View Poll Results: American citizens raising armies?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    22 88.00%
  • no

    3 12.00%
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Private Armies

  1. #1

    Default Private Armies

    Don't have much time so I'll keep this short. Should American citizens be allowed to employ private armies overseas?

    This question stems from, first, the belief that a non-interventionist foreign policy is vitally important to the peace of our nation. Second, the freedoms I believe we should have to pursue economic and other goals. And also, watching the documentary Burma VJ, in which one of the individuals is an oppressive dictator that deserves to be killed-- but not by our government.

    Problems I see is that foreign troops wouldn't be allowed to pursue onto an American's home territory, making it virtually impossible to force peace or retaliate. And stemming from that, the appearance that the US is safeguarding the combatants. I'm sure many foreign governments wouldn't care to differentiate either way.

    What say you?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Considering the amount of money it costs to operate over seas (logistics would be a nightmare) and the fact that no cost would be recouped through production it is practically impossible for a private citizen to fund an overseas war. Pillaging might be sufficient to keep a renegade band going, but would they really find open arms when they return from pillaging provided they are not put down by the, hopefully soon but certainly eventually, well armed populace they targeted? State fiscal insanity is what makes modern war logistically feasible, and the fact that some people are actually enriched by an action that can only destroy wealth is very suspicious. I think we spend 3 billion a week to keep the troops in Afghanistan paid, sheltered, fed, and trained. Not even if Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg in concert decided to wage a war could they keep it up for longer than two months, and when those two months were up they would be financially ruined, socially ostracized, and physically targeted. Modern War is made profitable and possible by the Keynesian state.

    Actually, America does RIGHT NOW employ private armies overseas, and the only reason that is possible and profitable is because of state sanction. The losses are socialized, the gains private.

    thats all I got for now.
    Best of luck in life.

  4. #3

    Default

    When should an army be formed? In my opinion, for the defense of peaceful people from real threats. Anyone should be able to build up any sort of army necessary to do so. When facing survival, we can in fact count on people to take defensive action no matter what law is written.

    Should an American be able to ___________ is always the same answer, by the way. Yes, so long as the action does not infringe the liberties of another.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    ...for the defense of peaceful people from real threats. Anyone should be able to build up any sort of [FORCE] necessary to do so. When facing survival, we can in fact count on people to take defensive action no matter what law is written.

    Sounds like Militia and Second Amendment to me.

  6. #5
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,167

    Default

    Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

    Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-15-2013 at 12:44 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Who are the private armies responsible to?
    Financially or otherwise?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China?
    Stop going to WalMart?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #7

    Default

    Wal Mart operates on RAZOR thin margins, as do most businesses.

    Raising an army with intent to conquer is incredibly expensive. Bye, bye profit margins and investor equity.

    There's a reason why the only war mongering institutions are the ones that levy taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

    Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?
    "Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park

  9. #8
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,167

    Default

    Google or Microsoft would have the resources. An invasion would not have to be large to cause the other country to retaliate against the US.

    Or perhaps Exxon invading say Saudi Arabla to take over their oil fields for economic profits?

    How about the second questions? Domestic abuse by private armies?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-15-2013 at 01:00 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  10. #9

    Default

    For attacking other nations? No

    For defending your land, group, state, or nation? Yes

    One would need to form their own government within America in order to attack foreign targets. But you'd be 100% guarenteed that the foreign nation would ally with the US to wipe you off the map (if the US hadn't done it first anyway).

  11. #10

    Default

    To answer this question with a "no" is to say that there ought to be someone with the authority to stop other people from employing armies. Who can have that authority, and how could they enforce it if they had it unless it were by employing an army themselves?
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

    Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?
    There's a label for what you're describing, "the state."
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  13. #12

    Default

    What if the supposed soldier is fighting with an enemy of the host country? If Private armies should exist they must be recognized and regulated. Also, they should not replace a standing army.
    Last edited by JackieDan; 01-15-2013 at 01:16 PM.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackieDan View Post
    What if the supposed soldier is fighting with an enemy of the host country? If Private armies should exist they must be recognized and regulated. Also, they should not replace a standing army.
    Recognized and regulated by whom?

    And if these armies existed during peace time, wouldn't they by definition be standing armies?
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneStarLocke View Post
    For attacking other nations? No

    For defending your land, group, state, or nation? Yes
    What about defense of your property outside of the country?

    The thing is, I can totally see how corporations might benefit from getting together and forming armies or private security in order to help ensure the safe transport of their goods and services back to the US.

    However. The key is that THEY need to pay for it because otherwise they get a security force with unlimited funds (the US DOD) and they end up using it to go against the will of the people in those areas and install dictators, start wars, etc..

    The other key is information transparency, we need to be able to relay what these corporations are doing overseas so that we as consumers can determine if their security is acting in a responsible way so that we don't end up getting blowback for what the security for US corporations is doing overseas that I as a consumer am funding.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    What about defense of your property outside of the country?

    The thing is, I can totally see how corporations might benefit from getting together and forming armies or private security in order to help ensure the safe transport of their goods and services back to the US.

    However. The key is that THEY need to pay for it because otherwise they get a security force with unlimited funds (the US DOD) and they end up using it to go against the will of the people in those areas and install dictators, start wars, etc..

    The other key is information transparency, we need to be able to relay what these corporations are doing overseas so that we as consumers can determine if their security is acting in a responsible way so that we don't end up getting blowback for what the security for US corporations is doing overseas that I as a consumer am funding.
    I could see that being legitimate. Isn't that what major security firms already do though? I suppose Walmart could create a security team that could consist of military-grade weaponry to protect shipments if they so chose.

    But what if a scuffle breaks out and the foreign nation called it an act of aggression? Would the corporation be sued?

  17. #16

    Default

    What happens when Exxon's army pisses of the wrong warlord and said warlord retaliates by nuking Boston?

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackieDan View Post
    What if the supposed soldier is fighting with an enemy of the host country? If Private armies should exist they must be recognized and regulated. Also, they should not replace a standing army.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crackerjaxon View Post
    What happens when Exxon's army pisses of the wrong warlord and said warlord retaliates by nuking Boston?
    I am afraid of ____. Therefore government.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crackerjaxon View Post
    What happens when Exxon's army pisses of the wrong warlord and said warlord retaliates by nuking Boston?
    How would Exxon afford nukes and massive armies? The only way the government can manage this is because it expropriates from everybody.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  20. #19

    Default

    I don't understand where the people who said no are coming from.

    For those of you who did, what maximum number would you set for how many body guards I should be allowed to hire?
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  21. #20

    Default

    NO maximum. It's ur damn money and if you feel like bankrupting yourself over your paranoia, go for it.

    Now if you start commanding those guards to activately violate the property of others...there will be hell to pay, one way or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I don't understand where the people who said no are coming from.

    For those of you who did, what maximum number would you set for how many body guards I should be allowed to hire?
    "Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park

  22. #21
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    NO maximum. It's ur damn money and if you feel like bankrupting yourself over your paranoia, go for it.

    Now if you start commanding those guards to activately violate the property of others...there will be hell to pay, one way or another.
    You will need your own private army to do that.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Google or Microsoft would have the resources. An invasion would not have to be large to cause the other country to retaliate against the US.

    Or perhaps Exxon invading say Saudi Arabla to take over their oil fields for economic profits?

    How about the second questions? Domestic abuse by private armies?
    Investors would rather keep the tens of billions of dollars they have.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    Investors would rather keep the tens of billions of dollars they have.
    Yeah, war is a drain on the economy. No matter who says elsewise. I'm sure top share holders of EXXON have no ambitions to privately fund and invade a country. They'd much rather pay ex-general lobbyists what amounts to .00001 percent of profit returns to persuade congress to invade a country. (That statement is close, but by no means an exact figure. I don't have my references handy.) As well as the propaganda campaigns financed by said corporations. Maybe my memory fails me, but was it not BP that had us intervening in Syria the first time. (in the '40s) I will say that while my statements may or may not be incorrect, they are the truth. As in, I might confuse a name with a particular intervention (we've had over a hundred) but I'm only human and really can't remember everything I've read. Now that I think about it, wasn't the Iraq-Kuwait conflict instigated by BP? (rather our intervention)
    的 call the bottom bunk at Gitmo, Snowden joked as he contemplated our prospects.

  25. #24

    Default

    If I were president the very first thing I'd try to do is immediately abolish the military. Private defense would be better in every single way and would not require the immoral initiation of force of the current system.

  26. #25
    Member osan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    7,945
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Don't have much time so I'll keep this short. Should American citizens be allowed to employ private armies overseas?

    This question stems from, first, the belief that a non-interventionist foreign policy is vitally important to the peace of our nation. Second, the freedoms I believe we should have to pursue economic and other goals. And also, watching the documentary Burma VJ, in which one of the individuals is an oppressive dictator that deserves to be killed-- but not by our government.

    Problems I see is that foreign troops wouldn't be allowed to pursue onto an American's home territory, making it virtually impossible to force peace or retaliate. And stemming from that, the appearance that the US is safeguarding the combatants. I'm sure many foreign governments wouldn't care to differentiate either way.

    What say you?
    Jesus... the shit that keeps some people up at night.

    The nation, so to speak, is falling into ruin about your ears and you concern yourself with this?

    This is right up there with should we be able to own nukes.

    Short answer, yes.

    Either you are free or you are something else.

    We are SO doomed... now my head hurts again.
    --

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
    http://turnyourbackonthem.wordpress.com

    ignominia et contemptum tyrannis

    Habeo excelsum artem; afflixerim cum crudelitate illis qui laedas me

    Shelley's thinly veiled warning to tyrants:

    The monster saw my determination in my face and gnashed his teeth in the impotence of anger. "Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains--revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.

  27. #26
    Member osan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    7,945
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

    Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?
    Did I miss the mass electric kool-aid party?

    God I get such headaches when people turn off their brains. There is NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between "public" and "private" NONE. The only difference, usually, is degree. So-called "government" is usually far better funded across the years. There is ZERO difference between "government" using armed men to expropriate the fruits of YOUR labor and Walmart doing so. None. Zero. Zilch. Nulla. Nada. Nyichevo. Semmi. Nichts. Tween. NOTHING.

    Strip away labels. Strip away all uniforms and clothing. Now tell me who is "government" and who is "private"? All this bullshit tyranny is NOTHING other than one subset of a population acting criminally against the other. HELLO? ANYONE HOME?

    Seriously folks, if one cannot see and understand these basic truths, then they are flying blind.
    --

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
    http://turnyourbackonthem.wordpress.com

    ignominia et contemptum tyrannis

    Habeo excelsum artem; afflixerim cum crudelitate illis qui laedas me

    Shelley's thinly veiled warning to tyrants:

    The monster saw my determination in my face and gnashed his teeth in the impotence of anger. "Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains--revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Yeah, war is a drain on the economy. No matter who says elsewise. I'm sure top share holders of EXXON have no ambitions to privately fund and invade a country. They'd much rather pay ex-general lobbyists what amounts to .00001 percent of profit returns to persuade congress to invade a country. (That statement is close, but by no means an exact figure. I don't have my references handy.) As well as the propaganda campaigns financed by said corporations. Maybe my memory fails me, but was it not BP that had us intervening in Syria the first time. (in the '40s) I will say that while my statements may or may not be incorrect, they are the truth. As in, I might confuse a name with a particular intervention (we've had over a hundred) but I'm only human and really can't remember everything I've read. Now that I think about it, wasn't the Iraq-Kuwait conflict instigated by BP? (rather our intervention)
    If the oil companies had tp spend their own money to start wars for oil, they might choose to innovate and find better sources. Unless of course their plan is to nuke countries and then just take the oil aftr, maybe that would be cost effective.

    But you also have to consider other companies would be gearing up to defend themselves too, so its not like a Sandy Hook situation where you can walk in and take target practice.

  29. #28

    Default

    I think where the line should be draw is when a private army supported, trained and supplied out of the US is in a foreign country offensively assualting foreign armies and governments. I don't think anyone has the right to leave from our joint home stir up a fight in a foreign area and then run back to the common home bringing the wrath of those they attacked down on me. If they leave this country and start an offensive war don't expect to come back home.
    It is very much like when my dog intentionally runs around in the woods, digs in a yellowjackets nest and then comes running back to me with thousands after him. I DON"T welcome him back by my side.
    Last edited by klamath; 01-18-2013 at 08:57 AM.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  30. #29

    Default

    Private Army?

    Why? An Army is for conquest.
    I have no problem with an individual joining another in defense. Foreign or domestic.

    the idea of a "private army" would likely be defeated by the local militia,, or it should be.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •