Glenn Beck: Privatize The Military?

[Lightfiend]

Beck shows some interesting words of distrust regarding the government operating our military.

Article and video w/ him and Stossel. (http://www.libertarianminds.com/glenn-beck-privatize-the-military)

I guess we can say Beck has some anarchist leanings? Good for him. :clap2:

And before you guys go bashing Blackwater as a "market option" please be aware that 90% of their revenue comes from government contracts (aka, taxpayer dollars) - they are NOT a true outcome of market incentives, but government privilege (and therefore - not actually "private").

[Agorism]

Just don't have one

[NewFederalist]

I just wish I could trust Beck. He is such a drama queen that I just never quite know what to believe about him. I want to like him but somehow I just can't.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Has he been reading Molinari & Hoppe? :p

I don't like the word Privatize though. Privatize all too many times means Fascist. I want a Free-Market in defense. This means no Government money going to arms, military, etc. Personally, I want to see a lot more militias, instead of market-defense (This would get quite expensive unless they had arsenals of nukes which would work).

[tjeffersonsghost]

Has he been reading Molinari & Hoppe? :p

I don't like the word Privatize though. Privatize all too many times means Fascist. I want a Free-Market in defense. This means no Government money going to arms, military, etc. Personally, I want to see a lot more militias, instead of market-defense (This would get quite expensive unless they had arsenals of nukes which would work).

Nothing wrong with this but on a larger scale smaller militias and an uncentralized command structure are just ineffective. The civil war is a prime example of this. Had the southern army been more organized and more centralized the south probably would have won that war.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nothing wrong with this but on a larger scale smaller militias and an uncentralized command structure are just ineffective. The civil war is a prime example of this. Had the southern army been more organized and more centralized the south probably would have won that war.

We've went over this many times all ready. This is just false. I can quote Yamamoto all day long, Revolutionary War history, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Switzerland, etc.

You act like we are deigned to be attacked all the time if we have a Militia, and I say otherwise. We have two oceans seperating us, and Canada to the North are mostly anti-war, pacifists, and Mexico to the south is only a problem because of the War on Drugs, so really...no, just no.

Besides, Miltias are much more motivated and trained than regulars. Contrary to popular opinions most militia members shoot more, and train more, than Army regulars, and many times are better shots. Look at Appleseed for instance.

Besides, a Militia would be much more well armed, and well defended than our current standing army. I mean, an army of 1.4 million is nothing compared to 200 million, right? Now, imagine those 200 million with M240s, M60s, RPGs, Stingers, etc. Lastly, a centralized command structure is horrendous, inefficient, and easily taken out / infiltrated.

[YumYum]

The Drug Lords have the best privatized military. They keep winning this War on Drugs.

[JohnEngland]

Who knows, maybe with the ever-strengthening of international relations and agreements, some day they'll be a massive agreement whereby every country in the world agrees to abolish its military... Hmm, unlikely!

[Wesker1982]

save the talk about the pros/cons of private defense for another thread, focus should stay on Glenn Beck and his opinion.



I just wish I could trust Beck. He is such a drama queen that I just never quite know what to believe about him. .

this is definitely true but at the same time I don't know what he would have to gain by this one...

[heavenlyboy34]

Nothing wrong with this but on a larger scale smaller militias and an uncentralized command structure are just ineffective. The civil war is a prime example of this. Had the southern army been more organized and more centralized the south probably would have won that war.

Actually, a better example is the American Revolutionary militia, who defeated a far better armed and organized British army. Then there's the Russian militia that defeated Napoleon's Grand Armee, and the examples go on and on and on....:cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

The Drug Lords have the best privatized military. They keep winning this War on Drugs.

lolz ;) EXCELLENT point! :)

[FrankRep]

Glenn Beck is acting like a new person. I'm shocked and happy.


Amazing:

Glenn Beck Recapitulates The John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-birch-society

Glenn Beck Discovers Carroll Quigley
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6441-beck-uses-quigley-quote-about-political-parties

Glenn Beck Discovers 'Philip Dru: Administrator' by Edward Mandell House
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6405-glenn-beck-discovers-philip-dru-administrator

Glenn Beck Zeros In on CFR's Role in Media Bias
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6412-glenn-beck-zeroes-in-on-cfrs-role-in-press-bias

Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3876-glenn-beck-history-vindicated-joe-mccarthy

Beck's Founders' Fridays Attempts to Undo Revisionists' Damage
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3678-becks-founders-fridays-attempts-to-undo-revisionists-damage

[Pericles]

Actually, a better example is the American Revolutionary militia, who defeated a far better armed and organized British army. Then there's the Russian militia that defeated Napoleon's Grand Armee, and the examples go on and on and on....:cool:
Name the battles won by the Continentals where the forces were composed primarily of militia, as opposed to using the Continental Line as the base of the army.

[SkyPie]

The Drug Lords have the best privatized military. They keep winning this War on Drugs.

They certainly have a lot of backers.

[heavenlyboy34]

Name the battles won by the Continentals where the forces were composed primarily of militia, as opposed to using the Continental Line as the base of the army.

Here (http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles.aspx) is a list of battles during the Revolutionary war. Judge for yourself. As you can see here (http://www.revwar75.com/ob/intro.htm) the "Continental Army" was more of a coalition of militias under Washington than what we know of as an "army" today.

[farrar]

Interesting, even he knows he's coming into the light:
(although I think his assumtion the we don't like a strong national defense is debatable. Depends on what kind of libertarian and how you define a strong national defence)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5330284n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5330284n)

[Pericles]

Here (http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles.aspx) is a list of battles during the Revolutionary war. Judge for yourself. As you can see here (http://www.revwar75.com/ob/intro.htm) the "Continental Army" was more of a coalition of militias under Washington than what we know of as an "army" today.

Good non answer to the question.

Taking that list (some of which are minor skirmishes, and other engagements such as Stoney Point, are missing).

Concord - Continental win as militia successfully defend against confiscation of arms and ammunition and harass the British column returning to Boston

ending with

Yorktown - Continental victory forcing surrender of a British army, key attack led by LTC Alexander Hamilton of the Continental line with unloaded muskets, in a bayonet action to take the key redoubt in the British line.

You can fill in the rest. The militia fought well at Bunker Hill and Saratoga, as an army, but was otherwise effective only in small skirmishes, where the superior training of the British army could be negated.

[farrar]

Nothing wrong with this but on a larger scale smaller militias and an uncentralized command structure are just ineffective. The civil war is a prime example of this. Had the southern army been more organized and more centralized the south probably would have won that war.

Ron Paul '08 wasn't very centralized...
I wish I would have known him then to be apart of it. I got some catching up to do in '12.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good non answer to the question.

Taking that list (some of which are minor skirmishes, and other engagements such as Stoney Point, are missing).

Concord - Continental win as militia successfully defend against confiscation of arms and ammunition and harass the British column returning to Boston

ending with

Yorktown - Continental victory forcing surrender of a British army, key attack led by LTC Alexander Hamilton of the Continental line with unloaded muskets, in a bayonet action to take the key redoubt in the British line.

You can fill in the rest. The militia fought well at Bunker Hill and Saratoga, as an army, but was otherwise effective only in small skirmishes, where the superior training of the British army could be negated.

"non-answer". :rolleyes: lolz! I love how you fail with such grace.:D

[Vessol]

Nothing wrong with this but on a larger scale smaller militias and an uncentralized command structure are just ineffective. The civil war is a prime example of this. Had the southern army been more organized and more centralized the south probably would have won that war.

The Confederates main issue was bad supply lines and shortages, not inferior equipment and bad organization.

In fact, the Confederate forces were much more successful then Union forces in many battles, both morale wise and organizational. The Union often times just had surperior numbers and good supply lines.

[speciallyblend]

yeah sure privatize the military so we have blackwater all over the place ignoring laws!! beck don't be a douchebag !!!!!!
YouTube - ‪Jump Smokers "Don't Be A Douchebag" OFFICIAL VIDEO‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oqx2GqUvs4)

[farrar]

The Confederates main issue was bad supply lines and shortages, not inferior equipment and bad organization.

In fact, the Confederate forces were much more successful then Union forces in many battles, both morale wise and organizational. The Union often times just had surperior numbers and good supply lines.

I meant to argue that exact same point, but I was distracted and forgot about it. The south had virtually no factory production for gun powder, etc. They had to prop all that up during the war. So even when they did have supply lines, they often didn't have supplies.
Since the north was mainly industrial, much more than the south, they not only had the means of production (i.e supplies) but they also had most of the train track which of course, naturally sprouted where the industry was.

They did remarkably well for what they were up against. Had both went to war with equal amounts of factory production and train track, the south would have most likely won, and easily.

So the flaw wasn't in the military, but in the structure of the southern economy prior to the war.

I totally agree

[heavenlyboy34]

yeah sure privatize the military so we have blackwater all over the place ignoring laws!! beck don't be a douchebag !!!!!!
YouTube - ‪Jump Smokers "Don't Be A Douchebag" OFFICIAL VIDEO‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oqx2GqUvs4)

we've been through this, sb. private militias are not the same as Blackwater (hired and supported by the government)

[Pericles]

I meant to argue that exact same point, but I was distracted and forgot about it. The south had virtually no factory production for gun powder, etc. They had to prop all that up during the war. So even when they did have supply lines, they often didn't have supplies.
Since the north was mainly industrial, much more than the south, they not only had the means of production (i.e supplies) but they also had most of the train track which of course, naturally sprouted where the industry was.

They did remarkably well for what they were up against. Had both went to war with equal amounts of factory production and train track, the south would have most likely won, and easily.

So the flaw wasn't in the military, but in the structure of the southern economy prior to the war.

I totally agree

The North was successful in making the war into one of attrition, and limiting the ability of the Confederate Army to maneuver against Northern forces.

Latest research is that Confederate forces were almost adequately supplied via blockade running, but delivery to the armies in the field was hampered by inadequate infrastructure.

While both armies expanded beyond anything previously conceived, it should be remembered that on third of the regular army officers resigned and fought for the Confederacy. Without a cadre of trained officers (many of them Mexican War vets), the formation of an effective fighting force would have been much more difficult.

A brief history of the militia in the USA is here:
http://www.dallascitytroop.org/history.html

[speciallyblend]

we've been through this, sb. private militias are not the same as Blackwater (hired and supported by the government)

i know just had to tell beck dont be a douche bag;)