PDA

View Full Version : EPJ: Why Glenn Beck Should Shut Down His Television Show




itshappening
03-03-2013, 11:08 AM
Powerful post below from Robert Wenzel:

-
Why Glenn Beck Should Shut Down His Television Show

Jack Hunter recently appeared with Glenn Beck on a Beck television set, as part of a panel discussion (see the clip below). For the audiences viewing pleasure in the background of the set (see the 3:50 mark) was a huge, softly lit poster of the monster Abraham Lincoln (paging Thomas DiLorenzo)

That was far from the only low spot. Beck has been pretending of late that he is either A. a libertarian or B. trying to understand libertarianism. The show started with a discussion about the legalization of street drugs. Beck's addition to the discussion can only be described as a train wreck.

Beck created a bizarre straw man. With a little help from another guest on the show, Zak Slayback, Beck argued that if street drugs were legalized, the access to the drugs would cause many more to become homeless, and thus become a drain on the rest of us.

Here are the problems with Beck framing the argument this way.

1. A black market exists in street drugs. The druggies are already getting their drugs. Beck's implication that a new massive rush of druggies would hit the streets suggests an inability to recognize reality. I repeat, the druggies are getting their drugs, now.

2. The cost of street drugs is very high precisely because they are illegal and carry severe penalties for selling them. It is dangerous to be a street dealer. If drugs were legalized, the prices would plummet and you would have less homeless, not more.

This is libertarianism 101. Beck is far from close to understanding libertarianism if he gets himself tangled and confused on this basic libertarianism stuff.

3. By introducing the argument that more homeless would result if drugs were legalized, in addition to problem 2, Beck creates a further complication because he argues these new druggies (which don't exist) will want government services and the libertarians will have to deal with those who want to provide welfare type services to these new druggies. Let's just assume for a minute that the legalization of drugs does cause more druggies that become homeless. Beck is now arguing that we shouldn't advance the legalization of street drugs because we will then have to argue against more welfare-type services. What freedoms would Beck like libertarians to advocate? We can't argue legalization of drugs and apparently in Beck's world we can't argue against welfare. In other words, Beck seems to want to be a libertarian that doesn't want to object against the current system, at all. How is that libertarian in any way? Jacob Hornberger, another guest on the show, correctly argued that libertarianism should be about advocating freedom. He pointed out that there is no inconsistency in arguing in favor of the legalization of street drugs and advocating the abolishment of welfare. Beck gets none of this.

Beck then goes on to frame another problem by way of a massive aggregation. He warns about theocracies, whose goal it is to behead Americans. I am not making this up. He is concerned with some outside government that wants to "control us" and "behead us."

I note, he makes this argument while sitting in the middle of a country that has the greatest incarceration rate in the world. What country wants to control people, Glenn?

The libertarian ideal is to recognize the non-aggression principle. We deal with those who do us harm, beginning and end of story. Libertarians are not advocates of invading Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran or some other theocracy. On a practical level, the United States is the most powerful military force in the world. Does Beck seriously think these countries are somehow threats to America?

If there are operators in these countries that want to maim and kill us, then they should be stopped, like Christopher Droner was stopped, on an individual basis. (Though, perhaps, with greater respect for judicial process than was displayed by government officials in the Droner killing) Or does Beck think the Army should attack the LA police and the US marines because Droner was trained to kill by them?

Bottom line: Beck is no libertarian. Despite what Jack Hunter says about the matter. Hunter writes:

If someone was trying to pass off big government Bush-style conservatism as libertarianism, I’d be the first to go on the attack. But that’s not what’s going on with Beck. He attacks that era and the Republicans who screwed up the country. He says he was completely wrong in his former support of the Patriot Act (when does a national talk host ever say they are wrong about anything?). He says we can’t police the world. He’s even said that the answer to the same-sex marriage question is to remove the state from the equation altogether.

He says he absolutely loves Rand Paul. [Jack, this Rand Paul?-RW]

And we should especially want those with a microphone as loud and as far reaching as Glenn Beck’s to come our way.

Jack,

The last thing we need is someone with a microphone as loud as Beck's posing as a libertarian, or pretending to search for libertarian answers, when he sees threats to the United States from theocracies and can't even get the basics down on the libertarian anti-drug war argument.

The man should shut his show down and take time to understand libertarian thinking.

He should read:

For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block

Once he has absorbed these books, he should only then relaunch his show. He may then not agree with libertarian positions, but he will at least, hopefully, understand them.

Hunter writes:

During our appearance, Beck told me, Jacob and Zak that he’d like The Blaze to be a platform to promote libertarian leaders and ideas. He noted, correctly, that none of the other major outlets are covering this stuff adequately, or framing the debate correctly. He’s 100% right.

If Glenn Beck wants to help us, we’d be fools not to let him. If the advancement of liberty is the goal, he could be an important ally. If purity is the litmus test, we will never have any allies–and each of us should resign from this movement effective immediately.

Yeah, well Jack, if Beck presented the libertarian position that would be great. He's not. He doesn't understand it. At this point, he can't be a platform for libertarianism. He can only be a platform for confusion, starting with that damn stupid Lincoln poster on his set, next to the poster of that other evil monster Teddy Roosevelt.

What's the deal with those, Jack? How is he, as you put it, attacking "that era and the Republicans who screwed up the country," when he has banners of two of the most evil Republicans the country has ever witnessed, hanging right behind your head on the set?

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/why-glenn-beck-should-shut-down-his.html

FSP-Rebel
03-03-2013, 12:18 PM
To be fair, many if not most conservatives have emotional reactions when they're tested on drug legalization or foreign policy issues. Fiscal mindedness goes out the window and the facts become meaningless for the most part. Same goes for liberals when it comes to entitlements. That's why each group, if we're to continuing to educate them towards liberty, need to be softened by focusing on areas where they have libertarian leanings and gradually expand the conversation when the timing is right. In my dealing with the average conservative, centering the discussion on significantly cutting spending is usually a winner as they don't want to appear more fiscally liberal than I so they're naturally accepting agreement. Then, this allows me to dabble in reigning in foreign policy expenditures that seem common sense right off the top. Once they're able to realize that not every dollar spent is pro-strong national defense, you've moved them into prime positioning - a place they've never formerly accepted but for it to be taboo in Foxspeak. Conversations that can unwind their brainwashed status from the likes of Fox and the associated radio hosts is the only way to reach them and guide them forward. Same can be said in regards to liberals (not necessarily drones) in terms of trying to bypass their indoctrination by the MSM and universities. Tho, it can be difficult to use this tactic when the GOP runs the white house. And, dems will be less likely to concede foreign policy and civil liberty issues when their guy is in. So, winning over said group in the off season seems to be the way to go. Tho, I'm hoping we're doing enough policy education on conservatives now that we'll be able to clean this house enough to keep them from blindly defending the likes of Bush or Rubio should they eventually run the show. Even more, making Rand as palatable as possible to have the shot of a lifetime at the big house is the most immediate priority imo. I believe Rand is doing the best he can at repackaging the liberty message to appeal to those on the right, then be able to shift properly in the general to court whatever is left of the conservative democrats and the independent bloc.

cajuncocoa
03-03-2013, 12:56 PM
Good article.

sailingaway
03-03-2013, 01:05 PM
I think he should shut it down because Ron is going to have web programming, and, unlike Beck's, Ron's is going to be the real thing.

But it is Beck's money, obviously.

fr33
03-03-2013, 01:07 PM
I agree with Wenzel on Beck but I don't agree with him on Hunter and Rand.

talkingpointes
03-03-2013, 01:09 PM
Wait for the BDF (Beck Defense Force). So often am I reminded by what splits us up is our inherent philosophies. Some people libertarian or not need leaders - becuase they don't have it to lead themselves. Furthermore if the MSM were to treat us like pals these people would probably just drop the bucket. It's as if they haven't had love their entire life and the media is representative of that and if they could just only accept us and not beat the shit out us. KEEP DREAMING, you can't change people.

BuddyRey
03-03-2013, 01:18 PM
Glenn Beck has a TV show? I thought he left FOX a couple years ago.

Shows how much I watch mainstream cable news I guess.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 01:27 PM
Here's my thoughts on Beck and watching him over the years:

He has no interest in understanding libertarianism but he does seem to like to flirt with it and cover it as interesting fodder for his show. He does it in an incoherent way as Wenzel points out with his rambling drug argument. He will also occasionally not be able to help himself and attack other libertarians or people like Ron Paul and Alex Jones and thus prove himself to be offensive but he'll still return and dedicate time and resources to covering this faux journey that he's on.

Overall I think most people like Hunter are glad that at least someone is giving libertarianism as platform and paying attention even if it's in an incoherent and rambling manner which doesn't say much about Beck himself but all exposure is good exposure. I think i'm part of this.

I think Beck is an attention whore and an unreconstructed Neocon and will always try and view the world through this prism so while he'll give the libertarian viewpoint a hearing he just won't quite endorse it and "get there" because he'll find some excuse like, well, the world is too dangerous! those damn terrorists want to behead us, how can we possibly retreat?

Maybe one day he'll understand the non-aggression principle but I dont believe he seriously wants to. He is only prepared to air the view and then scratch his head and ultimately dismiss it.

I dont personally care for Beck and what he thinks so I do believe airing an alternative view is beneficial no matter what neocon conclusion Beck ultimately comes to. Some people may think we could do without his spin and what he does with the discussion after but really who cares? I don't. I actually find him a boring and bland host whose routine after many years gets boring but he does have a huge audience and no other radio host is willing to air the views he's allowing. If he's prepared to let these libertarian orientated guests on the show and let them speak without cutting them off then I don't care much about his neocon conclusion because at least some people will be exposed to the truth.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 01:37 PM
Beck is a total Neocon who is all about glorifying the military. You can tell this from his recent hero worship of Kyle. He will never change his neocon and nationalistic ways.

So he is very similar to all the other mainline hosts in that regard and you will often hear him parrot their talking points (see Hagel as a good example), where he's different though seems to be that he will listen to what libertarian orientated guests will say and that's about it. I think that's not bad if we can get them on his radio and TV shows.

compromise
03-03-2013, 01:38 PM
Isn't Beck against Teddy Roosevelt?

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:06 PM
Beck is a total Neocon who is all about glorifying the military. You can tell this from his recent hero worship of Kyle. He will never change his neocon and nationalistic ways.

So you can't be a libertarian if you don't hate the military?

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-03-2013, 02:07 PM
I think Wenzel should shut down his website first.

sailingaway
03-03-2013, 02:09 PM
So you can't be a libertarian if you don't hate the military?

Hating and 'not glorifying anyone in it regardless of how they revel in killing people' isn't the same thing. I respect the military as an honorable profession when used for what it is supposed to be used for. I respect people who chose it to protect their country as they see it, or as the best of their options, despite danger. But there is a difference between that and saying EVERYONE in it is a hero and slinging red meat against people who question any aspects of it or any people in it. Libertarianism isn't the point, it's simplistic stupidity, imho.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:13 PM
Hating and 'not glorifying anyone in it regardless of how they revel in killing people' isn't the same thing. I respect the military as an honorable profession when used for what it is supposed to be used for. I respect people who chose it to protect their country as they see it, or as the best of their options, despite danger. But there is a difference between that and saying EVERYONE in it is a hero and slinging red meat against people who question any aspects of it or any people in it. Libertarianism isn't the point, it's simplistic stupidity, imho.

Maybe so, but you can still be a libertarian even if you say that every member of the military is a hero. That has nothing to do with libertarianism or non interventionism.

Aratus
03-03-2013, 02:20 PM
Isn't Beck against Teddy Roosevelt?

i take it that Ex-Gov. Sarah Palin tends to lionize
TR the big game hunter but Glen Beck doesn't usually...

acptulsa
03-03-2013, 02:20 PM
Maybe so, but you can still be a libertarian even if you say that every member of the military is a hero. That has nothing to do with libertarianism or non interventionism.

It isn't? Are you sure?

A military is only as much a force for good as the policy makers who wield it. You're all for defense, I'm all for defense, defense is good, it takes a certain amount of bravery to volunteer to defend someone. But if you run around saying, 'A HAMMER CAN DO NO WRONG,' I'm going to call you a liar if you're swinging it at my head.

Hell, as often as I've cracked plaster, bent nails, and hit my own thumb, I'm liable to call you a damned liar even if you're not swinging one at my head.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:25 PM
It isn't? Are you sure?

Yes, you can be a non interventionist and still support our troops. I support our troops but disagree with how politicians in Washington DC use them. I think they should be used for a more defensive purpose.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 02:31 PM
Yes, you can be a non interventionist and still support our troops. I support our troops but disagree with how politicians in Washington DC use them. I think they should be used for a more defensive purpose.

You need to understand that Beck hero worships the military because he has a lust for war. He wants the military to be used to invade countries and go on adventures so glorifying it and worshipping killers like Kyle is all part of his narrow view. That's why he's a neocon and will never be a proper libertarian. He wants to police the world and see's using the U.S military as essential in that regard, otherwise what possible use is there for a standing army employing hundreds of thousands of men? for it to be forever idle and never employed?

So in Beck's routine and world view the military is a force for good. No matter that they rape and murder, that never gets mentioned but he'll glorify it and cheer it on because that's where most of his audience want him to do and that's why he sounds like all the other hosts when it comes to the military and foreign policy.

acptulsa
03-03-2013, 02:31 PM
Yes, you can be a non interventionist and still support our troops. I support our troops but disagree with how politicians in Washington DC use them. I think they should be used for a more defensive purpose.

Now, TC, you know me well enough to know I won't allow you to duck the point. Saying they can do no wrong is tantamount to saying that they can never be put to a less defensive, less noble purpose. And that is dangerous talk, and a foolish attitude.

Yes, I support our servicepeople too. That's why I supported Ron Paul. In a sense, they can only ever be as noble as their mission. And I think they should always be allowed to be noble.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 02:39 PM
The standing army of the United States is a tool for empire, for rape and for pillage. There are hundreds of cases where they rape and torture in occupied lands and they should never be hero worshipped by anyone who values true freedom and liberty. The other day Private Manning said he leaked information because he was disgusted with the casual nature of murder within it.

I find it hard to respect the military and I feel sorry for those recruited into it.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:44 PM
You need to understand that Beck hero worships the military because he has a lust for war. He wants the military to be used to invade countries and go on adventures so glorifying it and worshipping killers like Kyle is all part of his narrow view. That's why he's a neocon and will never be a proper libertarian. He wants to police the world and see's using the U.S military as essential in that regard, otherwise what possible use is there for a standing army employing hundreds of thousands of men? for it to be forever idle and never employed?

I support bringing our troops home and having them defend the borders and coastlines, have them train on military bases here in the U.S and prepare for war in the event that our country gets attacked, etc. That was always Ron Paul's view as well. He never advocated abolishing the army. I haven't heard Beck argue in favor of using our military to invade additional countries. Do you have a youtube video or some other link where he said that?

itshappening
03-03-2013, 02:47 PM
double post

itshappening
03-03-2013, 02:47 PM
I support bringing our troops home and having them defend the borders and coastlines, have them train on military bases here in the U.S and prepare for war in the event that our country gets attacked, etc. That was always Ron Paul's view as well. He never advocated abolishing the army. I haven't heard Beck argue in favor of using our military to invade additional countries. Do you have a youtube video or some other link where he said that?

There is really no need for standing army. Maybe a reservist army where men can be called up at short notice if there was a threat to the main land but otherwise there's no point.

As for Beck the military worship is all part of the Neocon routine when it ought to be condemned for the rape and torture machine it demonstrably is. For instance he never once questioned why Kyle was in Iraq in the first place and why or indeed who he was snipering. He was automatically a hero who defended our freedoms when he was wasn't as he was just part of a foreign occupation force carrying out appalling crimes. This simplistic view is part of Beck's routine.

Since Beck never questioned Kyle's role as part of the foreign occupation of Iraq one must conclude that he approves of that foreign occupation and I bet if you look back to 2003 he was probably all in favor of it so it kind of makes sense.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:49 PM
Now, TC, you know me well enough to know I won't allow you to duck the point. Saying they can do no wrong is tantamount to saying that they can never be put to a less defensive, less noble purpose. And that is dangerous talk, and a foolish attitude.

Yes, I support our servicepeople too. That's why I supported Ron Paul. In a sense, they can only ever be as noble as their mission. And I think they should always be allowed to be noble.

I don't really see your point. My point is that there are a lot of valid reasons why Beck isn't a libertarian or a non interventionist, but one of those reasons should not be that Beck doesn't have a negative view of Chris Kyle. I just objected to "Itshappening" reasoning on that. I think that the war in Iraq was a terrible idea, and you'll never see me attack Chris Kyle or any of the other soldiers who fought in Iraq. If someone says that I can't oppose preemptive wars overseas without criticizing our troops, they can kiss my ass. I'm not going to criticize the members of our military. That doesn't make me a neo-con or anything like that.

cajuncocoa
03-03-2013, 02:51 PM
So you can't be a libertarian if you don't hate the military?

Nice strawman. :rolleyes:

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:52 PM
As for Beck the military worship is all part of the Neocon routine when it ought to be condemned for the rape and torture machine it demonstrably is.

Like I said, do you have a link or a youtube video where Beck said that we should use our troops to invade other countries?

Brett85
03-03-2013, 02:53 PM
Nice strawman. :rolleyes:

No, that's the example that "itshappening" used to say that Beck isn't a libertarian. He implied that you can't be a libertarian if you don't criticize someone like Chris Kyle.

acptulsa
03-03-2013, 02:57 PM
No, that's the example that "itshappening" used to say that Beck isn't a libertarian. He implied that you can't be a libertarian if you don't criticize someone like Chris Kyle.

I think maybe you're reaching just a bit. You can fail to criticize Kyle without glorifying him; you can simply and charitably not mention him at all. Furthermore, you can be supportive of service people without glorifying the miliary. And arguably, if you're a non-interventionalist, you should.

I think we're all splitting hairs in order to attack one another. Maybe it's a good thing. Language is important. Our enemies are very careful how they use language to reinforce their positions, and we should be too. But let's keep the vitriol level down. This is no reason to 'eat our own', and a poor excuse for derailing this thread.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 03:02 PM
Like I said, do you have a link or a youtube video where Beck said that we should use our troops to invade other countries?

I'm sure if you look back to 03 he was all in favor of the iraq war. And he was never critical of Kyle being in iraq and ruthlessly using his sniper weapon against women and children so you can infer from that he continues to support the foreign occupation of Iraq otherwise he would have said that he had no business being there in the first place and that he actually wasn't a hero.

acptulsa
03-03-2013, 03:05 PM
Like I said, do you have a link or a youtube video where Beck said that we should use our troops to invade other countries?

Does shameless fearmongering count?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2RTmmM0w3g

Brett85
03-03-2013, 03:08 PM
I'm sure if you look back to 03 he was all in favor of the iraq war. And he was never critical of Kyle being in iraq and ruthlessly using his sniper weapon against women and children so you can infer from that he continues to support the foreign occupation of Iraq otherwise he would have said that he had no business being there in the first place and that he actually wasn't a hero.

I was talking about a more recent interview. And I've seen interviews with Chris Kyle where he said that he disobeyed orders to kill children whenever that order was given to him. There's no evidence at all that Chris Kyle purposely killed innocent women and children with what he did. This is just where I disagree with others here. I'm as much against the Iraq War as anyone here, but I'm not going to say that the members of our military are a bunch of brutal murderers just because they fought in a war I consider to be unnecessary.

TheGrinch
03-03-2013, 03:13 PM
Meh, there are many other reasons to hate Beck besides being cordial to those who risk or gave their lives.

His Beck-stabbing and inability to acknowledge the huge consequences of prohibition are plenty enough to not take seriously his re-re-re-rebirth as a champion of liberty.

BuddyRey
03-03-2013, 03:15 PM
So you can't be a libertarian if you don't hate the military?

Not worshiping something doesn't mean you hate it. George Washington didn't hate government (at least...not as much as I do), but he did say that it's like fire, a fearsome servant and a vengeful master.

In the case of the military (as with any apparatus of state power), we should be eternally vigilant about it, almost to the point of distrust. But that doesn't mean we hate soldiers or see no need for collective defense.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 03:16 PM
I was talking about a more recent interview. And I've seen interviews with Chris Kyle where he said that he disobeyed orders to kill children whenever that order was given to him. There's no evidence at all that Chris Kyle purposely killed innocent women and children with what he did. This is just where I disagree with others here. I'm as much against the Iraq War as anyone here, but I'm not going to say that the members of our military are a bunch of brutal murderers just because they fought in a war I consider to be unnecessary.

But they are murderers. They entered a country and killed people. They also tortured and raped which is on record. That's pretty standard stuff for an invading and occupying army, they all do it but the U.S military is very skilled at it and has more advanced weaponry.

A Son of Liberty
03-03-2013, 03:19 PM
There's no evidence at all that Chris Kyle purposely killed innocent women and children with what he did.

Since it was an unnecessary and unjust war, they were ALL innocent, effectively.

Also, the EPJ article is spot on. I was just getting ready to post it when I found this thread!

TheGrinch
03-03-2013, 03:20 PM
But they are murderers. They entered a country and killed people. They also tortured and raped which is on record. That's pretty standard stuff for an invading and occupying army, they all do it but the U.S military is very skilled at it and has more advanced weaponry.

Blame the ones who send them to war for their own interests, not the misguided who think they're fighting for their country, which is the vast majority of soldiers. It is misplaced to blame those following orders and risking their lives.

Moreover, please just stop before you derail another legitimate discussion. It's getting old.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 03:23 PM
I don't want to upset you TC but here's some images from the Iraq occupation of Abu Grahib prison:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/05/10/iraq15.jpg

There's US army soldiers frightening a naked prisoner to death with vicious dogs.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/05/07/6.jpg

There's a soldier dragging a prisoner around on the floor with a leash.


And that's a very tame sample of what went on in Iraq.

acptulsa
03-03-2013, 03:25 PM
But they are murderers. They entered a country and killed people.

Back in 1980, Jimmy Carter sent a small force into Iran to rescue the Americans held hostage there. The mission was an utter failure. But suppose it hadn't been, the hostages were rescued, and a few of their captors had gotten killed in the process.

Would that have been murder?

I agree that we have been, and are, in the wrong as a nation. But I don't see that as cause to oversimplify the world.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 03:26 PM
Blame the ones who send them to war for their own interests, not the misguided who think they're fighting for their country, which is the vast majority of soldiers. It is misplaced to blame those following orders and risking their lives.

Moreover, please just stop before you derail another legitimate discussion. It's getting old.

"Just following orders" is no excuse under international law. The soldiers are just as culpable. This is a well established principle under international law i.e see the Nazi War Crimes tribunal

Brett85
03-03-2013, 03:26 PM
Since it was an unnecessary and unjust war, they were ALL innocent, effectively.

Also, the EPJ article is spot on. I was just getting ready to post it when I found this thread!

So all of the Iraqi men who blew themsleves up in crowded malls and killed hundreds of people at a time were all "innocent?" The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were the result of suicide bombers, not people killed by our military. This is just where you guys go off the rails from my perspective.

green73
03-03-2013, 03:28 PM
I think Wenzel should shut down his website first.

Awww, w/b to the forums! I see you started this account back in September. How many others do you have to rep yourself?

A Son of Liberty
03-03-2013, 03:29 PM
So all of the Iraqi men who blew themsleves up in crowded malls and killed hundreds of people at a time were all "innocent." The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were the result of suicide bombers, not people killed by our military. This is just where you guys go off the rails from my perspective.

The US government is responsible for overthrowing and destabilizing another country. I don't give a damn how much of a scumbag Saddam Hussein was, he posed NO threat to the safety of the American people.

Those suicide bombers wouldn't have been suicide bombers if it were not for the invasion of Iraq.

That isn't "off the rails". That's pretty basic logic.

TheGrinch
03-03-2013, 03:30 PM
I don't want to upset you TC but here's some images from the Iraq occupation of Abu Grahib prison:



Bullshit, you seem to get off on upsetting people.

How do you feel when the media uses these same kind of smears to paint with a broad brush against us?

A few bad apples does not mean that everyone in the military is jsut out to murder people, and frankly, you have no idea what messed up things that getting shot at and seeing your fellow soldiers decapitated by an IED would cause you to do, so you have no room to judge.

So stop acting like the pawns are the problem, when those playing chess are.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 03:36 PM
Bullshit, you seem to get off on upsetting people.

How do you feel when the media uses these same kind of smears to paint with a broad brush against us?

A few bad apples does not mean that everyone in the military is jsut out to murder people, and frankly, you have no idea what messed up things that getting shot at and seeing your fellow soldiers decapitated by an IED would cause you to do, so you have no room to judge.

So stop acting like the pawns are the problem, when those playing chess are.

The original point was that Beck - like his fellow talkshow hosts - engages in copious amounts of military hero worship in a general sense when it is completely unwarranted considering the large amount of reported misbehaviour and is only employed because he must either believe in military adventurism or the notion that the military is a force for good while most people who actually believe in freedom and liberty don't even think we should have a standing army (some of the founders believed that for instance)

Brett85
03-03-2013, 03:38 PM
The US government is responsible for overthrowing and destabilizing another country. I don't give a damn how much of a scumbag Saddam Hussein was, he posed NO threat to the safety of the American people.

Those suicide bombers wouldn't have been suicide bombers if it were not for the invasion of Iraq.

That isn't "off the rails". That's pretty basic logic.

I always get to arguing with people here on these issues, even though we're in agreement on the actual issue, which is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and we shouldn't ever start wars against other countries. It's just that I'm not going to use a bunch of left wing, anti American rhetoric to describe my opposition to preemptive war and intervention overseas.

A Son of Liberty
03-03-2013, 03:42 PM
I always get to arguing with people here on these issues, even though we're in agreement on the actual issue, which is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and we shouldn't ever start wars against other countries. It's just that I'm not going to use a bunch of left wing, anti American rhetoric to describe my opposition to preemptive war and intervention overseas.

I'm glad we agree on that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "left wing, anti American rhetoric". I started by pointing out that, since the invasion was unjust, the victims of the war were essentially innocent, and the I defended that position.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 03:47 PM
I'm glad we agree on that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "left wing, anti American rhetoric". I started by pointing out that, since the invasion was unjust, the victims of the war were essentially innocent, and the I defended that position.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. But, I'm just going to disagree with those who don't see any difference between the members of our military who serve in these wars and the members of Congress who vote to use them for the purpose of preemptive war. I'm still going to maintain that it's possible to support the troops and oppose the mission. But, if people here want to continue to make libertarianism as unpopular as possible, then keep attacking the members of our military.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 03:51 PM
The point is that there are a lot better issues to use to show that Beck isn't really a staunch libertarian, such as his support for the war on drugs. You can be a libertarian and think that Chris Kyle isn't a murderer.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 03:52 PM
I don't want to upset you TC but here's some images from the Iraq occupation of Abu Grahib prison:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/05/10/iraq15.jpg

There's US army soldiers frightening a naked prisoner to death with vicious dogs.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/05/07/6.jpg

There's a soldier dragging a prisoner around on the floor with a leash.


And that's a very tame sample of what went on in Iraq.

Heroes.

A Son of Liberty
03-03-2013, 03:54 PM
You can be a libertarian and think that Chris Kyle isn't a murderer.

Maybe; but you can't be one and venerate him in the ways Beck has.

We all discussed this issue plenty enough when Kyle was killed. I don't think there's any need to get back into it again.

cajuncocoa
03-03-2013, 04:38 PM
The point is that there are a lot better issues to use to show that Beck isn't really a staunch libertarian, such as his support for the war on drugs. You can be a libertarian and think that Chris Kyle isn't a murderer.
Can you not see that there is a vast difference between calling Kyle a murderer and calling him a hero? Between hating the military and glorifying them?

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-03-2013, 04:40 PM
The point is that there are a lot better issues to use to show that Beck isn't really a staunch libertarian, such as his support for the war on drugs. You can be a libertarian and think that Chris Kyle isn't a murderer.

Isn't Beck in favor of legalizing marijuana?

Brett85
03-03-2013, 04:50 PM
Can you not see that there is a vast difference between calling Kyle a murderer and calling him a hero? Between hating the military and glorifying them?

Sure, but I don't see why Beck calling Kyle a hero would disqualify him from being a libertarian.

moostraks
03-03-2013, 04:51 PM
I wasn't specifically referring to you. But, I'm just going to disagree with those who don't see any difference between the members of our military who serve in these wars and the members of Congress who vote to use them for the purpose of preemptive war. I'm still going to maintain that it's possible to support the troops and oppose the mission. But, if people here want to continue to make libertarianism as unpopular as possible, then keep attacking the members of our military.

Since the military members are adults AND they have chosen to go follow orders in a situation wherein we are fighting preemptive wars (and this ain't some new situation that just popped up here). The adults who have chosen the career path have to own up to the choices they have made. They are culpable just as the management is culpable.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 04:54 PM
Since the military members are adults AND they have chosen to go follow orders in a situation wherein we are fighting preemptive wars (and this ain't some new situation that just popped up here). The adults who have chosen the career path have to own up to the choices they have made. They are culpable just as the management is culpable.

How do you not understand how unpopular you're going to make libertarianism if you don't differentiate at all between our troops and the members of Congress who vote in favor of these missions?

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 04:57 PM
Since the military members are adults AND they have chosen to go follow orders in a situation wherein we are fighting preemptive wars (and this ain't some new situation that just popped up here). The adults who have chosen the career path have to own up to the choices they have made. They are culpable just as the management is culpable.

So is every taxpaying citizen. All are culpable. I quit supporting the machine. THAT's Libertarian. Not Glenn Beck.

green73
03-03-2013, 05:02 PM
How do you not understand how unpopular you're going to make libertarianism if you don't differentiate at all between our troops and the members of Congress who vote in favor of these missions?

LOL

itshappening
03-03-2013, 05:44 PM
So is every taxpaying citizen. All are culpable. I quit supporting the machine. THAT's Libertarian. Not Glenn Beck.

You get paid under the table?

cajuncocoa
03-03-2013, 05:45 PM
Sure, but I don't see why Beck calling Kyle a hero would disqualify him from being a libertarian.
I suppose it wouldn't disqualify him...I'd like to hear his reasons for calling Kyle a hero before I could judge.

I personally don't consider Kyle a hero. Kyle loved war and killing a little too much (and in his own words from his book).

AuH20
03-03-2013, 06:22 PM
Robert Wentzel has become quite the authoritarian of late, brutalizing Rand Paul for merely disagreeing him and now telling Glenn Beck that he shouldn't have a show.

Thor
03-03-2013, 06:40 PM
+rep to Robert Wenzel.

On spot, on all of it.

Thor
03-03-2013, 06:42 PM
I don't want to upset you TC but here's some images from the Iraq occupation of Abu Grahib prison:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/05/10/iraq15.jpg

There's US army soldiers frightening a naked prisoner to death with vicious dogs.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/05/07/6.jpg

There's a soldier dragging a prisoner around on the floor with a leash.


And that's a very tame sample of what went on in Iraq.

But they hate us because we are free.....

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 06:43 PM
You get paid under the table?

I work for what I consider fair compensation of labor and materials. It's a trade. I have many "trade" skills. ;)

Galileo Galilei
03-03-2013, 06:44 PM
EPJ is so bad nobody goes there, otherwise I'd wish they were shut down. They make Beck look like a Libertarian.

itshappening
03-03-2013, 06:46 PM
I work for what I consider fair compensation of labor and materials. It's a trade.

Sounds like a great idea :)

JK/SEA
03-03-2013, 06:49 PM
i'd like to back up a bit. Has it been positivley established that those suicide bombers did so voluntarily?.....just askin'...because i gots me some doubts.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 06:53 PM
Sounds like a great idea :)

Unless you make over $600 for any customer they can't file a 1099. If you don't give them paperwork then they can't do that. If you are unlicensed, and thus not reporting because once you license you give consent to the state, then you kinda have to pick and choose jobs. If licensing is required I do this....I usually get a homeowner to get a permit. In my area homeowners can draw a permit without having to have licensed trade smith signing off. I do the work to code. The inspection is signed off with the homeowner claiming credit. The homeowner compensates me. I do my work at about 40% of a licensed contractor.

jcannon98188
03-03-2013, 06:58 PM
Bullshit, you seem to get off on upsetting people.

How do you feel when the media uses these same kind of smears to paint with a broad brush against us?

A few bad apples does not mean that everyone in the military is jsut out to murder people, and frankly, you have no idea what messed up things that getting shot at and seeing your fellow soldiers decapitated by an IED would cause you to do, so you have no room to judge.

So stop acting like the pawns are the problem, when those playing chess are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

None of them would see their buddies get blown up or shot at if they weren't over there blowing up and shooting at other people. It works both ways buddy. Pawns are the problem, when they carry out the order. Just following orders is NOT an excuse! That was determined during the Nazi War Crimes, unless you think the SS and the Nazi's should have been let free? I mean, they were just the pawns in the game of chess.

green73
03-03-2013, 07:02 PM
EPJ is so bad nobody goes there, otherwise I'd wish they were shut down. They make Beck look like a Libertarian.

http://i.imgur.com/U035YlB.png

sailingaway
03-03-2013, 07:20 PM
How do you not understand how unpopular you're going to make libertarianism if you don't differentiate at all between our troops and the members of Congress who vote in favor of these missions?

How do you not understand that it is not 'groups' but Beck himself as an individual most of us are speaking about here? Many are at different places on their learning curve, or simply disagree with us on some issues, but are honest about their beliefs so we can work with them where we DO agree, not expecting more than that. And then there are those who suck people in pretending to be what they are not, and then stick knives into your backs at key moments.

Don't generalize the revulsion against Beck to revulsion, necessarily, against 'groups' or others.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 07:40 PM
How do you not understand that it is not 'groups' but Beck himself as an individual most of us are speaking about here? Many are at different places on their learning curve, or simply disagree with us on some issues, but are honest about their beliefs so we can work with them where we DO agree, not expecting more than that. And then there are those who suck people in pretending to be what they are not, and then stick knives into your backs at key moments.

Don't generalize the revulsion against Beck to revulsion, necessarily, against 'groups' or others.

I didn't even say anything positive about Glenn Beck. I just said that saying positive things about our troops shouldn't disqualify someone from being a libertarian. There are plenty of other issues to criticize Beck on from a liberty perspective.

Stallheim
03-03-2013, 07:45 PM
Yes, you can be a non interventionist and still support our troops. I support our troops but disagree with how politicians in Washington DC use them. I think they should be used for a more defensive purpose.

Ah, but you didn't say support our troops, you said a hero. Heroism is a rare and special thing, it should not be degraded by frivolous over use.

Feeding the Abscess
03-03-2013, 07:50 PM
I support bringing our troops home and having them defend the borders and coastlines, have them train on military bases here in the U.S and prepare for war in the event that our country gets attacked, etc. That was always Ron Paul's view as well. He never advocated abolishing the army. I haven't heard Beck argue in favor of using our military to invade additional countries. Do you have a youtube video or some other link where he said that?

Ron has actually implicitly spoken against a standing army multiple times, most recently at the Mises speech. He also spoke against it to a Christian group during the presidential primary when discussing 1 Samuel 8.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 07:58 PM
I just said that saying positive things about our troops shouldn't disqualify someone from being a libertarian.

"l"ibertarian =/= "L"ibertarian as everyone that is in the GOP is SO fond of pointing out.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 08:10 PM
Ron has actually implicitly spoken against a standing army multiple times, most recently at the Mises speech. He also spoke against it to a Christian group during the presidential primary when discussing 1 Samuel 8.

Do you have a link for that?

moostraks
03-03-2013, 08:26 PM
How do you not understand how unpopular you're going to make libertarianism if you don't differentiate at all between our troops and the members of Congress who vote in favor of these missions?

If you just want to be popular I think they have proven the key is through giving goodies and b.s. I disagree with your opinion and I think both parties are accountable. Should I just b.s so folks don't get their feelings hurt? Should I do the same for the TSA and Social Services? How about the IRS? Where are we allowed to draw the line without being accused of destroying the "movement" and yet still retain the principles we seek to exemplify?

Brett85
03-03-2013, 08:33 PM
If you just want to be popular I think they have proven the key is through giving goodies and b.s. I disagree with your opinion and I think both parties are accountable. Should I just b.s so folks don't get their feelings hurt? Should I do the same for the TSA and Social Services? How about the IRS? Where are we allowed to draw the line without being accused of destroying the "movement" and yet still retain the principles we seek to exemplify?

So you can't support a non interventionist foreign policy and support bringing our troops home from around the world without denigrating our military? In your opinion being critical of our troops is essential to being a non interventionist?

green73
03-03-2013, 08:41 PM
Do you have a link for that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEFNJ7erIiA

Brett85
03-03-2013, 08:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEFNJ7erIiA

What is the exact time in the video that he talks about abolishing the army?

green73
03-03-2013, 09:13 PM
What is the exact time in the video that he talks about abolishing the army?

You want me to go through it and find it? You want me to shine your shoes next?

FTA said that RP has spoken against having a standing army. Here's an excerpt from one of his articles


It's interesting to note that our Founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military.

Consider the words of James Madison, often considered the father of the Constitution:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home…"

Madison continues:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

In other words, Madison understood that large military forces can become the tools of tyrants, and can bankrupt the nations that support them.

http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 09:19 PM
So you can't support a non interventionist foreign policy and support bringing our troops home from around the world without denigrating our military? In your opinion being critical of our troops is essential to being a non interventionist?

As a "traditionalist conservative" you do realize that there is not supposed to be a standing army. No? Or are your a "Traditional Conservative" which believes that all Those in military ( not Mavy, standing Army) uniform, against Constitutional principles, are heroes? Or will you fudge to the small "l" libertarian principle of saying " We'll the Congress keeps reauthorizing them".

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 09:20 PM
So you can't support a non interventionist foreign policy and support bringing our troops home from around the world without denigrating our military? In your opinion being critical of our troops is essential to being a non interventionist?

As a "traditionalist conservative" you do realize that there is not supposed to be a standing army. No? Or are your a "Traditional Conservative" which believes that all Those in military ( not Navy, standing Army) uniform, against Constitutional principles, are heroes? Or will you fudge to the small "l" libertarian principle of saying " We'll the Congress keeps reauthorizing them".

Brett85
03-03-2013, 09:21 PM
He never said that the standing army should be abolished in that article. You can point out that many of our founders opposed a standing army without believing that the army should be abolished today. He never advocated that. I think he was basically pointing out that our founders would've gone even farther than he would, since they didn't think we should have a standing army at all, rather than simply opposing the use of our army to police the world as Ron Paul does.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 09:23 PM
As a "traditionalist conservative" you do realize that there is not supposed to be a standing army. No? Or are your a "Traditional Conservative" which believes that all Those in military ( not Navy, standing Army) uniform, against Constitutional principles, are heroes? Or will you fudge to the small "l" libertarian principle of saying " We'll the Congress keeps reauthorizing them".

So conservatives are supposed to be in favor of abolishing the army and be opposed to defending our country? Even most libertarians are opposed to that idea, except for the anarchist variety. I believe in a non interventionist foreign policy, but not gutting our defenses and having anarchy. The Constitution says that the army can't be funded for a period of longer than two years. It doesn't say that the army has to be disbanded after two years.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 09:32 PM
If you can't be a libertarian if you don't support abolishing the standing army, that's a pretty ridiculous standard. I guess everyone who believes in having some government should quit calling themselves a libertarian, including the Cato Institute, Reason, Justin Amash, Massie, and practically everyone else who calls themselves a libertarian.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 09:37 PM
So conservatives are supposed to be in favor of abolishing the army and be opposed to defending our country? Even most libertarians are opposed to that idea, except for the anarchist variety. I believe in a non interventionist foreign policy, but not gutting our defenses and having anarchy. The Constitution says that the army can't be funded for a period of longer than two years. It doesn't say that the army has to be disbanded after two years.

Your lack of understanding of our heritage, the influence of the Anti-Federalists at its inception, and your personal beliefs are inherent in your comment. You continue to miss my point between the upper and lower case "L''s with regard to libertarians and you are a statist. As you so continually define yourself.

As a "L"ibertarian "C"onservatie I say we could do well by eliminating the "standing Army" that so many founders and anti-federalists warned and crafted the Constitution to reflect. A Standing Army is meant for ONE purpose. OCCUPATION. That was not what we were founded on.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 09:42 PM
Your lack of understanding of our heritage, the influence of the Anti-Federalists at its inception, and your personal beliefs are inherent in your comment. You continue to miss my point between the upper and lower case "L''s with regard to libertarians and you are a statist. As you so continually define yourself.

As a "L"ibertarian "C"onservatie I say we could do well by eliminating the "standing Army" that so many founders and anti-federalists warned and crafted the Constitution to reflect. A Standing Army is meant for ONE purpose. OCCUPATION. That was not what we were founded on.

Yes, I am a statist since I don't support abolishing the state. That's technically what it means to be a statist. I think that we need to have a limited government to defend the liberty of the American people. I'll continue to oppose unnecessary wars overseas, but I'll never support disarmament or gutting the military. I don't believe that anarchy is a viable political philosophy.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 09:50 PM
Yes, I am a statist since I don't support abolishing the state. That's technically what it means to be a statist. I think that we need to have a limited government to defend the liberty of the American people. I'll continue to oppose unnecessary wars overseas, but I'll never support disarmament or gutting the military. I don't believe that anarchy is a viable political philosophy.

Then you're my enemy. You believe in corporate wars payed for on the back of American citizens. Anarchy is not the course I advocate either though you like to sling that term about. It's not like you are someone new to these forums. You know damn well what I am talking about. You're a staist in that you believe in the state having more powers than it's citizens. For that is the measure of your support for the government.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 09:53 PM
You believe in corporate wars payed for on the back of American citizens.

What utter B.S. I take the position that Pat Buchanan and other paleo conservatives take, which is that we should bring our army home from overseas and use them to defend our borders and use them for legitimate national defense.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:01 PM
It seems as though Beck would be better off staying away from the libertarian label if you have to support gutting the military and denigrating those who have served in order to give yourself that label.

green73
03-03-2013, 10:10 PM
This comment from Don Cooper has always stuck with me.


I too am a vet and couldn't agree with you more. I was in Panama in the late eighties when the U.S. invaded. The military is a corrupt, immoral, abusive, inefficient sub-culture that, as you pointed out, doesn't fight for the country but rather for it's own survival.

I always laughed at how the military advertises that it wants only the best and the brightest recruits but then the first thing they do to you in basic training is try and break you down and reshape you into a mindless obeyer. Why do they need the best and the brightest for that? If they're going to reshape who you are then it doesn't matter if you're the best and the brightest or the worst and the dumbest.

And it's true. I served with guys who could barely read or write. Guys with criminal records at 20 years old. I mean just the biggest collection of misfits I had ever seen. And immoral? You have no idea. Anything and everything went: drugs, stealing, sex, lying, scapegoating. Hell, half the base got busted for drugs down there.

The military is a hiding place for the country's degenerate class. Until they can get out and become cops.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 10:10 PM
What utter B.S. I take the position that Pat Buchanan and other paleo conservatives take, which is that we should bring our army home from overseas and use them to defend our borders and use them for legitimate national defense.

Bring them home and defend the borders? Aren't you just a huckleberry? All of them? You would agree to bring every U.S. military home to sit on our border? Is that what you are saying? And while they are on the border let me ask you this. Can they enjoy the governmental prerogative of the DHS of a 100 mile "Fourth Amendment Free" zone?
Fuck Buchanen. If this is truly his belief.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:14 PM
Bring them home and defend the borders? Aren't you just a huckleberry? All of them? You would agree to bring every U.S. military home to sit on our border? Is that what you are saying? And while they are on the border let me ask you this. Can they enjoy the governmental prerogative of the DHS of a 100 mile "Fourth Amendment Free" zone?
Fuck Buchanen. If this is truly his belief.

I wouldn't put them all along the border. We already have some members of our army who train on military bases here in the U.S, and I would have more of them train on military bases here in the U.S if we brought them home. During the debates, Ron Paul always talked about "bringing our troops home and having them spend their money here in the U.S." His position is the exact same as mine. He's never advocated abolishing the army.

green73
03-03-2013, 10:22 PM
I wouldn't put them all along the border. We already have some members of our army who train on military bases here in the U.S, and I would have more of them train on military bases here in the U.S if we brought them home. During the debates, Ron Paul always talked about "bringing our troops home and having them spend their money here in the U.S." His position is the exact same as mine. He's never advocated abolishing the army.

He would massively cut the number of troops. Surely you're not opposed to that?

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:23 PM
He would massively cut the number of troops. Surely you're not opposed to that?

I've never heard him say anything like that either. I've heard him say that we should end the wars and have a strong national defense, which is my position.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 10:24 PM
I wouldn't put them all along the border. We already have some members of our army who train on military bases here in the U.S, and I would have more of them train on military bases here in the U.S if we brought them home. During the debates, Ron Paul always talked about "bringing our troops home and having them spend their money here in the U.S." His position is the exact same as mine. He's never advocated abolishing the army.

Bringing them home and having them train in U.S. cities? Brilliant! We could just magnify the current training one hundred fold. Nothing wrong with that, no? I think we could bring them home and then let them go. Fire them. That's what the sequestration argument is about isn't it. And everyone on these forums as long as you SHOULD recognise that sequestration is but a drop in the bucket in the right direction. No?

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:26 PM
Bringing them home and having them train in U.S. cities? Brilliant! We could just magnify the current training one hundred fold. Nothing wrong with that, no? I think we could bring them home and then let them go. Fire them. That's what the sequestration argument is about isn't it. And everyone on these forums as long as you SHOULD recognise that sequestration is but a drop in the bucket in the right direction. No?

The sequestration is just a reduction in the growth of future spending. It really shouldn't cause any reduction in the size of the military if it's done correctly. I support the sequestration as it's just a drop in the bucket. And the military bases that we have aren't in the middle of U.S cities. I'm not advocating having troops walk up and down our streets.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 10:27 PM
Two shots over the bow tonight in one thread.. I'm honored....


Thread: EPJ: Why Glenn Beck Should Shut Down His Television Show
BS. You are an asshole who lied about my position. I oppose the wars overseas.
03-03-2013 10:59 PM
Traditional Conservative

Thread: EPJ: Why Glenn Beck Should Shut Down His Television Show
For lying about my position.

I eat your neg reps like bacon.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Two shots over the bow tonight in one thread.. I'm honored....



I eat your neg reps like bacon.

I would certainly say that anyone who curses someone out is an asshole.

Thread:EPJ: Why Glenn Beck Should Shut Down His Television Show

"Fuck you. I am spot on your position." 03-03-2013 10:01 PM phill4paul

green73
03-03-2013, 10:32 PM
I've never heard him say anything like that either. I've heard him say that we should end the wars and have a strong national defense, which is my position.

So you are not in favor of cutting the number of troops. That's like 2 or 3 million you want at home. No? I'm sure Robert Taft would be agreeing wholeheatedly with you.

RP in '07:


What you want to do is not have so many troops -- the founders indicated that we don't need a standing army, and to an extent that is true. What we need is a strong defense, but right now there is zero chance of an invasion by another country and right now we have more firepower than all other countries put together. Once you change the policy you don't need these numbers of troops. We need a smaller and elite military, as Rumsfeld said -- and also a smaller and elite foreign policy. If you bring troops home from Korea we don't need them marching around here -- you can save that money and have a much smaller military.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/01/DI2007100101451.html

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:34 PM
So you are not in favor of cutting the number of troops. That's like 2 or 3 million you want at home. No? I'm sure Robert Taft would be agreeing wholeheatedly with you.

RP in '07:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/01/DI2007100101451.html

I guess I would have to see how much smaller he wants it to be. I'm not saying that we couldn't have any reduction in the size of the army if we brought them all home, but I wouldn't be in favor of gutting the army, and certainly not abolishing the army.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 10:34 PM
The sequestration is just a reduction in the growth of future spending. It really shouldn't cause any reduction in the size of the military if it's done correctly. I support the sequestration as it's just a drop in the bucket. And the military bases that we have aren't in the middle of U.S cities. I'm not advocating having troops walk up and down our streets.

The sequestration could be fully absorbed by the military without a hit to our defense. Every single base has had a city grow up around it. That is what spending taxpayer dollars generates. It doesn't matter if the base is a "secure" facility in the middle of the desert. The market decides and places cities around bases. Somehow, dispite your objections you would be fine with "troops walk up and down our streets" if there were anarchists in the streets. Or illegals in the streets. Or jay walkers in the streets....

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:36 PM
The sequestration could be fully absorbed by the military without a hit to our defense. Every single base has had a city grow up around it. That is what spending taxpayer dollars generates. It doesn't matter if the base is a "secure" facility in the middle of the desert. The market decides and places cities around bases. Somehow, dispite your objections you would be fine with "troops walk up and down our streets" if there were anarchists in the streets. Or illegals in the streets. Or jay walkers in the streets....

Why should we close down military bases here at home when we have 900 military bases overseas? The overseas military bases are the ones that we need to focus on shutting down.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 10:48 PM
I would certainly say that anyone who curses someone out is an asshole.

Thread:EPJ: Why Glenn Beck Should Shut Down His Television Show

"Fuck you. I am spot on your position." 03-03-2013 10:01 PM phill4paul

Yeah, you neg repped me calling me a liar. I did not lie. I stated what I felt your position was and you have borne that position out. My position was taken into a private forum and you are the one bringing it to light.

So yeah, since it is public, fuck you.

And if I get banned there is a big problem because I'm not the one that brought it to light.


ASIDE from all ^^^THAT... you are wrong.

And you may be more than likely Liberty Eagle. Or not and just one of her supporters.\. It gets so confusing these days on these forums.

You've yet to convince me on your view that we need to maintain a standing Army. Focus.

Brett85
03-03-2013, 10:55 PM
Yeah, you neg repped me calling me a liar. I did not lie. I stated what I felt your position was and you have borne that position out.

No I haven't. You said my position is that I support the wars overseas. I've never once said that, and have repeatedly said on these forums that I support ending the wars and bringing all of our troops home from overseas. So yes, you lied about my position by claiming that I supported using our army for the wars overseas, and I called you on that.

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 11:08 PM
No I haven't. You said my position is that I support the wars overseas. I've never once said that, and have repeatedly said on these forums that I support ending the wars and bringing all of our troops home from overseas. So yes, you lied about my position by claiming that I supported using our army for the wars overseas, and I called you on that.

If you support a standing Army then you support wars overseas......

You've been on these forums long enough. You SHOULD know better. Either you are a dullard or you intentionally choose to remain willfully ignorant.....



“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier

NIU Students for Liberty
03-03-2013, 11:17 PM
I support ending the wars and bringing all of our troops home from overseas.

To do what? What are they going to do here that won't be paid for as a result of theft (taxation)?

AuH20
03-03-2013, 11:24 PM
I guess I would have to see how much smaller he wants it to be. I'm not saying that we couldn't have any reduction in the size of the army if we brought them all home, but I wouldn't be in favor of gutting the army, and certainly not abolishing the army.

What about bringing down DoD funding to 2001 levels?? Basically cutting department allocation in half?

phill4paul
03-03-2013, 11:28 PM
Why should we close down military bases here at home when we have 900 military bases overseas? The overseas military bases are the ones that we need to focus on shutting down.

Kinda sucks leaving vacuums in government funded communities? There has been whole towns that died. Kinda reminded me of old gold prospecting towns. Once the gold ran out people moved on or adapted. Fed notes aren't even gold. Time to adapt or move on.

acptulsa
03-03-2013, 11:31 PM
What about bringing down DoD funding to 2001 levels?? Basically cutting department allocation in half?

Sounds like peace to me.

Remember that 9/11 didn't happen because of a lack of funding for our own security. The government knew it was coming. The government had plenty of warning. The government could have shot down the airplane that was headed for the Pentagon. The government simply chose not to respond. This is fact on the record. Regardless of who really perpetrated the crimes of that day, there can be no debate that the government had everything it needed to prevent it all, and simply did not do so.

Peace is cheaper than war. There's a reason people used to talk about peace and prosperity--the two go hand in hand. We don't need double the defense spending of 2001 when we're not expending dozens of missiles a day. We're in the fix we're in because we can't afford two decade-long perpetual wars. What nation can? What nation ever could?

And after seeing all the talk in this thread about bringing servicepeople home from overseas, I feel compelled to point something out. This nation has a full-fledged state and more than half a dozen territories 'overseas'. If we bring all of our military 'home from overseas' then they aren't protecting all of this nation. This nation extends from the Carribbean to the China Sea. It is much, much more than the 'lower 48'.

I would suggest we all remember that, because if we don't we look like flipping idiots.

Feeding the Abscess
03-04-2013, 12:03 AM
What about bringing down DoD funding to 2001 levels?? Basically cutting department allocation in half?

If you throw all national security spending into that budget, http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/03/01/the-real-us-national-security-budget/ , sure.

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 04:56 AM
Robert Wentzel has become quite the authoritarian of late, brutalizing Rand Paul for merely disagreeing him and now telling Glenn Beck that he shouldn't have a show.

Authoritarian? Disagreeing with someone, and expressing an opinion about the quality of someone else's work is 'authoritarian', to you?

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 05:05 AM
Why should we close down military bases here at home when we have 900 military bases overseas? The overseas military bases are the ones that we need to focus on shutting down.

A standing army and a nearly trillion dollar "defense" budget is like candy to a baby in the hands of a politician. If you bring them home without drastically reducing their numbers and funding, all you are going to have is politicians looking for reasons to use them here. Hell, they already ARE looking for reasons to use them here.

What is it that we should be so afraid of that we should advocate a military the size of the one we have right now? We are surrounded by friendly neighbors, and two vast oceans. NO ONE is coming here without us knowing about it long in advance. Hell NO ONE on the planet is even CAPABLE of invading this country at this point in time.

We do not NEED a military anywhere NEAR the size of the one we have right now. There's really no logical argument for it that doesn't include foreign interventionism. It is a drain on our resources, and a curse for our liberties.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 07:17 AM
What about bringing down DoD funding to 2001 levels?? Basically cutting department allocation in half?

I think we could save a lot of money in the Defense Department by ending the wars and bringing our army home from around the world. That's what I support.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 07:20 AM
To do what? What are they going to do here that won't be paid for as a result of theft (taxation)?

We have to have an army here at home to train and prepare for war in the event that we were attacked. If our country was attacked, it wouldn't make sense to spend the next six months training an army before we could respond to the attack. We would need to have an army trained and ready to respond to the attack immediately.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 07:21 AM
I support bringing our troops home and having them defend the borders and coastlines, have them train on military bases here in the U.S and prepare for war in the event that our country gets attacked, etc. That was always Ron Paul's view as well. He never advocated abolishing the army. I haven't heard Beck argue in favor of using our military to invade additional countries. Do you have a youtube video or some other link where he said that?

Ron Paul supports private defense. From Liberty Defined:

Ron Paul on security:

We might reflect on how we achieve security in our everyday lives. We have locks on our doors, provided by private manufacturers. We use privately provided alarm systems. We depend on the idea that others are going to drive safely, and the incentive to do so comes from a private system of insurance. Some people own and carry guns for security. Their efforts help everyone by deterring criminality. Commercial establishments such as banks and jewelry stores hire private security guards. Malls and subdivisions have their own security apparatus.

Ron Paul on private defense:

If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.


The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.

That's pretty damning of state-sponsored "security" rackets, which is really just a socialist protection racket anyway. How can you claim to protect the same "customers" your salary is extracted from under threat of force?

That might not be the words "I want to abolish the army" but it's about as far as you can get from being supportive of any government "defense" organizations in any context without hitting people over the head with it.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 07:23 AM
Ron Paul supports private defense. From Liberty Defined:

Ron Paul on security:


Ron Paul on private defense:




That's pretty damning of state-sponsored "security" rackets, which is really just a socialist protection racket anyway. How can you claim to protect the same "customers" your salary is extracted from under threat of force?

That might not be the exact words "I want to abolish the army" but it's about as far as you can get from being supportive of government "defense" rackets.

So Ron is now on board with Murray Rothbard's anarcho capitalism? When he was a member of Congress he always said that he was in favor of having a defense department and a military.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 07:26 AM
So Ron is now on board with Murray Rothbard's anarcho capitalism? When he was a member of Congress he always said that he was in favor of having a defense department and a military.

Maybe you should actually read what Ron writes instead of listening to what you want to hear out of him and not taking it any further (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405306-Ann-Coulter-on-Stossel-battles-room-full-of-libertarian-students-(updated-w-full-show-vid)&p=4890056#post4890056).

Brett85
03-04-2013, 07:35 AM
Maybe you should actually read what Ron writes instead of listening to what you want to hear out of him and not taking it any further.

Well, if he's saying that all security should be private and that the federal government doesn't have a responsibility to provide for the common defense, that's a pretty ridiculous position. I hope he's not saying that. The correct position is to oppose intervention overseas and have a strong military and a strong defense here at home as a deterrent against other countries that wish to attack us. The best way to avoid war is to have a strong military.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 07:41 AM
Well, if he's saying that all security should be private and that the federal government doesn't have a responsibility to provide for the common defense, that's a pretty ridiculous position. I hope he's not saying that. The correct position is to oppose intervention overseas and have a strong military and a strong defense here at home as a deterrent against other countries that wish to attack us. The best way to avoid war is to have a strong military.

It's only ridiculous because you're so caught up in how others perceive you. "Correct" position according to who? Politically correct?

The free market brings about better results than a coercive socialist monopoly is a ridiculous position? Hardly.

I'll post this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405306-Ann-Coulter-on-Stossel-battles-room-full-of-libertarian-students-(updated-w-full-show-vid)&p=4890056#post4890056) again:


Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

-from the appendix to Ron Paul’s great 2012 book Liberty Defined

Actually read what he's saying here principle wise. Principles > People Pleasing.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 07:43 AM
It's only ridiculous because you're so caught up in how others perceive you. "Correct" position according to who? Politically correct?

Correct according to the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide for the common defense.

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 07:44 AM
Well, if he's saying that all security should be private and that the federal government doesn't have a responsibility to provide for the common defense, that's a pretty ridiculous position. I hope he's not saying that. The correct position is to oppose intervention overseas and have a strong military and a strong defense here at home as a deterrent against other countries that wish to attack us. The best way to avoid war is to have a strong military.

Demonstrably false.

Also, I'd like you to respond to my above post:


A standing army and a nearly trillion dollar "defense" budget is like candy to a baby in the hands of a politician. If you bring them home without drastically reducing their numbers and funding, all you are going to have is politicians looking for reasons to use them here. Hell, they already ARE looking for reasons to use them here.

What is it that we should be so afraid of that we should advocate a military the size of the one we have right now? We are surrounded by friendly neighbors, and two vast oceans. NO ONE is coming here without us knowing about it long in advance. Hell NO ONE on the planet is even CAPABLE of invading this country at this point in time.

We do not NEED a military anywhere NEAR the size of the one we have right now. There's really no logical argument for it that doesn't include foreign interventionism. It is a drain on our resources, and a curse for our liberties.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 07:50 AM
Correct according to the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide for the common defense.

Yeah it also authorized the government we have today or failed to prevent it. Either way it's worthless, as Lysander Spooner argued so well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI)

Brett85
03-04-2013, 07:50 AM
@A Son of Liberty-We should use our army here at home, because we've been neglecting our own defense for a long time. We defend every single country around the world and ignore our own national defense. Instead of using our army to secure the border between North Korea and South Korea, we should use them to secure the border between the U.S and Mexico, or the U.S and Canada. Our army could really be very beneficial if we actually used them for our own defense. I do believe that we should stop intervening all around the world, but the threats to our national security wouldn't just disappear if we returned to a non interventionist foreign policy. We would still face threats from countries like North Korea, that keep acting beligerently and firing missiles in our direction. We need to have a strong army here at home as a deterrent against North Korea and other countries that pose a threat to our national security. We're currently in a situation where we don't even have the troops that we need to respond to a military attack against us by a country like North Korea. When we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, 80,000 troops in Germany, etc, we simply wouldn't even have the capability to respond to a legitimate threat to our national security. We need to have our troops here at home defending our own country so that we're in a stronger position and can actually respond to legitimate threats to our national security.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 07:54 AM
http://mises.org/document/1092/Myth-of-National-Defense-The-Essays-on-the-Theory-and-History-of-Security-Production

http://mises.org//store/Assets/ProductImages/B323.jpg (http://library.mises.org/books/Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe/Myth%20of%20National%20Defense,%20The%20Essays%20o n%20the%20Theory%20and%20History%20of%20Security%2 0Production.pdf)


http://vimeo.com/28068540


With eleven chapters by top libertarian scholars on all aspects of defense, this book edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe represents an ambitious attempt to extend the idea of free enterprise to the provision of security services. It argues that "national defense" as provided by government is a myth not unlike the myth of socialism itself. Defense services are more viably privatized and replaced by the market provision of security.

From the introduction:

"Even aside from day-to-day security risks, the reality of terrorism and its resulting mayhem has demonstrated the inability of government to provide adequate security against attacks on person and property. The lesson of September 11 is indisputable: government had not only failed to act as a guardian of security and protection but had actually been the primary agent in creating insecurity and exposure to risk, and, moreover, did not achieve secure justice once the crime had been committed.

"However, this was not the lesson that was drawn from the affair. Instead, the political elite successfully exploited public fears to vastly increase government spending, central credit inflation, bureaucratic management, citizen surveillance, regulation of transportation, and generally wage an all out attack on liberty and property.

"Meanwhile, US foreign policy pursued in the aftermath became more aggressively interventionist, violent, and threatening (the US refused even to rule out the employment of nuclear weapons against enemy regimes) than it had been before, thereby increasing the number of recruits into the ranks of people who are willing to use extreme violence as a means of retribution.

"In the same way that government intervention in times of peace can generate perverse consequences in markets that do not tend toward clearing, in times of war, military intervention can thus have the effect of harming the prospects for peace and security and bringing about a permanent state of violence and political control. Truly, the political affairs of our time cry out for a complete rethinking of the issues of defense and security and the respective roles of government, the market, and society in providing them."

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 08:00 AM
@A Son of Liberty-We should use our army here at home, because we've been neglecting our own defense for a long time. We defend every single country around the world and ignore our own national defense. Instead of using our army to secure the border between North Korea and South Korea, we should use them to secure the border between the U.S and Mexico, or the U.S and Canada. Our army could really be very beneficial if we actually used them for our own defense. I do believe that we should stop intervening all around the world, but the threats to our national security wouldn't just disappear if we returned to a non interventionist foreign policy. We would still face threats from countries like North Korea, that keep acting beligerently and firing missiles in our direction. We need to have a strong army here at home as a deterrent against North Korea and other countries that pose a threat to our national security. We're currently in a situation where we don't even have the troops that we need to respond to a military attack against us by a country like North Korea. When we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, 80,000 troops in Germany, etc, we simply wouldn't even have the capability to respond to a legitimate threat to our national security. We need to have our troops here at home defending our own country so that we're in a stronger position and can actually respond to legitimate threats to our national security.

TC, I honestly don't understand this at all.

First, even if I grant that it is a good idea to use the military to defend the southern border, there would certainly be no need for one at its current size and funding. Second, regarding a country like North Korea, it is patently absurd that such countries pose a such a dire and direct threat to the security of the US to support keeping a military the size and cost of the one we presently have. North Korea is a two-bit, impoverished and technologically backward country. Even if every single North Korean were impressed into service, there is no way they could ever invade the territorial US, in even Kim Jong Un's wildest dreams. Their missile technology isn't anywhere near being capable of launching successfully against the territorial US, not that such a vast, expensive standing army would do anything to thwart such an attack.

There are NO legitimate threats to US national security in the world today that justify such a massive, expensive army. China? Russia? How are they going to get here? There is no army in the world which would want the task of invading and maintaining a presence in the territorial US.

Simply put, our huge, and hugely expensive, military does nothing to provide for the defense of the country. Indeed, it is a direct threat to the wealth and freedom of the American people.

Wolfgang Bohringer
03-04-2013, 08:55 AM
Correct according to the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide for the common defense.

By any means necessary?

Spooner of course was right--the constitution has been worthless for protecting our right to be free from armed government soldiers and cops. But the federal constitution clearly only allows guns in the hands of temporary armies, once war has been declared--which is supposed to be a rare event in a free republic. Please re-read article I section 8.

Its ironic that the same conservatives who sarcastically ask liberals, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" can't comprehend the constitution's plain prohibition on a permanent military. Apparently, opposition to standing armies is too old fashioned for "traditional conservatives" nowadays. But it wasn't back when the federalists had to bargain with the libertarians.

In a letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789) Jefferson wrote:


...a (federal) bill of rights (must) secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, (and) freedom from a permanent military...

COpatriot
03-04-2013, 09:18 AM
What about bringing down DoD funding to 2001 levels?? Basically cutting department allocation in half?

Never! Anyone who wants to do that hates America and wants another 9/11 to happen.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 09:27 AM
But the federal constitution clearly only allows guns in the hands of temporary armies, once war has been declared--which is supposed to be a rare event in a free republic. Please re-read article I section 8.

So when we get attacked and have Congress declare war, we then have to spend six months organizing an army and training them before we can respond to the attack. What would even be the point of responding with military action if we had to wait months and months until an army was trained in order to do so? The Constitution says that the army can't be funded for a period of longer than two years, which means that the funding for the army needs to be re-authorized at least every two years to comply with the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about having to abolish the army every two years.

moostraks
03-04-2013, 09:42 AM
So you can't support a non interventionist foreign policy and support bringing our troops home from around the world without denigrating our military? In your opinion being critical of our troops is essential to being a non interventionist?

Denigrating and honest opinion are two seperate discussions. I feel frustration and, depending upon the individual, disgust and contempt for both those who serve and those in control of our military. Generally speaking I feel frustration because the service members are the ammunition to continue the current path we are on. Those who serve are bleeding us dry at the current rate we are going AND are providing the numbers needed to keep unneccesarily invading other countries on a preemptive basis. On an individual basis is where I feel the contempt and disgust directed towards those that feel what is being done in these foreign countries is heroic based on some indoctrinated fear of those who are different and must be amercanized.

Do we need to be critical of the troops to be non-interventionist? Well, having the benefit of seeing where you went last night and this morning with your responses, it seems to me you think we can financially continue to support a bloated military such as we currently have and it isn't draining our resources. Closing overseas base is a start, but it is just the first layer of what needs to be done. We can not absorb that many military members into the nation and have them continue to work in the full time capacity as they are currently employed. Having had the luxury of being a military spouse and dealing with service members intimately, they were antsy when they were just training and waiting. I am not keen on having the current number of folks who are service members waiting for a fight who are already being primed for a domestic, homegrown terrorist to turn their built up tension on. I think it would be a ticking time bomb on our own soil.

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/screen-shot-2012-09-22-at-3-23-35-pm2.png

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/Defense%20Spending%201900%20to%202012.JPG

https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/images/FY2011pie.jpg



TC, I honestly don't understand this at all.

First, even if I grant that it is a good idea to use the military to defend the southern border, there would certainly be no need for one at its current size and funding. Second, regarding a country like North Korea, it is patently absurd that such countries pose a such a dire and direct threat to the security of the US to support keeping a military the size and cost of the one we presently have. North Korea is a two-bit, impoverished and technologically backward country. Even if every single North Korean were impressed into service, there is no way they could ever invade the territorial US, in even Kim Jong Un's wildest dreams. Their missile technology isn't anywhere near being capable of launching successfully against the territorial US, not that such a vast, expensive standing army would do anything to thwart such an attack.

There are NO legitimate threats to US national security in the world today that justify such a massive, expensive army. China? Russia? How are they going to get here? There is no army in the world which would want the task of invading and maintaining a presence in the territorial US.

Simply put, our huge, and hugely expensive, military does nothing to provide for the defense of the country. Indeed, it is a direct threat to the wealth and freedom of the American people.

well said...

Wolfgang Bohringer
03-04-2013, 10:07 AM
So when we get attacked and have Congress declare war, we then have to spend six months organizing an army and training them before we can respond to the attack.

The Constitution of the state of Virginia (1776) says:


That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state

They didn't trust the government with guns back in the old days. If that's too old fashioned for today's "conservatives", I wonder why they don't:
1. rename themselves "liberals" and reserve the term "conservative" for those of us who actually want to conserve our old liberties.
2. work to amend their state and federal constitutions and repeal our ancient protections against permanent government militaries

Pericles
03-04-2013, 10:08 AM
i'd like to back up a bit. Has it been positivley established that those suicide bombers did so voluntarily?.....just askin'...because i gots me some doubts.

And what about the other Iraqis and Afghans killed by the suicide bombers?

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 04:06 PM
So when we get attacked...

Again, where is this threat to come from? Are we to spend our treasure, and live in a country with politicians who have access to a trillion dollar military looking for a reason to use it, because someday, from somewhere, a threat may appear? This 'security' madness will be our undoing long before the welfare state.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 05:58 PM
Again, where is this threat to come from? Are we to spend our treasure, and live in a country with politicians who have access to a trillion dollar military looking for a reason to use it, because someday, from somewhere, a threat may appear? This 'security' madness will be our undoing long before the welfare state.

We don't have a trillion dollar military. We spend about 600 billion a year on defense, and less than half of that is military personell. As was pointed out eariler, China has the largest military in the world and only spends 100 billion a year on defense, so we could have a large and strong military and only spend a fraction of what we spend today if we looked to China and figured out a more efficient way to fund our national defense. We face threats from North Korea, Russia, China, and many other countries. Obviously that doesn't mean that I support preemptive war against any of those countries, but I support having a strong military and a strong defense as a deterrent against those countries which will make them less likely to ever attack us.

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 06:05 PM
We don't have a trillion dollar military. We spend about 600 billion a year on defense, and less than half of that is military personell. As was pointed out eariler, China has the largest military in the world and only spends 100 billion a year on defense, so we could have a large and strong military and only spend a fraction of what we spend today if we looked to China and figured out a more efficient way to fund our national defense. We face threats from North Korea, Russia, China, and many other countries. Obviously that doesn't mean that I support preemptive war against any of those countries, but I support having a strong military and a strong defense as a deterrent against those countries which will make them less likely to ever attack us.
We spend closer to the trillion a year than we do to the 600 billion. Veteran benefits, hospital care, etc. are not included in the DoD budget. It is an outrageous number.

Is China's military volunteer? Or is it forced conscription? Oh, and North Korea can't even animate a good propaganda film. Hilarious that we consider them a threat. And we spend what, 8 times more than Russia? Their 1,550 nuclear warheads is the only threat. Not to mention they have mentioned a nuclear annihilation with regards to us pissing on different State's sovereignty. Sorry that this post was a little all over the place. I really had no intention of debating the points but felt an urge to respond. Carry on.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 06:14 PM
We spend closer to the trillion a year than we do to the 600 billion. Veteran benefits, hospital care, etc. are not included in the DoD budget. It is an outrageous number.

Is China's military volunteer? Or is it forced conscription? Oh, and North Korea can't even animate a good propaganda film. Hilarious that we consider them a threat. And we spend what, 8 times more than Russia? Their 1,550 nuclear warheads is the only threat. Not to mention they have mentioned a nuclear annihilation with regards to us pissing on different State's sovereignty. Sorry that this post was a little all over the place. I really had no intention of debating the points but felt an urge to respond. Carry on.

We wouldn't need veterans benefits or hospital care if I had my way and we stopped all of the foreign intervention. Also, people seem to be confused and think that I'm advocating a Mitt Romney position of supporting no cuts at all to defense spending, or supporting some proposal to increase military spending by trillions of dollars. My view is actually the exact opposite of that. I support cutting hundreds of billions from the Pentagon's budget, but I just wouldn't do it by cutting the number of troops. There are better ways to do it.

Only here at these forums could I ever be perceived as being some kind of defense hawk. Compared to the average American I'm some radical libertarian non interventionist. I've been banned from free republic twice and Red State once due to my support for non intervention overseas and my overall views on national security/foreign policy issues.

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 06:38 PM
Only here at these forums could I ever be perceived as being some kind of defense hawk. Compared to the average American I'm some radical libertarian non interventionist. I've been banned from free republic twice and Red State once due to my support for non intervention overseas and my overall views on national security/foreign policy issues.

Your insistance that there be little to no reduction in the number of people serving in the US military defies logic and reason, for the many reasons at least I personally have expressed. You've done almost nothing to respond to those points, I might add, other than to insist half-heartedly that China and Russia and North Korea (of all countries) pose a threat to the territorial United States. You haven't answered how they'd get here. You haven't answered how they'd stay here. You haven't answered WHY they'd even bother. You haven't responded to the fact that a vast standing army is a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. If you think you hold the high-ground in this discussion, quit whining about what you think people are saying about you here and defend your position.

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 06:42 PM
We don't have a trillion dollar military. We spend about 600 billion a year on defense, and less than half of that is military personell. As was pointed out eariler, China has the largest military in the world and only spends 100 billion a year on defense, so we could have a large and strong military and only spend a fraction of what we spend today if we looked to China and figured out a more efficient way to fund our national defense. We face threats from North Korea, Russia, China, and many other countries. Obviously that doesn't mean that I support preemptive war against any of those countries, but I support having a strong military and a strong defense as a deterrent against those countries which will make them less likely to ever attack us.

The Chinese have cannon-fodder whom they pay almost nothing.

Exactly how far from their coast would a million-man Chinese expeditionary force on its way to invade get before the US government became aware of it and its intentions? How many days of the week long voyage would the majority of the ships be ABOVE water, exactly? One? Two?

ETA: Again, this is the same 'logic' the left uses to justify all manner of intrusions into our lives - because someday, something bad might happen to someone, we must prepare - regulate, tax, provide social services - for every contingency.

Freedom actually is free; it's security that's so damned expensive, in blood and treasure.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 06:46 PM
Your insistance that there be little to no reduction in the number of people serving in the US military defies logic and reason, for the many reasons at least I personally have expressed. You've done almost nothing to respond to those points, I might add, other than to insist half-heartedly that China and Russia and North Korea (of all countries) pose a threat to the territorial United States. You haven't answered how they'd get here. You haven't answered how they'd stay here. You haven't answered WHY they'd even bother. You haven't responded to the fact that a vast standing army is a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. If you think you hold the high-ground in this discussion, quit whining about what you think people are saying about you here and defend your position.

I don't hardly see why I need to defend my position, as if it's some kind of radical position that no other American holds. And no, a standing army isn't a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Gutting the military would be a huge threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Ayn Rand realized this and always supported a strong military and a strong naitonal defense, even though she was a libertarian and a strong defender of liberty.

I don't think it's likely that another country would actually invade us, but I think it's likely that a country like North Korea could launch an attack against us. They already have the capability of launching a missile that can hit the west coast.

robert68
03-04-2013, 06:48 PM
We don't have a trillion dollar military. We spend about 600 billion a year on defense, and less than half of that is military personell. As was pointed out eariler, China has the largest military in the world and only spends 100 billion a year on defense, so we could have a large and strong military and only spend a fraction of what we spend today if we looked to China and figured out a more efficient way to fund our national defense. We face threats from North Korea, Russia, China, and many other countries. Obviously that doesn't mean that I support preemptive war against any of those countries, but I support having a strong military and a strong defense as a deterrent against those countries which will make them less likely to ever attack us.

China has 1 aircraft carrier. The US has 10 aircraft carriers in use, and 1 in reserve.

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

A Son of Liberty
03-04-2013, 06:56 PM
I don't hardly see why I need to defend my position, as if it's some kind of radical position that no other American holds. And no, a standing army isn't a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Gutting the military would be a huge threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Ayn Rand realized this and always supported a strong military and a strong naitonal defense, even though she was a libertarian and a strong defender of liberty.

I don't think it's likely that another country would actually invade us, but I think it's likely that a country like North Korea could launch an attack against us. They already have the capability of launching a missile that can hit the west coast.

You should defend your position if you want other people to take it seriously. So far, you've done nothing to cause critical thinkers to support your position. It doesn't matter that it's not a radical position; neither is accepting the existence of the Federal Reserve, as far as the American people are concerned. That's not what we're about here.

You can't just make claims without substantiating them, as you continue to do here, and expect people to take your views seriously. "Gutting the military would be a huge threat..." isn't an argument, it's a statement. And it's been well argued against in this thread by several of us.

What does a North Korean nuclear missile have to do with a standing army? If you don't think a country is likely to invade the US, why exactly must we pay for and abide the threats to our liberties of one? Because something *might* happen, someday? Again, that's the argument of the left.

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 06:59 PM
We wouldn't need veterans benefits or hospital care if I had my way and we stopped all of the foreign intervention. Also, people seem to be confused and think that I'm advocating a Mitt Romney position of supporting no cuts at all to defense spending, or supporting some proposal to increase military spending by trillions of dollars. My view is actually the exact opposite of that. I support cutting hundreds of billions from the Pentagon's budget, but I just wouldn't do it by cutting the number of troops. There are better ways to do it.

Only here at these forums could I ever be perceived as being some kind of defense hawk. Compared to the average American I'm some radical libertarian non interventionist. I've been banned from free republic twice and Red State once due to my support for non intervention overseas and my overall views on national security/foreign policy issues.
We have discussed the topic in depth a couple months ago. I know you aren't advocating for us to get involved in other countries. I am simply stating that there is no reason why we couldn't have adequate defense at 250B-300B. They seriously lose money. Literally. They don't know what happened to it. [even going so far as to jokingly say they might as well have thrown it out of an airplane for all they know where it went] The Air Force [and probably the rest of them as well] just makes up prices so that the total comes to what was given to them. That is how you end up with 800 dollar toilet seats and two thousand dollar bolts. It is insane. We are well armed. No one has the capability to attack us and it is draining from our economy. Not to mention we end up financing and rebuilding the shit they destroy. It is a racket. A very protected racket as evidenced here. You can't even talk about cutting any of their budget to the majority of Americans. Even you, a self-described noninterventionist, can't state that we do not need all of the servicemen and cannot pay for it as well. It is this kind of mentality that annoys me. People just have been propagandized since they were in the womb and cannot bring themselves to question what they were sold. It does not even occur to them to question it. That's how effective it has been. Sure, you are better than most seeing that you actually want to bring them home but you have a ways to go before we are on the same page with what is a reasonable amount of defense and what the proper role of the military should be, though.

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 07:01 PM
I don't hardly see why I need to defend my position, as if it's some kind of radical position that no other American holds. And no, a standing army isn't a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Gutting the military would be a huge threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Ayn Rand realized this and always supported a strong military and a strong naitonal defense, even though she was a libertarian and a strong defender of liberty.

I don't think it's likely that another country would actually invade us, but I think it's likely that a country like North Korea could launch an attack against us. They already have the capability of launching a missile that can hit the west coast.
And right around the time that that missile hit, their entire country could and would be vitrified. Servicemen aren't going to thwart that missile, btw.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 08:10 PM
And right around the time that that missile hit, their entire country could and would be vitrified. Servicemen aren't going to thwart that missile, btw.

It's generally better to use the army to respond to attacks on our soil, because there are less casualties when we use our troops on the ground than when we just bomb people from the air. Everyone always complains about the drone bombings because they cause so many casualties, but just bombing any country that attacks us is going to cause a ton of casualties. It's sometimes better to use the army to respond to attacks in order to avoid civilian casualties in these countries.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 08:12 PM
You should defend your position if you want other people to take it seriously. So far, you've done nothing to cause critical thinkers to support your position. It doesn't matter that it's not a radical position; neither is accepting the existence of the Federal Reserve, as far as the American people are concerned. That's not what we're about here.

Ok then.

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/24/report-north-korea-tests-rockets-capable-of-hitting-u-s-west-coast/

moostraks
03-04-2013, 08:23 PM
Ok then.

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/24/report-north-korea-tests-rockets-capable-of-hitting-u-s-west-coast/


And right around the time that that missile hit, their entire country could and would be vitrified. Servicemen aren't going to thwart that missile, btw.

Am visualizing military, staring at missiles coming at them, agape.

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 08:28 PM
It's generally better to use the army to respond to attacks on our soil, because there are less casualties when we use our troops on the ground than when we just bomb people from the air. Everyone always complains about the drone bombings because they cause so many casualties, but just bombing any country that attacks us is going to cause a ton of casualties. It's sometimes better to use the army to respond to attacks in order to avoid civilian casualties in these countries.
If North Korea launched a missile and hit a US city there would not be much of a debate. Pyongyang would be a memory before all of the survivors were dug out of the rubble. North Korea uses tough talk rhetoric to pump up their citizens. Indeed, they tell their citizens we are the reason they live as they do. It strengthens nationalism and helps him continue to stay in power. Kim Jong Un undoubtedly lives a very good life. As good of a life as you could live in North Korea. He is not a suicidal man. He is a man who wants to remain in power. We should speak softly but firm and carry a big stick. And we should trade with anyone who wants to trade. I am sure you agree with this from reading your posts. I'd just reaffirm that everything isn't what it is told to be. It is told to be what it is not as a means to drum up support from the public. i.e. yellow cake uranium, incubator babies, WMDs, nuclear annihilation. No one is going to attack us. Russia has warned of unintended consquences of us ignoring State's rights but that's about it. We are China's customer. Why would you attack your customer? It really is just so blown out of proportion that it is absurd.

green73
03-04-2013, 08:32 PM
TC, you're too much. Thanks for the laughs.

moostraks
03-04-2013, 08:32 PM
We wouldn't need veterans benefits or hospital care if I had my way and we stopped all of the foreign intervention. Also, people seem to be confused and think that I'm advocating a Mitt Romney position of supporting no cuts at all to defense spending, or supporting some proposal to increase military spending by trillions of dollars. My view is actually the exact opposite of that. I support cutting hundreds of billions from the Pentagon's budget, but I just wouldn't do it by cutting the number of troops. There are better ways to do it.

Only here at these forums could I ever be perceived as being some kind of defense hawk. Compared to the average American I'm some radical libertarian non interventionist. I've been banned from free republic twice and Red State once due to my support for non intervention overseas and my overall views on national security/foreign policy issues.

No VA benefits or hospital care? That will probably get you tarred and feathered. Should they pay for their injuries on their own?

I will ask you the same couple questions from the other thread regarding the number of troops that you will have stationed here if you do as you propose. Have you taken the time to think what having this many troops patroling domestically would look like? Have you taken the time to consider how some soldier is going to account for whether he has secured his assigned area from foreign invaders? It would be a nightmare for liberty.

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 08:37 PM
http://i.imgur.com/zszC8R6.jpg?1
Here's a night time satellite picture.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 08:39 PM
No VA benefits or hospital care? That will probably get you tarred and feathered. Should they pay for their injuries on their own?

I will ask you the same couple questions from the other thread regarding the number of troops that you will have stationed here if you do as you propose. Have you taken the time to think what having this many troops patroling domestically would look like? Have you taken the time to consider how some soldier is going to account for whether he has secured his assigned area from foreign invaders? It would be a nightmare for liberty.

I meant that there would be no VA benefits, injuries, or hospital care if I had my way and we had a non interventionist foreign policy. Given the fact that we have an interventionist foreign policy and keep getting our troops injured, we have to have VA benefits and hospital care.

We already have army troops here training on military bases in the U.S. Is that somehow a "nightmare for liberty?" I'm just advocating that the troops that we have overseas be brought home and join the troops we have here who are training on military bases, and the others could be used to guard our southern and northern borders. Our northern border represents a big security threat since it's much more wide open than the southern border. Putting our troops along our borders would be a much better use of our troops than using them to secure the border between North Korea and South Korea.

moostraks
03-04-2013, 08:48 PM
I meant that there would be no VA benefits, injuries, or hospital care if I had my way and we had a non interventionist foreign policy. Given the fact that we have an interventionist foreign policy and keep getting our troops injured, we have to have VA benefits and hospital care.

We already have army troops here training on military bases in the U.S. Is that somehow a "nightmare for liberty?" I'm just advocating that the troops that we have overseas be brought home and join the troops we have here who are training on military bases, and the others could be used to guard our southern and northern borders. Our northern border represents a big security threat since it's much more wide open than the southern border. Putting our troops along our borders would be a much better use of our troops than using them to secure the border between North Korea and South Korea.

The injury free military is an interesting theory. So what you are saying is you don't forsee anytime in which these troops would be injured here on our soil. This in turn furthers the argument they are unnecessary in the numbers you are proposing.

Those troops that train here are nowhere near the numbers that would have to be absorbed. There is only so many times of painting the barracks before they go stir crazy and start looking for a purpose.

Furthermore being near the border of Canada, I can tell you that I in no ways want your plan implemented.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 08:53 PM
The injury free military is an interesting theory. So what you are saying is you don't forsee anytime in which these troops would be injured here on our soil. This in turn furthers the argument they are unnecessary in the numbers you are proposing.

Those troops that train here are nowhere near the numbers that would have to be absorbed. There is only so many times of painting the barracks before they go stir crazy and start looking for a purpose.

Furthermore being near the border of Canada, I can tell you that I in no ways want your plan implemented.

You're not going to make the idea of bringing out troops home from overseas very popular if you're going to say that we'll just immediately fire our troops as soon as we bring them home. The idea of bringing our troops home and using them for our own defense has always been very attractive to me, because I've always been a strong supporter of defense and strongly opposed to offense. But, if I had a choice between having our army overseas in countries all around the world, or bringing them home and firing them and actually abolishing the army, I would choose the former, and so would most Americans. The American people aren't going to support bringing our troops home if they think the purpose of that is to actually abolish the army.

moostraks
03-04-2013, 09:04 PM
You're not going to make the idea of bringing out troops home from overseas very popular if you're going to say that we'll just immediately fire our troops as soon as we bring them home. The idea of bringing our troops home and using them for our own defense has always been very attractive to me, because I've always been a strong supporter of defense and strongly opposed to offense. But, if I had a choice between having our army overseas in countries all around the world, or bringing them home and firing them and actually abolishing the army, I would choose the former, and so would most Americans. The American people aren't going to support bringing our troops home if they think the purpose of that is to actually abolish the army.

I think most citizens won't want their cagey attitudes as they patrol at home esp. in the numbers to which we would be inundated. Most people don't think the whole scenario through. It is legitimate to state that the current trajectory is unsustainable. What you propose just amounts to welfare while giving a large number of them busy work as they await a potential scenario you don't even see as happening as you think you can get rid of VA care.

You do realize that while patroling these borders those military members will be scrutinizing everyone?

BTW we have discussed what it takes to make things popular. Someone inevitably will get their feelings hurt when you start taking money away.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 09:08 PM
I think most citizens won't want their cagey attitudes as they patrol at home esp. in the numbers to which we would be inundated. Most people don't think the whole scenario through. It is legitimate to state that the current trajectory is unsustainable. What you propose just amounts to welfare while giving a large number of them busy work as they await a potential scenario you don't even see as happening as you think you can get rid of VA care.

You do realize that while patroling these borders those military members will be scrutinizing everyone?

I don't know what you mean. I would want the military to stop illegal immigration along the borders, not scrutinize those who are coming here legally. Also, as far as I know all of the other countries that have a large military have their troops confined to their own country. I don't believe that China actually has troops stationed all around the world. They use their troops for their own defense in their own country. Why couldn't we just do the same?

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 09:12 PM
I don't know what you mean. I would want the military to stop illegal immigration along the borders, not scrutinize those who are coming here legally. Also, as far as I know all of the other countries that have a large military have their troops confined to their own country. I don't believe that China actually has troops stationed all around the world. They use their troops for their own defense in their own country. Why couldn't we just do the same?
Because we have enough problems with militarized police as is. We don't need more heavily armed troops enforcing petty laws and bullshit that is unconstitutional to begin with. Not that one could forget about that pesky 3rd Amendment...

Brett85
03-04-2013, 09:16 PM
Because we have enough problems with militarized police as is. We don't need more heavily armed troops enforcing petty laws and bullshit that is unconstitutional to begin with. Not that one could forget about that pesky 3rd Amendment...

I'm not talking about using them for anything like that. I've just talked about having them train on domestic military bases away from areas where there would be any civilians, and putting them along the borders to prevent terrorists from sneaking into the country and carrying out an attack against us.

kcchiefs6465
03-04-2013, 09:21 PM
I'm not talking about using them for anything like that. I've just talked about having them train on domestic military bases away from areas where there would be any civilians, and putting them along the borders to prevent terrorists from sneaking into the country and carrying out an attack against us.
We've got quite a few people on the border as is. Would you fire them or are you trying to expand?

We could not possibly keep the number of troops we have right now here. I don't really want to do the math but you could probably have one every 50 feet along the entire US/Canada border and the entire US/Mexico border. It all becomes pointless conversation when you realize that there are underground tunnels to various different areas. [or could be] It is unreasonable to encroach on the rights of average Americans living in the area on the off chance you might catch a terrorist. It is on par with the TSA and the number of terrorists they've caught.

A man much smarter than me said 'I'd rather face the inconveniences of having too much liberty than to not.'

Brett85
03-04-2013, 09:30 PM
We've got quite a few people on the border as is. Would you fire them or are you trying to expand?

We could not possibly keep the number of troops we have right now here. I don't really want to do the math but you could probably have one every 50 feet along the entire US/Canada border and the entire US/Mexico border. It all becomes pointless conversation when you realize that there are underground tunnels to various different areas. [or could be] It is unreasonable to encroach on the rights of average Americans living in the area on the off chance you might catch a terrorist. It is on par with the TSA and the number of terrorists they've caught.

A man much smarter than me said 'I'd rather face the inconveniences of having too much liberty than to not.'

We don't have that many people along the border. I would keep the ones we have and add the members of the army. The border between us and Canada is basically wide open, and it would be easy for a terrorist to come across the Canadian border to launch an attack against us. From what I've read, we currently have about 300,000 troops overseas. I think we could bring these troops home and absorb them without most Americans even realizing it.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 09:53 PM
I don't hardly see why I need to defend my position, as if it's some kind of radical position that no other American holds.

Are you arguing that populist ideas shouldn't be criticized?

You know why you need to defend your position to me? BECAUSE YOU ARE ADVOCATING TAKING AWAY MY GODDAMN LIBERTY WHILE DIRECTLY CLAIMING TO BE DEFENDING IT. And then you cry, whine, and weasel your way about complaining and justifying it by claiming that the world would end if you didn't get your way. YOU are telling me that you will support the FORCIBLE EXTRACTION, UNDER THREATS OF VIOLENCE, of MY WEALTH in MY NAME because you know how to spend MY MONEY on MY DEFENSE better than I DO. You claim to be in defense of liberty, but if I disagree with how my money should be spent you THREATEN it. Your empty rhetoric about liberty is meaningless when you contradict yourself. YOU are a bigger threat to MY LIBERTY than ANY North Korean. YOU threaten my liberty more than any nuclear missile. I'm a GODDAMN HUMAN BEING, I deserve the right to make my own choices about my defense. YOU are taking that choice away from me.

And the reason you need to EXTRACT FUNDS from me under threats for your bloated military welfarism is because I don't buy your fear mongering or your claims about how your socialist government monopoly is better than the free market. You simply conclude that socialism and tyranny "works" in this instance. I disagree. You are using the same fear mongering and justifications that liberals who want to extract my funds for their own pet causes.

You're claiming to be defending liberty and capitalism? I call BS. You don't even know how to respond when someone who doesn't support the "limited" tyranny and socialism you do so you pretend that criticism of your views are too invalid to even respond to, so you shouldn't even have to defend yourself.


And no, a standing army isn't a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people. Gutting the military would be a huge threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people.

Not only do I disagree, I argue that you are a threat to the freedom and treasure of the American people who disagree with you. Gutting the military would simply reduce the power of a bloated socialist protection racket in which politicians and bureaucrats use my neighbors, who they have convinced are fighting for "freedom" as pawns to expand power and influence as they get increasingly tyrannical domestically and hire many of the same pawns who can't question their "politically correct" positions. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406288-How-cops-became-the-standing-army-of-oppression)


Ayn Rand realized this and always supported a strong military and a strong naitonal defense, even though she was a libertarian and a strong defender of liberty.

I don't think it's likely that another country would actually invade us, but I think it's likely that a country like North Korea could launch an attack against us. They already have the capability of launching a missile that can hit the west coast.

Who cares if Ayn Rand supported it? Is she some sort of perfect God of Liberty in your eyes? I hate to break it to you but she wasn't, nor is Ron Paul, nor was Murray Rothbard. Neither are you, and neither am I, and (clearly) neither are the opinions of the American population. Which is why we must strive to be introspective and challenge our own views.

That's nice that you're admitting that it's unlikely that another country could invade us. It's too bad you still want to extract my wealth under duress and against my opinions and principles (and ultimately the same principles you claim to be defending while violating them). I'm not afraid of North Korea, and even if I was I maintain that the free market could handle it better than your socialist monopoly, just like any other industry. North Korea is a poor, starving socialist hellhole that uses the US to propaganize and fearmonger to maintain itself just as much as you are using NK to propagandize and try to gain support for your own beloved socialist organization funded by tyranny.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 09:57 PM
So basically, anyone who's not an anarchist is a socialist who wants to take away liberty. Ok. I'm glad we've settled that. :rolleyes:

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 10:12 PM
So basically, anyone who's not an anarchist is a socialist who wants to take away liberty. Ok. I'm glad we've settled that. :rolleyes:


You're claiming to be defending liberty and capitalism? I call BS. You don't even know how to respond when someone who doesn't support the "limited" tyranny and socialism you do so you pretend that criticism of your views are too invalid to even respond to, and you shouldn't even have to defend yourself.

:rolleyes: and blow it off all you want. You can't deny that you are threatening my liberty. You can't deny that you're doing it in support of a socialist institution. All you can do is pretend that you're violating my liberty to protect it for me.

Brett85
03-04-2013, 10:15 PM
:rolleyes: and blow it off all you want. You can't deny that you are threatening my liberty. You can't deny that you're doing it in support of a socialist institution. All you can do is pretend that you're violating my liberty to protect it for me.

So basically you're saying that anyone who even supports having a Department of Defense is threatening your liberty and supporting a socialist institution. Is that correct? You don't seem to simply be arguing that our military is too large as others have been arguing.

noneedtoaggress
03-04-2013, 10:20 PM
So basically you're saying that anyone who even supports having a Department of Defense is threatening your liberty and supporting a socialist institution. Is that correct? You don't seem to simply be arguing that our military is too large as others have been arguing.

You can have a "Department of Defense" if you want. Just don't force me to pay for it if I want to pay for a different Defense organization or methods of organizing defense.

Is the DoD a free market institution?

You're right, I'm not arguing "our military is too large". That's what you wish I was arguing, because it doesn't fundamentally challenge the rhetoric of your claims.

I'm arguing I should be able to make my own choices about how my defense is provided. That is what liberty is.

acptulsa
03-04-2013, 10:51 PM
I don't believe for one second that North Korea is anywhere near being capable of hitting our west coast with a missile of any sort, much less one that carries something as heavy as a nuclear warhead. I don't believe that any more than I believe Iran is 'months away' from having a nuclear weapon, or that Iraq ever had yellowcake uranium. The fearmongerers lie. Through their teeth. This I believe. And I sure don't believe that even if we lined the continental U.S. with soldiers they could do anything about a missile.

I don't believe that Canada is breeding terrorists who want to attack us. I don't believe they're letting in terrorists who want to attack us. I believe that if another attack comes we will have let the terrorists in on student visas, just as we did before.

And I believe an end to these two wars could improve the economy enough that we could create quite a few jobs. And if it were accompanied by the restoration of many of our freedoms, we could create more than enough jobs.

I don't see us doing away with our standing army any time soon. That said, we could certainly do with a little less policy determined by the Military Industrial Complex. They're killing us. If we were to spend, say, only a third as much as the rest of the world combined, and got rid of the insane people like Cheney who are perfectly willing to send our military the opposite direction when a threat appears, I do believe we could once again daydream about how we'd personally kick any invader's ass without ever having the theory tested any more than it has been since 1812.

Sorry if I'm spoiling anyone's fun. What I envision is hardly perfect, and maybe it isn't going far enough. But I respectfully submit that it's enough of an improvement to be worth working for. And I respectfully submit that it's reasonably realistic, especially since most people are by now able to see what a mess the current overreach has left us in. I also respectfully submit that working for this, whether you consider it an intermediate step or an end goal, is considerably more productive than continuing this circular, endless flame war.

Thank you for your attention.

noneedtoaggress
03-05-2013, 01:51 AM
I agree that calling to "do away with our standing army any time soon" is not exactly realistic. Obviously it wouldn't be feasible or desirable to simply shut down all sorts of government programs like the FDA, Department of Education, ATF, Social Security, etc etc tomorrow and leave people to stare blankly and pick up the pieces. If it were feasible to simply push a button and make the world function with that much more liberty tomorrow, then that would be fantastic, but obviously the world doesn't work that way.

But that still doesn't mean you shouldn't argue for your principles, either. To know where you're going you have to have the finish line in sight. If liberty is the end goal, then arguing from the principles of liberty is the only way that can ultimately be achieved. The reason why politicians can't fix anything is because neither they, nor the American people have the right incentives. The american people want their ATF, Dept of Education, Social Security, FDA, etc to be magically "reformed" and charge the politicians with "fixing it" and just "making it work". There's not enough people who understand the problems and the politicians don't have the right incentives or principles to fix it anyway. They're largely nothing but power brokers for influential groups and people. The govt has incentives to grow, and people want all sorts of impossible services provided by their government, which tries to gain power by appealing to the people asking for these services to be provided and uses them to hook up themselves and their friends in all sorts of rackets. Ron Paul was different precisely because his goal was liberty and he had his principles to back him up. He didn't have lobbyists knocking at his door because he wasn't a power broker. He understood the principles of liberty very well and worked within the system to the best of his ability and understanding without compromising on his principles for expedience or political correctness or personal gain. Back in 2008 a lot of people didn't understand exactly where he was coming from but they could sense something legitimate about him. Even a number of his detractors still admit this about him. They just don't want to or haven't taken the plunge to really sort through and understand where he was coming from.

But yeah. I'm for any measures that will put more money (property) and choices (liberty) into the hands of the individuals who make up America [they have the right to choose how to control their rightful property]. It's only individuals acting through their liberty that make America great, and the more trust and power they give to the government the less great they'll be because choices and funds are going to be made in the interests of state power over liberty, although it will always be claimed that it's for the benefit of the American people and their liberty.

I don't think this was really a circular endless flame-war, and I've learned a lot from many of the people participating and watching the discussions unfold. Myself, I'm going to argue from principle as I understand it, because I think it's important and really cuts to the meat of the issues. Principles, sticking to them or straying from them, is how our goals are either achieved or distorted and compromised. Politics can easily result in heated debates as it's essentially discussions over the proper use of force in society.

Anyway, that's my silver dime. Thanks for your diplomacy. :D

robert68
03-05-2013, 02:43 AM
I don't know what you mean. I would want the military to stop illegal immigration along the borders, not scrutinize those who are coming here legally. Also, as far as I know all of the other countries that have a large military have their troops confined to their own country. I don't believe that China actually has troops stationed all around the world. They use their troops for their own defense in their own country. Why couldn't we just do the same?

Unlike the US:



The People's Republic of China has international borders with 14 countries, more than any other, except Russia, which also has 14. With a land border of 22,117 kilometres (13,743 mi) in total it also has the longest land border of any country.

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

A Son of Liberty
03-07-2013, 09:41 AM
We wouldn't need veterans benefits or hospital care if I had my way and we stopped all of the foreign intervention. Also, people seem to be confused and think that I'm advocating a Mitt Romney position of supporting no cuts at all to defense spending, or supporting some proposal to increase military spending by trillions of dollars. My view is actually the exact opposite of that. I support cutting hundreds of billions from the Pentagon's budget, but I just wouldn't do it by cutting the number of troops. There are better ways to do it.

Only here at these forums could I ever be perceived as being some kind of defense hawk. Compared to the average American I'm some radical libertarian non interventionist. I've been banned from free republic twice and Red State once due to my support for non intervention overseas and my overall views on national security/foreign policy issues.

I was listening to Mike Church this morning and he played part of Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty" speech, from his movie:


These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other.

It reminded me very much of this conversation; to the question of what enemy exists in this part of the world to justify such an expansive military, the only answer of any consequence seems to be given by Henry, 237 years ago: that enemy is us.