds alone won't be able to realistically fund it.

Btw, have you ever seen a graph of military expenditures from various countries? The US spends $400 billion, China spends $42 billion.

Once again, this is a hypothetical. Call the nation Ispam for all I care. I was just trying to give it a name.


Perhaps it's the timeline of this that's making it seem unrealistic. I said tomorrow and the day after just to speed things up, but assume that a lot of time goes by before being attacked, and put in any superpower nation you want and have it take as long as it does for them to invade and defeat our militias. Again, if you're eliminating the taxes, assume that a good portion of the military will go unfunded and eventually disband.

[Rex Little]

My definition of the ideal libertarian state includes a large enough military to defend the country against invasion--and nothing else. Considering how much we spend on military forces in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, etc., this would cost a small-to-barely-medium fraction of what we spend now. How that would be funded I don't know. If the only way was a tax, I'd accept that as a necessary evil. As David (son of Milton) Friedman once put it, "I'd rather pay taxes to Washington than to Moscow [this was back when the USSR was a world power]; the rates are lower."

But before you assume that taxation is the only way to fund national defense, answer the following question. Suppose you're eating at a restaurant that you've never been to before, and you'll probably never go there again. Do you leave a tip? If so, why? It's not required, and if you never go back there's no penalty for not tipping.

Despite that, I'm pretty sure most people do tip in that situation, simply because they believe they should. Well, isn't national defense a lot more important than good restaurant service? So is it impossible that people could be trained to believe that contributing 5% of their income to pay the people who keep them safe from attack is the right thing to do?

[Jon Miller]

but see, I tip in that situation because I care for the workers, not at all because I care about service (this is the same reason I tip in any situation)

Jon Miller

[Shi Huangdi]

"Considering how much we spend on military forces in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, etc., this would cost a small-to-barely-medium fraction of what we spend now. "

Many of those countries you talk about can get away with spending less because of much we spend on the military and knowing that we probably won't look too kindly on invasion.

[Berzerker]

Jon -

but see, I tip in that situation because I care for the workers, not at all because I care about service (this is the same reason I tip in any situation)

Then giving, say, %3-5 to help with the defense of those workers, yourself, your family and friends wouldn't be alot to part with, true?

Shi Huangdi -

Many of those countries you talk about can get away with spending less because of much we spend on the military and knowing that we probably won't look too kindly on invasion.

Not China, yet we outspend them almost 10-1 even without our allies. With them, it's almost 15-1.

[Dis]

well I'm not an extreme libertarian. I think the national goverment's primary purpose is national defense (as our founders intended ). Therefore I have no problem with taxation for a military. Every other national goverment function should be abolished . The local goverments can take care of the rest.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

The original question is based on your interpretation of the ideal libertarian state. It simply exists in the United States. It has no regard for the constitution or present laws. Whatever you have in your head for the ideal libertarian state in the US, that's what the state is.

Okay, I would fund a military via government.

Well, that part in particular was aimed at Floyd. From what I've gathered from his posts in the past, he does not believe it is right to take money from people to fund the armed forces of a country.

Oh, okay, I share his position, but that doesn't mean the military wouldn't be funded as a function of government, just that the means of funding wouldn't be forced. Actually, I'm not sure yet if functions like the military and police qualify as "user" fees that can be "coercive".

Nukes perhaps, but 200 million armed citizens? Do you honestly see 200 million armed citizens fighting to protect the nation?

Well, that may be a bit steep, many would be helping with logistics, but I'm also thinking of people from other countries who see the danger.

And with what?

Whatever we have and whatever we can get.

Again, even lightly arming 70% of the nation would require quite a bit of cash - and where are you going to get it from?

The NRA Haven't you heard? There are more guns in the country than people (or damn near). And lots of explosives...

The militia is the only thing up there that seems viable, and a semi-professional opposing army, especially in greater numbers, wouldn't have too large a problem defeating a militia - wouldn't you say?

We did in Vietnam and Korea. I heard a guy who fought for the N Vietnamese (or was it some movie or the History Channel) say they were told they had to fight the best military in the world, and he asked how to do this without weapons, and he was told they had to get the weapons from the people they were fighting. Now, that's an exageration, but the N Vietnamese did make enormous use of what we accidently gave them. Like diffusing unexploded bombs to use the explosives inside, etc... Sure, they might have better troops than in our militias and more than our standing army, but that's where the general populace enters the picture. And you're forgetting the nukes and the fact they'd have one helluva time transporting 1 or 2 million troops to our shores.

A navy is something else that would have to be maintained and funded - but how, without some large tax - could you continue to fund it?

Ironically, the Founders authorised only a navy in the Constitution, not a standing army. They meant for "we the people" to be the army. Actually, a navy is less important now, an air force is much more important for defense. Sure we could pay for it, but that's just my opinion.

I asked the question based on how YOU define the ideal libertarian state. Just because I placed some things that I've heard libertarians say into the scenario doesn't mean you have to adhere to them.

Sorry.

Explain how you would fund the navy/army/militia/national guard that you speak of...but understand that a national lottery and bonds alone won't be able to realistically fund it.

You're asking me to answer a question based on a premise that I disagree with. Why wouldn't voluntary means pay for defense? If we had to, a small user fee could be imposed.

Perhaps it's the timeline of this that's making it seem unrealistic. I said tomorrow and the day after just to speed things up, but assume that a lot of time goes by before being attacked, and put in any superpower nation you want and have it take as long as it does for them to invade and defeat our militias. Again, if you're eliminating the taxes, assume that a good portion of the military will go unfunded and eventually disband.

I wouldn't stop fighting just because I didn't get a check, that would be the last thing on my mind. I'd put alot of the money for the military into maintaining nukes. Frankly, that's the only deterrent we need.