NationStates Jolt Archive

I think libertarians in general aren't pegged to any one side of the disarmament discussions. Some seem to feel defence is a legitimate task for government. But I think libertarians should be the foremost supporters of disarmament. Here's why:

1. Government can't be trusted

Government services are corrupt, inefficient, and can in general be done much more effectively by the private sector. Come on, we don't trust government to collect taxes or build roads - but we're going to give them nuclear weapons, and the authority to use them!?

2. Reduce tax burden

If we privatised or simply scrapped the armed forces, we'd get back a lot of tax dollars. That's less private property brutally coerced out of us by the government, which is good, because taxation reduces individual liberty. Those who feel our tax dollars should prop up corrupt government services like the Army hate freedom.

3. Prevent oppression

It's not enough to oppose gun restrictions, if government is arming itself with better weaponry. We need to denude them of their ability to instate their agenda by force. An armed citizenry will still struggle against a force with significantly superior weaponry - but if we reduce government's strength of armament, then we will truly be able to defend ourselves.

4. Defence is an individual responsibility

It's not the responsibility of government to provide for welfare, for public services, for economic security. Nor should it be to provide for defence, because we all have a right to self-defence, and we can exercise this more efficiently on an individual level than government, corrupt, inefficient and remote as it is, can.

Therefore, I call on all libertarians to unite in supporting disarmament.

I don't think that individuals can provide for national defense. Few people could buy a billion dollar aircraft and if you are facing one of those with some simple assault rifle then you are screwed. I think that defense is one of the major reasons why we have a government.

Few people could buy a billion dollar aircraft and if you are facing one of those with some simple assault rifle then you are screwed.
Which is why libertarians should support disarmament. You're assuming that aircraft doesn't belong to their own government.

Which is why libertarians should support disarmament. You're assuming that aircraft doesn't belong to their own government.

Since we shouls scrap all of our weapons while the rest of world keeps theirs? This doesn't seem unwise to you?

Since we shouls scrap all of our weapons while the rest of world keeps theirs? This doesn't seem unwise to you?
Whoever said 'anti-war' people knew what was unwise or not? Wether Libertarian or Conservative, or Liberal, 'anti-war' folks always overlook one simple fact of existence:

Just because your nation is'nt an asshole to others, does not mean that other nations won't be assholes to you.

Hitler proved this, as did any number of other examples of Imperialism by foreign agressors....Therefore, you must always prepare an active, powerful defense...Even if that means attacking them first.

Whoever said 'anti-war' people knew what was unwise or not? Wether Libertarian or Conservative, or Liberal, 'anti-war' folks always overlook one simple fact of existence:

Just because your nation is'nt an asshole to others, does not mean that other nations won't be assholes to you.

Hitler proved this, as did any number of other examples of Imperialism by foreign agressors....Therefore, you must always prepare an active, powerful defense...Even if that means attacking them first.

I guess that explains Costa Rica and Iceland.

I am a libertarian but I find the OPs argument to be flawed.
1. Government can't be trusted
Ok, I agreed with you up to the above statement, which is why we need the right to bear arms
Government services are...can in general be done much more effectively by the private sector
Ok then, who's going to hold these Private Military Contractors responsible? The government, now that its "outsourced" its own military to the PMCs (this is a rhetorical question, if anybody misses it)? Private entities don't have the same accountability as a public entity.
It's not enough to oppose gun restrictions, if government is arming itself with better weaponry.
The strength of a popular revolution, lest we ever need one, would lie in numbers.
Nor should it be to provide for defence
To this, I counter with Article One of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution). Congress's powers include:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
Etc; related powers which I left out


Not to mention, how can we trust neighboring governments not to attack us when we're disarmed?

I've had a bit of a look at how private armies are performing in Iraq at the moment, and I have to say that the government would probably do a better job.

I hold it like Adam Smith here, one of the jobs of government is the provision of internal and external security. However, that is only the defence of one's borders, not going overseas to fight wars. Not even preemptively.

It's not the responsibility of government to provide for welfare, for public services, for economic security. Nor should it be to provide for defence, . . .

I strongly agree with the first sentence, but not the next part. I believe that providing for national defense is one of the only jobs that the government should be doing.

If your government disarms, you are just ripe for the picking by some nation who wasn't stupid enough to disarm. Thus the circle of life is complete. :rolleyes:

Which is why libertarians should support disarmament. You're assuming that aircraft doesn't belong to their own government.
That is because it is much more likely that it isn't the person's own government. I have not heard of the US or any other major country suppressing its population using aircraft and given the size of America's army compared to our population I really don't fear the military. The American majority could probably cripple our forces well enough to destroy them as they are not large enough to occupy a country this large and with this many people.

Since we shouls scrap all of our weapons while the rest of world keeps theirs? This doesn't seem unwise to you?
No, of course not. We should negotiate multilateral disarmament/arms limitation/non-proliferation treaties. I accept the argument that one nation disarming leaves itself vulnerable - although note Deep Kimchi's point on nations not maintaining standing armed forces - but I'm not being nation-specific here. I'm saying all nations should disarm. Hippy dream sure, but hopefully also a libertarian dream.

Therefore, you must always prepare an active, powerful defense...Even if that means attacking them first.
Exactly. Ex-fucking-actly. One of the chief threats to individual liberty is oppressive government. In order to defend ourselves from the threat of their imposition of dictatorship by force, we should attack them first: by voting away their defence budget.

Ok, I agreed with you up to the above statement, which is why we need the right to bear arms
I'm first going to start with an assumption: you think I'm from the USA. I'm not. And so I'm not arguing "this is right for the USA" - in fact, I'm also not arguing "this is right for the UK [my own nation]". I'm arguing "this is right for all nations.

But furthermore, the right to bear arms is not a realistic bulwark against oppressive governments. A militia with a few automatic weapons cannot hope to defeat a government force armed with tanks, helicopters, and advanced missile systems. That is why disarmament is needed: to level the playing field.

Ok then, who's going to hold these Private Military Contractors responsible? The government, now that its "outsourced" its own military to the PMCs (this is a rhetorical question, if anybody misses it)? Private entities don't have the same accountability as a public entity.
Well, who is going to hold privatised healthcare, or social services, to account? The answer: a mixture of government, the courts, the people, the market, and no one. Same for PMCs.

This isn't about accountability. If, as a rule, government services can always be done better by the private sector, then why would it not be true for the military? If it is a "special case", then why is the fire service not a special case?

The strength of a popular revolution, lest we ever need one, would lie in numbers.
Yes, because numerically superior force always trumps superior weaponry and tactical advantage.

To this, I counter with Article One of the Constitution. Congress's powers include:
Not exactly a great counter to someone who comes from the United Kingdom. Furthermore, without qualifying it, that's simply an appeal to authority. Why is the US constitution right in this case? Are you saying it is right in every case? If the US constitution is our source for governmental power, then you support a federal income tax. How libertarian.

Not to mention, how can we trust neighboring governments not to attack us when we're disarmed?
Maybe...they could disarm too? Or...we could not piss them off? Do countries with no or small armed forces get bulldozed every day?

I've had a bit of a look at how private armies are performing in Iraq at the moment, and I have to say that the government would probably do a better job.
No no. We're libertarians here. Government always does a less good job than the free market. All deficiencies in private actions can be attributed to government interference, or corruption.

Besides, there are studies to show that government monopolies in utilities are good, that private transportation is less efficient, that private management of social welfare or healthcare is less effective than government-run services (and there are studies to the contrary, too).

So, in summary: I am not saying only one country should disarm. We all should. Simple.

So, in summary: I am not saying only one country should disarm. We all should. Simple.
And now you've fully stepped into the shoes of an idealist. Well done.

Simply put, that is not going to happen. Period.

And now you've fully stepped into the shoes of an idealist. Well done.

Simply put, that is not going to happen. Period.
No. You've all whipped out a pair of idealist shoes, and tried to wedge me into them. Well, I won't fit.

You're denying the existence of bilateral nuclear arms limitation treaties between the USA and USSR? Of the CWC, of the Ottawa Convention, of dozens of disarmament treaties in international law? Disarmament is a possibility on the international table - no, not total disarmament, of every nation, but steps towards it - and there are some who would push it, and some who would oppose it. All I'm saying is libertarians should support it.

No. You've all whipped out a pair of idealist shoes, and tried to wedge me into them. Well, I won't fit.

You're denying the existence of bilateral nuclear arms limitation treaties between the USA and USSR? Of the CWC, of the Ottawa Convention, of dozens of disarmament treaties in international law? Disarmament is a possibility on the international table - no, not total disarmament, of every nation, but steps towards it - and there are some who would push it, and some who would oppose it. All I'm saying is libertarians should support it.
Steps toward it? Absolutely. I won't deny that, and I was not in my post. What I was saying was idealist was the idea of total disarmermant by all. That, which I thought you were proposing, cannot happen.

As for supporting it, I would support it...to a point. I am what I like to call a realistic pacifist. I will pursue to the utmost any and every non violent option in any circumstance, but I will not hesitate to use violence if nothing else works. It will, however, be a last resort, so to speak. This, I think, is the fairest possible balance between pacifism and realism.

Letting individuals have nukes, is err, rather irresponsible. Automatic rifles, etc are fine, but nukes are a big no-no. Only the government has the capability of maintaining the weapons, logistics, and the people to launch them. Not to mention one individual could hold a city hostage.

Nukes are a necessary part of my country's security, as are they a part of Russia's, Britain, France, and Israel.

Too many people nowadays are cowards.

And now you've fully stepped into the shoes of an idealist. Well done.

Simply put, that is not going to happen. Period.

Better for the rest of us.

I guess that explains Costa Rica and Iceland.

Because others provide for their defense. I mean, look at Kuwait. No one really provided any defense for them, so they were invaded by a more militarily powerful country. But now, they're pretty much de facto protected by the US and other countries.

Just because your nation is'nt an asshole to others, does not mean that other nations won't be assholes to you.
Not in the age of nuclear weapons. We'd be fine without an army, certainly.

1. Libertarians can't be trusted.
2. Libertarians can't be trusted.
3. Libertarians can't be trusted.