How much should our government spend on defense?

[Fozz]

The US spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and neoconservatives like Sarah Palin think we don't spend enough.

Our defense budget amounts to nearly 4.7% of our GDP, and in dollars, it is nearly $700 billion.

If you support cutting the defense budget, how much should it be cut?

[Fozz]

I think defense spending should be around 3% of GDP.

[Kregisen]

Don't have an arbitrary number....it should be whatever it costs to bring most of our troops home from around the world and patrol our borders. Probably a very small fraction of the current "defense" costs.

[Fredom101]

It's a rigged question.
The assumption is that it is moral/ethical to steal the money to spend in the first place.
Let's start with first principles.

Should the government be allowed to steal money from citizens?

[pcosmar]

That would depend on who is directly attacking the Country and how much help the Militia needs to repel the invasion.
There should be no standing army. And the Navy should be in Port when not directly needed or training.
:cool:

[Fozz]

It's a rigged question.
The assumption is that it is moral/ethical to steal the money to spend in the first place.
Let's start with first principles.

Should the government be allowed to steal money from citizens?

Do you think we should have no national defense? Or would you want it to be voluntarily funded?

[Fozz]

That would depend on who is directly attacking the Country and how much help the Militia needs to repel the invasion.
There should be no standing army. And the Navy should be in Port when not directly needed or training.
:cool:

In the 21st century, I don't think it is realistic to expect no standing army. Some of our Founding Fathers were worried that our government would use its army to persecute its own citizens, but luckily we have laws like the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent that.

[pcosmar]

Do you think we should have no national defense? Or would you want it to be voluntarily funded?

The Militia IS(was) the defense of this country according to the Constitution and the Founders.
Of course that changed with the socialist coup of 1913.

Now how to get back to the sanity that was intended,,,,

[pcosmar]

, but luckily we have laws like the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent that.

No we don't. It has been suspended.
:mad:

[johnrocks]

What it takes to defend America; not Israel, Europe,Japan or Taiwan; but of America and this Hemisphere if we feel threatened, I don't even look at GNP when discussing this issue, just an amount needed which is far less than we spend.

[t0rnado]

I think defense spending should be around 3% of GDP.

Did you use a Magic 8-Ball to arrive at that number?

[pcosmar]

What's Up with this Warmongering Bullshit?

:mad:

[JK/SEA]

Cut the surface fleet in half. This would close certain bases at home.
Keep Trident.
Keep ICBM's, and/or cut as needed.
Bring all troops home and close bases in Japan and Germany...for starters.
National guard stays, and make it voluntary.
Cut the intelligence budget in half.


thats it for now...

[ChaosControl]

5 Billion, which would all be on technology/weaponry.

The defense militia itself should be voluntary and unpaid.

[trey4sports]

Maybe a tenth of what is spent now. SO something like 70 Billion. On par with China

[JK/SEA]

Too bad we have to worry about nukes. Maybe someday a device will be invented that neutrilizes them from a loooong way away...until then we need MAD capability.

[Fredom101]

Do you think we should have no national defense? Or would you want it to be voluntarily funded?

Voluntarily funded defense is fine with me.
If we take out the incentive (tax loot), nobody would invade the US anyway- there would be no point.

[Fredom101]

In the 21st century, I don't think it is realistic to expect no standing army. Some of our Founding Fathers were worried that our government would use its army to persecute its own citizens, but luckily we have laws like the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent that.

Yeah because the government never breaks it's laws. :confused::(

[teacherone]

constitutionally speaking: enough to fund a navy, and enough to secure the borders.

[Fozz]

Maybe a tenth of what is spent now. SO something like 70 Billion. On par with China

I'd hate to see how other powers would fill the void that we leave if we reduced defense spending of a nation of over 300 million to $70 billion. :eek:

[erowe1]

The US spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and neoconservatives like Sarah Palin think we don't spend enough.

Our defense budget amounts to nearly 4.7% of our GDP, and in dollars, it is nearly $700 billion.

If you support cutting the defense budget, how much should it be cut?

When you look deeper in the budget, you find that it's actually much higher than $700 billion.
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=5827

[pcosmar]

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”

[VBRonPaulFan]

I don't think we'd have much reason to spend a lot of money on national defense if we didn't piss so many people around the world off.

[Fozz]

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”

Is that a 200 year old quote?

[Son of Detroit]

What's Up with this Warmongering Bullshit?

:mad:

No one in this thread is advocating war.

[ClayTrainor]

Defense of Private Property should not be socialized / nationalized, that's just asking for trouble. :)

[Stary Hickory]

We should spend enough to ensure national security no more no less.

[teacherone]

Defense of Private Property should not be socialized / nationalized, that's just asking for trouble. :)

in case you haven't noticed...we've got some public property south of your border.

[ClayTrainor]

in case you haven't noticed...we've got some public property south of your border.

Oh Crap! :p

[pcosmar]

No one in this thread is advocating war.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=265336

2 in a row from the same poster.

Justifying war and military spending.
:(

[pcosmar]

Is that a 200 year old quote?

Yes, and it is being proved true.

[oyarde]

Did you use a Magic 8-Ball to arrive at that number?

I love my magic 8 ball . When the Leadman at work asks for vacation , I pull it out , shake it and it always says no . :)

[oyarde]

Cut the surface fleet in half. This would close certain bases at home.
Keep Trident.
Keep ICBM's, and/or cut as needed.
Bring all troops home and close bases in Japan and Germany...for starters.
National guard stays, and make it voluntary.
Cut the intelligence budget in half.


thats it for now...

If you gave the Guard back to the states , some of the Gov.'s could experiment with voluntary militia .

[fisharmor]

We have no need of a standing army if we legalized militia forces.
We have absolutely no need of the US Air Force.
I'd have little constitutional problem with 3-5 carrier groups, provided they stuck close to the coasts, and provided many of the current aircraft were converted to smaller, cheaper, and more efficient and effective drones.
There is no need for more marines than are necessary to achieve naval objectives.

Of those savings, I would support each state providing for its own modern, low-yield nuclear armament.
It is shameful and ridiculous that we even spend money on nuclear armament which is 40 years old and has an accuracy generally rated in miles, when the private sector can read newspaper headlines from space.
They are the ultimate defensive weapon, and our current expensive, inaccurate, and overpowerful weapons should be redesigned to be cheap, accurate, and only as powerful as necessary.


Is that a 200 year old quote?

Yeah, and the US Constitution is a 200 year old document...

[mczerone]

Too bad we have to worry about nukes. Maybe someday a device will be invented that neutrilizes them from a loooong way away...until then we need MAD capability.

Jason Ditz from antiwar.com just had an article (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetowntalk.com%2Farticle%2F2 0101010%2FOPINION%2F10100317%2FDitz-New-START-Treaty-falls-short&rct=j&q=jason%20ditz%20nuclear%20weapons%20US%20louisian a&ei=cfLBTJKOEM6J4QaUj7XSCw&usg=AFQjCNFts2zTJsrU-toaXNvtEglYLbHLNw&sig2=ztsOtCtNniIfNPuv3a60zg&cad=rja) addressing how over-protected we are for MAD.

How many are necessary for MAD? Probably not even 5% of our current stash.

[Anti Federalist]

The US spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and neoconservatives like Sarah Palin think we don't spend enough.

Our defense budget amounts to nearly 4.7% of our GDP, and in dollars, it is nearly $700 billion.

If you support cutting the defense budget, how much should it be cut?

Hah, you're not including all the "off budget", "black ops" and clandestine money.

Or the money that is going into the surveillance end of the military/surveillance complex.

But since you're in favor of "filling power vacuums" and maintaining "balances of power" with military force, then that's the kind of money you have to spend on maintaining an empire.

The question is moot, however.

We're broke, in debt up to our eyeballs and don't produce anything anymore (Thanks to globalized "free trade"). Our future is that of the old USSR and any "power vacuum" will be filled by whoever wants to go broke by empire after us.

[Fozz]

Jason Ditz from antiwar.com just had an article (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetowntalk.com%2Farticle%2F2 0101010%2FOPINION%2F10100317%2FDitz-New-START-Treaty-falls-short&rct=j&q=jason%20ditz%20nuclear%20weapons%20US%20louisian a&ei=cfLBTJKOEM6J4QaUj7XSCw&usg=AFQjCNFts2zTJsrU-toaXNvtEglYLbHLNw&sig2=ztsOtCtNniIfNPuv3a60zg&cad=rja) addressing how over-protected we are for MAD.

How many are necessary for MAD? Probably not even 5% of our current stash.

I'm not sure if unilateral disarmament is a good idea.

[oyarde]

One thing I do know , I would like to see all the Fed spending NOT in Article one , section 8 done away with .

[LibertyBrews]

I think we should keep and maintain a small number of tactical and strategic nuclear missiles, gradually shut down ALL US bases abroad, keep and uphold a navy consisting of 2 carrier groups, one on the east coast, one on the west coast. We should also maintain a small number of subs capable of nuclear strike.

The Airforce and Army should be scaled down to consisting of a home defense with volunteers who could get training for a period every year.

By the way, nuclear weapons are the best peacekeeper in the world.

[Fozz]

There are so many radicals on this board :eek:

And by radical I mean people who think we should have no standing armies, no taxation, and instead have state militias. I sympathize with such views, but I don't think they will work in today's world.

I think a Sino-centric world would be worse for our freedom and prosperity than what we have now. And such a world would be inevitable if we were to abolish our military. Our empire is not benevolent, but at least it is a country founded on the principles of freedom, and much of the world has moved towards freedom and away from central planning in the last generation, and in recent years there has been a very low level of violence around the world.

Lastly, another great step towards freedom would be for America, and the rest of the world, to return to sound money. The abandonment of sound money was partially responsible for both world wars.

I still think we can have a sizable military even with a sound currency, but we wouldn't be able to fight senseless, unnecessary wars, nor should we. Rand Paul and Mike Lee are the only Senate candidates I know of who are explicitly for sound money.

[JK/SEA]

There are so many radicals on this board :eek:

Whats your opinion?...more military spending?...less?...or is the porrige just right for you?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The Government should spend zero on defense. Citizens will spend billions on defense. To say if the Government didn't spend money on "defense" that we would be defenseless is absolutely moronic. If the Government didn't restrict my purchase of defense goods, I would have at least one Machine Gun, one Anti-Tank weapon (Shoulder-fired), and one anti-air weapon (Stinger works better than the .50 Barrett (Though I do want to get one eventually)).

I would join up with like minded individuals who enjoy the aspects of learning how to use weapons for defensive purposes and in such cases as would be necessary to defend life and property from aggressors -- we lovingly call this institution outside of Government the militia. Now since many states have erected laws against such self-organizing institutions is it no wonder why people think only the Gubmit can defend life and property?

[Fozz]

Whats your opinion?...more military spending?...less?...or is the porrige just right for you?

My opinion is to cut military spending (the Pentagon budget) by about 35%, and keep it around 3% of GDP.

[legion]

How much should we spend on Defense? Zero. We shouldn't have a Department of "Defense."

How much should we spend on War? Very little.

[PreDeadMan]

The Government should spend zero on defense. Citizens will spend billions on defense. To say if the Government didn't spend money on "defense" that we would be defenseless is absolutely moronic. If the Government didn't restrict my purchase of defense goods, I would have at least one Machine Gun, one Anti-Tank weapon (Shoulder-fired), and one anti-air weapon (Stinger works better than the .50 Barrett (Though I do want to get one eventually)).

I would join up with like minded individuals who enjoy the aspects of learning how to use weapons for defensive purposes and in such cases as would be necessary to defend life and property from aggressors -- we lovingly call this institution outside of Government the militia. Now since many states have erected laws against such self-organizing institutions is it no wonder why people think only the Gubmit can defend life and property?


^^ This :)

[Vessol]

The Government should spend zero on defense. Citizens will spend billions on defense. To say if the Government didn't spend money on "defense" that we would be defenseless is absolutely moronic. If the Government didn't restrict my purchase of defense goods, I would have at least one Machine Gun, one Anti-Tank weapon (Shoulder-fired), and one anti-air weapon (Stinger works better than the .50 Barrett (Though I do want to get one eventually)).

I would join up with like minded individuals who enjoy the aspects of learning how to use weapons for defensive purposes and in such cases as would be necessary to defend life and property from aggressors -- we lovingly call this institution outside of Government the militia. Now since many states have erected laws against such self-organizing institutions is it no wonder why people think only the Gubmit can defend life and property?

+1

[Fozz]

This board has more ancaps than I thought.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This board has more ancaps than I thought.

What does having no standing army have to do with being an An-Cap? Nothing. This position was the Anti-Federalist position and they weren't An-Caps. This is just another sign of the socialistic dialectic we are in, in this Nation.

[mczerone]

My opinion is to cut military spending (the Pentagon budget) by about 35%, and keep it around 3% of GDP.

But what of those people that wish to spend less because they feel that they will be safe by only spending 1% of GDP? What of the military industrial complex not feeling safe until the govt gives them 50% of GDP?

Do you deny these groups the right to those opinions? Would you hold a gun on them to make them contribute more or to refrain from demanding more? Why is your solution more likely to prevent the "sino-centric" world that you mentioned? Can you guarantee that your plan will give "favorable" results?

What about people that think a "sino-centric" world would be an improvement over the current "anglo" one? Do you deny them the right to seek out such options, while simultaneously stealing from them to prevent their desired outcome?

And none of this discusses the "flavor" of defense spending - does the govt take that 3% GDP and spend it on only tanks? only aircraft carriers? only satellites? Obviously some heterogeneity is required, but to what proportions? Does Guam get the same 3% spending, or do they get the same "safety assurance"? Hawaii? Is the East Coast more important to defend, or the West coast?

To defend the citizenry's rights to life, liberty, and property the gov't must only allow them to defend themselves, and may defend individuals from imminent threat. Any positive central defense necessarily infringes on some individual's liberty and necessarily benefits some over others. By the gov't own stated goals, not some An-Cap extremist ideals, "national defense" should be left to voluntary militia defense. Having to pay taxes to defend "the nation" is denying your right to defend your own property. That militias are not the preferred method of defense infringes on your liberty to defend yourself as you see fit. And lastly, centralized national defense places federal objectives above personal ones, effectively taking many lives that would not have been lost if those men were merely defending their own property.

So there you have it: A central standing military is contrary to the primary purpose of the govt, in its own terms, whether 30% of GDP, 3% of GDP, or $3.00 are spent running it.

[erowe1]

Some of our Founding Fathers were worried that our government would use its army to persecute its own citizens, but luckily we have laws like the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent that.

That's a funny line.

That's kind of like saying, "Some people are concerned that the federal government might impose a minimum wage on the whole country. But luckily we have the Constitution to prevent that."

[MelissaWV]

Ideally? It would, like pretty much any other massive project, be voluntarily funded. If your kids have to have a fundraiser or two to raise money to go on a sports-related trip, the people who want war can come up with a way to raise money to do so. Things like border patrols would be well-managed by border states and people concerned about foreigners "invading." I have no doubt that it would be fully staffed and funded as long as the problem is perceived to be worth staffing and funding.

In reality? I don't think you can pull some magical number out of your butt and say "okay, 3% it is!" because needs and circumstances change. Start by pulling everyone out of all the foreign bases, and closing up shop there. Most of the troops currently rotating in and out of the warzones have been doing so for years. I'm thinking that a lot of them would like to come home, though a lot will also be pissed we didn't "win." (There is no "winning" those wars, much like the "war on drugs" and similar wars based on ideas.)

If we're going with the thoughts of the majority, then the issues are safe borders, national defense (two different things), and being ready to invade a country that does a ding-dong-ditch attack on us.

The first part could be resolved by, again, having the states deal with a large portion of it and collect volunteers for their efforts. I'm sure a lot of ex-military would be available to patrol the borders as well for a small fee.

The second portion is trickier. We do have a lot of technology already in place, and staffing it (like staffing any Government program) could be greatly streamlined to save money. What's sad is that most people talk about privatizing, but they don't realize how many companies are absorbed into the Government juggernaut right now. It's not that companies aren't coming up with ideas... it's that the Government is all too willing to overpay for those ideas, and to pay some companies to basically remain fallow until the next good idea comes along, for fear that if they aren't under contract some shady characters will sneak in and sabotage things, or steal Government "secrets." This would be, as Chaos pointed out, the area where Government is really never going to stop shelling out money.

The third portion is what warmongers use to justify all the standing military branches. What if we're attacked again!? This is also where justification for intelligence agencies comes into play. We have to snoop on everyone because someone somewhere right this very second wants to do us harm. Lots of pronouns, but very little substance. Fear is a potent sword to hold over the public's head. This is the area where most of the cutting can be done.

As mentioned earlier, a lot of the current military is filled with people who have been overseas repeatedly. Time to retire or fill the limited training roles that will open up once the military trims down to Constitutional levels. After previous wars, ex-military folks who were still of sound mind filled many positions in the private sector. There will still be the matter of benefits, which will swell the budget for awhile. To me, those benefits were already promised and used to entice people to go overseas, so completely doing away with them would be shady stuff. I see it as a contractual obligation, even if the contract was made by the bloated Government we currently have.

Cut back the military. Cut it back *a lot*. Stop harrassing people who own guns and want to know how to do more than show off how shiny they are or kill a few deer with them. Encourage people to take responsibility for the conditions of their communities, including defense to some extent, but hammer home the fact that if you go around shooting up the town... you will still face punishment. If it's really war, then defense will get ugly, and all the prissy political correctness will fly out the window. If it's not, then there will be time for courts to sort it out.

While we are at it, change the way the police works. Cut them back, too. Even if we're going to keep all of the ridiculous laws out there, stop it with the quotas and the "protect your own" mentality, and maybe "the People" won't be so pissed off all the time.

But yes, all of that "reality" is based on the faulty premise that taxation is a good idea at any level when the taxed cannot opt out or change things readily.

[legion]

This board has more ancaps than I thought.

I don't think you realize what most of the War budget is spent on.

If you think spending trillions of dollars to have an army of nerds fill out endless paperwork is a great idea, fine. Not with my money.

[MelissaWV]

I don't think you realize what most of the War budget is spent on.

If you think spending trillions of dollars to have an army of nerds fill out endless paperwork is a great idea, fine. Not with my money.

Don't forget: you also need an HR Department to tell those paper-pushers how to handle papercuts and to explain benefits. You also need someone to answer phones... actually, you need hundreds of someones to answer hundreds of phones. You need people to design the recruitment materials. You need people to collect and enter the data mined from that recruitment. You need people to set up the lists that recruiters will call, and to track the success/failure rates for those calls. You need people to handle the websites, and to design the graphics for such. You need PR people to manage the commercials you see on television and hear on the radio, or the ads you see on the internet. You need lawyers to ensure that the music they're using for those same ads is obtained legally and that there won't be any backlash from any particular use of song or image. You need image consultants to work with the PR people to determine what demographic makeup is best for the commercials that will air, to ensure that the military is seen as inclusive and non-discriminatory (well, don't include any obvious gays, though... duh).

Those people are all working very hard with your money to defend the country :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

the federal government was not suppose to have a standing army. only the states.

[erowe1]

Ideally? It would, like pretty much any other massive project, be voluntarily funded.

I agree. I don't have much of a problem with people who want a standing army, or even people who want to employ that army in foreign interventionism, as long as participation is entirely voluntary. And that must include participation in funding just as much as actual enlistment.

[demolama]

You can't get rid of a standing U.S Army without getting rid of their civilian counterparts... the police department. Both can and are used by the government to suppress and destroy the lives of the innocent in order to perpetuate the lie of doing it for the common good of society.

[demolama]

I agree. I don't have much of a problem with people who want a standing army, or even people who want to employ that army in foreign interventionism, as long as participation is entirely voluntary. And that must include participation in funding just as much as actual enlistment.

75,000 people volunteered to keep their cousins in South Carolina from voluntarily leaving the union. Sherman's troops, who were volunteers, voluntarily raided, raped, and stole from civilians in the south.

Volunteering to do harm to others is not my idea of a good cause

[2young2vote]

I don't know an exact number, but it should be small. There could be a small amount of people on-duty at all times within bases in the USA, and there could be a large number of voluntary reserve forces available. This doesn't stop the local and state governments from having their own militias, so this could be a good strategy.

I don't know how well it would work, but corporations could be allowed to professionally train new recruits. The recruits would pay a fee to have basic training. Maybe they would spend a few months in the actual military, then they would be placed in the reserves. This would probably cut costs for the military even more. It may also increase enrollment. If you know you are just going to get some training and maybe a few months in the actual military, but the military is on US soil and you really don't have a chance of being killed, then it would probably be a lot less scary to join.

Right now joining the military is a long 4 year process that can put your life in danger, but if that could be cut to 6 months or less, we may see a lot more people join. And seeing as how it would be voluntary, a large amount of people would be available at all times without any extra cost to the military.

I think the idea could be compared to going to a long summer camp. You'd have training to help defend your country if it needs it, it could be good for you (they always talk about rowdy kids being sent off to boot camp), and you could put something decent on your resume. Heck, I might even do it if it was this way.

[xd9fan]

I bet that if we could call all the personal back home at put them on the border, we could over lap by a factor of 5.......

[Southron]

I think defense spending should be our highest spending, but considerable less than now.

I could be satisfied if we scaled down most of the standing army and made them reserve forces. Require the states to reinstate the militia, and provide for adequate naval and air defense.

I would not be opposed to missile defense on our land either.

[Brett85]

I think that actual "defense" spending should remain the same as it is now, but we need to drastically cut or end our foreign policy spending all together. We shouldn't be paying for Japan's defense, Germany's defense, etc. We should have a strong national defense here at home to keep our own country safe.

[erowe1]

75,000 people volunteered to keep their cousins in South Carolina from voluntarily leaving the union. Sherman's troops, who were volunteers, voluntarily raided, raped, and stole from civilians in the south.

Volunteering to do harm to others is not my idea of a good cause

Where'd they get the money to pay for all that?

[denison]

I think that actual "defense" spending should remain the same as it is now, but we need to drastically cut or end our foreign policy spending all together. We shouldn't be paying for Japan's defense, Germany's defense, etc. We should have a strong national defense here at home to keep our own country safe.

your not keeping them safe. your occupying their land, getting drunk and raping local village girls. i'd imagine they'd be doing the same thing once they arrive home.

the only option in the near future is to bring them home and hopefully de-program them before they do any damage here.

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brown_Okinawa_assault_incident)

Marine Major's attempted-rape trial set to begin on Okinawa - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4784)

4 to face trial for alleged gang rape in Japan - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61982)

US Marines in Japan Accused of Rape - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55633)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/world/AP-AS-Japan-Moving-the-Marines.html?_r=1

Rape victim fights for justice against U.S. military, Japan | The Japan Times Online (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20090303zg.html)

[Brett85]

your not keeping them safe. your occupying their land, getting drunk and raping local village girls. i'd imagine they'd be doing the same thing once they arrive home.

the only option in the near future is to bring them home and hopefully de-program them before they do any damage here.

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brown_Okinawa_assault_incident)

Marine Major's attempted-rape trial set to begin on Okinawa - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4784)

4 to face trial for alleged gang rape in Japan - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61982)

US Marines in Japan Accused of Rape - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55633)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/world/AP-AS-Japan-Moving-the-Marines.html?_r=1

Rape victim fights for justice against U.S. military, Japan | The Japan Times Online (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20090303zg.html)

I don't think that's really even worth responding to. I support the United States military, as do Ron and Rand Paul.

[Fredom101]

The Government should spend zero on defense. Citizens will spend billions on defense. To say if the Government didn't spend money on "defense" that we would be defenseless is absolutely moronic. If the Government didn't restrict my purchase of defense goods, I would have at least one Machine Gun, one Anti-Tank weapon (Shoulder-fired), and one anti-air weapon (Stinger works better than the .50 Barrett (Though I do want to get one eventually)).

I would join up with like minded individuals who enjoy the aspects of learning how to use weapons for defensive purposes and in such cases as would be necessary to defend life and property from aggressors -- we lovingly call this institution outside of Government the militia. Now since many states have erected laws against such self-organizing institutions is it no wonder why people think only the Gubmit can defend life and property?

This is a very important post on this topic.

Think about it: If defense is important, people will DEMAND it, and VOLUNTARILY pay for it. Therefore, there is no reason to force people to pay for defense.
If defense is NOT important, there is no reason to force people to pay for defense.

Either way, the answer to the OP's question is the big bagel- the government should not force us to pay for anything.

[LibForestPaul]

In the 21st century, I don't think it is realistic to expect no standing army.

In the 21st century is it realistic to expect nation states to wage all out war against each other?

YouTube - Tsar Bomba - Largest Nuclear Device Ever Tested (50MT) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AMtUeyDP0)

YouTube - Tsar Bomb - The biggest bomb ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoQsZa8F1c)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

[Fozz]

In the 21st century is it realistic to expect nation states to wage all out war against each other?

If they don't make rational decisions, then it is possible. And nobody on this planet can afford the consequences of nuclear war.

[Wesker1982]

Is that a 200 year old quote?

"If the Founder's advice is acknowledged at all, it is dismissed on the grounds that we no longer live in their times. The same hackneyed argument could be used against any of the other principles the Founders gave us. Should we give up the First Amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today." - Ron Paul

[Fozz]

"If the Founder's advice is acknowledged at all, it is dismissed on the grounds that we no longer live in their times. The same hackneyed argument could be used against any of the other principles the Founders gave us. Should we give up the First Amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today." - Ron Paul

We shouldn't completely ignore the advice of our Founders regarding foreign policy, but we can't act on their advice alone.

[pcosmar]

We shouldn't completely ignore the advice of our Founders regarding foreign policy, but we can't act on their advice alone.

You sound like a lobbyist or an employee of a defense contractor.
Very little of the "defense budget" is actual defense. It is offense. It has been used to create enemies and expand an empire.

Meanwhile the true defense (the militia) has been discouraged.

:mad:

[Southron]

We shouldn't completely ignore the advice of our Founders regarding foreign policy, but we can't act on their advice alone.

Why couldn't the Constitutional militia provide most of the ground defense? After all, they would be defending their wives and children.

That's why I believe a reserve army may be enough for any offensive invasion that has no intent on occupying.

Any offensive attack should focus on destroying the opposing government/military as quickly as possible.

[goopc]

Just because I don't want government funding education, doesn't mean I don't want school. Likewise, just because I don't want government funding the military, doesn't mean I don't want defense.

[Fozz]

Just because I don't want government funding education, doesn't mean I don't want school. Likewise, just because I don't want government funding the military, doesn't mean I don't want defense.

National defense cannot be privatized. But of course the ancaps think that everything can and should be privatized.

[ClayTrainor]

National defense cannot be privatized.

Because "public" bureaucrats like Obama, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr, FDR, Wilson, etc. and their administrations have proven themselves worthy of controlling a massive standing army?

Defense of private property can be and should be 100% privatized.


But of course the ancaps think that everything can and should be privatized.

An-Caps don't justify extortion as a means of pursuing your goals, because we understand what types of people will be attracted to such powers. ;)

[Brett85]

National defense cannot be privatized. But of course the ancaps think that everything can and should be privatized.

People who want all funding for defense to be voluntary apparently don't want the government to help them out if there's a situation where they're held hostage by a terrorist.

[ClayTrainor]

People who want all funding for defense to be voluntary apparently don't want the government to help them out if there's a situation where they're held hostage by a terrorist.

The most likely entity to lock us up and hold us hostage, would be the state. ;)

http://www.uaff.info/american_incarceration_timeline-clean.gif

[Brett85]

The most likely entity to lock us up and hold us hostage, would be the state. ;)

http://www.uaff.info/american_incarceration_timeline-clean.gif

So you're in favor of having no laws and letting everybody out of jail? I would let people out of jail for victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution, but of course we have to keep violent criminals in jail.

[ClayTrainor]

So you're in favor of having no laws and letting everybody out of jail?

Everyone who is guilty of a victimless crime, yes.



I would let people out of jail for victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution, but of course we have to keep violent criminals in jail.

Cages are for the beasts, and no one else, imo.

I'm in favor of natural law with respect to the non-aggression principle. Murderers, rapists and all other legitimate violent threats to other individuals should absolutely be removed as the threats they are.

America has 1/4 of the worlds prison population, but not even close to 1/4 of the world population. Something is very disturbing about that. My point is, the real "terrorists" are the "state", and they are far more likely to hold me hostage against my will than any muslim.

[denison]

Just because I don't want government funding education, doesn't mean I don't want school. Likewise, just because I don't want government funding the military, doesn't mean I don't want defense.

It's not being spent on defense though. Mostly offense through the means of outright genocide and mass murder. Of course you can expect blowback and retribution when the dollar collapses. I hope the neocons thought it was worth it.

[furface]

I think defense spending should be around 3% of GDP.

First of all it's not "defense." The term is "war."

GDP is arbitrary. Obama significantly raised GDP last year by pure government spending alone. A better measure would be the private sector GDP that's not traceable to government spending. For instance if the government stopped handing out social security payments and food stamps, Walmart would go out of business pretty quickly. It would be a very difficult number to come by, but in the case of the US the number is probably about 20% of nominal GDP.

What you're saying mathematically is that I should donate a little over 2 weeks of my labor each year to pay for a standing army and military intervention. If you take in the government contribution to GDP as I mentioned above, a purely private sector producer would be expected to donate 10 weeks of his labor or the equivalent in commodities. The numbers you're talking about are way too high.

An effective US border patrol, which we don't have BTW, should cost about a billion dollars a year max. It can be funded by excise taxes and user fees. Same goes for protecting ports.

[denison]

Everyone who is guilty of a victimless crime, yes.



Cages are for the beasts, and no one else, imo.

I'm in favor of natural law with respect to the non-aggression principle. Murderers, rapists and all other legitimate violent threats to other individuals should absolutely be removed as the threats they are.

America has 1/4 of the worlds prison population, but not even close to 1/4 of the world population. Something is very disturbing about that. My point is, the real "terrorists" are the "state", and they are far more likely to hold me hostage against my will than any muslim.

I agree mostly. But what about money launders, counterfeiters an the like. What would be their punishment in a libertarian society?

[UtahApocalypse]

You first have to define "defence" and what specificaly we are defending.

[ClayTrainor]

I agree mostly. But what about money launders, counterfeiters an the like. What would be their punishment in a libertarian society?

There's some other folks here who can probably give a better, more-detailed answer than me, but my simple answer would be...

They should be forced to pay full restitution to those they harmed. This could be negotiated in many different ways, depending on the circumstance. I think something like that would be far more likely to benefit the victim, than simply locking the criminal in a cage on the taxpayers dime, that's for sure.

[goopc]

But what about money launders, counterfeiters an the like. What would be their punishment in a libertarian society?

Absent a monopoly on judicial services (the state), the market would provide and choose judges who's decisions best codify the prevailing legal opinions of society. Unlike the state, if a judge's opinions were disliked and uneconomical, they would be ignored and go out of business. These market choose judges would decide what is a crime and what is punishment (which may not necessarily coincide with libertarian ethics). http://mises.org/resources/3088

Fundamentally, we're really not asking for much. No good or service (defense included) should be provided at the barrel of a gun. The desire to call a "market failure" just puts you in the same camp as the left liberals and statists of all kinds... it's just a question of how many things you think the free market can't provide.