Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Should libertarians support the US military and soldiers?

  1. #1
    donnie darko
    Member

    Should libertarians support the US military and soldiers?

    I would argue they should not, and here's why:

    *The military are the ultimate welfare queens and receive enormous benefits on our tax money. They are a large part of the reason we are overtaxed and get practically nothing in return.
    *The military is a statist institution.
    *The military oppresses people in other countries and takes away their freedoms.
    *The US military has a history of initiating aggression against countries that did nothing to us like Iraq and Panama.
    *I don't understand how someone can be against the government and make an exception for the Armed Forces. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Donnie, Donnie, Donnie. Guess what: we don't! Your reasoning is very sound. Everything you said is right.

    Why were you under the impression that we support such a thing as the massive US military-industrial complex? We are the very ones who most want to dismantle it!

  4. #3
    Anti-state, anti-war, I believe the conclusion is obvious.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Donnie, Donnie, Donnie. Guess what: we don't! Your reasoning is very sound. Everything you said is right.

    Why were you under the impression that we support such a thing as the massive US military-industrial complex? We are the very ones who most want to dismantle it!
    There are some of us who do make that exception. I'm not one of them.

  6. #5
    I was at a pizza buffet today and I witnessed some civilian worshipping a guy with a service dog with a "I thank you for your service" line and a handshake. I was actually offended.

    A few reasons. One is I was in the service and I don't like soldier mentality on general principle having witnessed it first hand. My brother and sister are in the service now and I would never think of saying something like that to them or anyone else who was in the service. It's a job. Do you thank the McDonalds guy for having to wear his embarassing uniform and sucking it up in the fast food industry? Why not?

    Another is I think people are very selective. He was an "old guy". Plenty of young people never get noticed but I guess since this guy had a service dog he is assumed to be a great "sacrificer".

    Another reason has to do with a veteran friend of mine who is disabled. She is actually wanting to get a service dog as she has scoliosis. I was actually thinking of taking a picture of the dog for her. She actually, in my opinion, needs a dog whereas this guy seemed to be getting around perfectly fine. I don't even know what condition he had that required the dog.

    Anyway, that kind of grandstanding worship just gets to me. A true soldier who actually has the values that people pretend they do is rare and everyday citizens are no less likely to have those values and they don't get thanked.

    At the same time I'm not a "spit on the baby killers" hippy either.

    So I guess I don't support or "not support" them, I just don't even recognize them in any other class than "employed" or "retired". If they actually were heroes and did something notable I'd be willing to recognize it but "serving" doesn't win you any points with me. And when I see strangers put strangers with a patch or a hat or a bumper sticker on some moral or honorable pedestal just because of that it kind of offends me (apparently).
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  7. #6
    At the same time I'm not a "spit on the baby killers" hippy either.
    Neither am I, though I probably come across that way sometimes because I actively and openly dissent from the status quo. But, I don't hate soldiers. I think its a job, and an ill-advised one at that, considering you will be called upon to fight in unjust wars.

    But I'm not really for demonizing them. I am for a generally negative but cautiously negative view on the whole deal.

  8. #7

  9. #8
    [QUOTE=Ronin Truth;5881663]WWJD?[ QUOTE]
    Good question. Consider the following:
    QUOTE]Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
    Matthew 5:9
    But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back Luke 6:35[ QUOTE]

    What do you think?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Go through the new posts on just this one site and read every single totally documented insane thing cops do for an entire week,
    and read every single totally documented insane thing the judiciary does for an entire week,
    and read every single totally documented insane thing the legislatures do for an entire week,
    and then consider two further facts:

    One, that this was just ONE week and just what was documented on ONE site,
    Two, that every single soldier that served is serving for the sole purpose of supporting every single insane thing you just read.

    They're not fighting and dying to reduce tyranny here: if they were, they wouldn't be across the ocean, they'd be here, and there would be less tyranny.

    It's true that they probably just need a job and a college education and can't figure out another way to do it besides killing brown people.
    That doesn't change the fact that they're making themselves comfortable with their whoring and killing by telling themselves lies about what they're doing.
    They may believe the lie, but that they believe it does not make it true.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  12. #10
    Libertarians can support a defensive military, but they should not support our current military nor should they encourage people to join.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "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."

  13. #11
    I'm not entirely familiar with how military registration works, but I believe that when a soldier signs up for the military, they sign up based on the promise that the government will give them some sort of compensation

    If that is the case, then the government is morally obligated good on that contract, just like any other employer.

    When the government does send troops into combat, they are also morally obligated to equip and train them well, so that they have the best chances of survival and success. The less they risk the troops lives, the better.

    Bear in mind, that these beliefs aren't necessarily the most libertarian beliefs that I have. Some libertarians don't care about the government meeting it's contractual obligations so long as it means cutting that portion of the government away.

    ---

    Also bear in mind that this doesn't mean that the government needs to hire a large number of troops or deploy a large number of troops. The less war, the better, but when they do deploy troops, they shouldn't just throw them under the bus.
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  14. #12
    What's donnie's issue?

    Does he think this is some subset of Free Republic or RedState or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Donnie, Donnie, Donnie. Guess what: we don't! Your reasoning is very sound. Everything you said is right.

    Why were you under the impression that we support such a thing as the massive US military-industrial complex? We are the very ones who most want to dismantle it!

  15. #13

  16. #14
    The government is not an employer, it is a redistributor.

    That is to say, they have no money to employ anyone, absent, of course, their taking from another, whether direct or indirect.

    The 'contracts' can burn with their souls for what I care.

    Not that every soldier is a 'baby killer,' of course, simply that any today are accessories to the fact.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  17. #15
    If I had to listen to one more military person sing the national anthem during the world series I was going to hurl.

  18. #16
    This is a good example of an issue that exposes the divide between the libertarians like Ron Paul and most of us and the AnCaps on these boards who are just using Ron Paul as a springboard for their ultimate vision of a stateless society. You will find that most libertarians support the US military, albeit provided that it is reigned in and held to its constitutionally authorized functions of national defense and a Navy which protects US commerce abroad. These libertarians recognize that such a military is a valid function of a limited government and will have to be funded, to include upholding the compensation package provided to the service members.

    The AnCaps are more of the "let it burn and the soldiers can go to Hell, they're lucky we don't put them on trial" types.

    Both sides tend to eschew the soldier worship which predominates in our culture today, and both sides certainly oppose the offensive imperialistic military we currently employ. I think there is more common ground than division, but nevertheless when this question gets brought up, invariably that division eventually shows itself.
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Should libertarians support the US military and soldiers?
    I don't know but my initial impression hangs on the words "should" and the collective "libertarians", that being nobody should do anything just because they choose to align themselves with a certain group.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    This is a good example of an issue that exposes the divide between the libertarians like Ron Paul and most of us and the AnCaps on these boards who are just using Ron Paul as a springboard for their ultimate vision of a stateless society. You will find that most libertarians support the US military, albeit provided that it is reigned in and held to its constitutionally authorized functions of national defense and a Navy which protects US commerce abroad. These libertarians recognize that such a military is a valid function of a limited government and will have to be funded, to include upholding the compensation package provided to the service members.

    The AnCaps are more of the "let it burn and the soldiers can go to Hell, they're lucky we don't put them on trial" types.

    Both sides tend to eschew the soldier worship which predominates in our culture today, and both sides certainly oppose the offensive imperialistic military we currently employ. I think there is more common ground than division, but nevertheless when this question gets brought up, invariably that division eventually shows itself.
    I think that ultimately this divide is pretty small if you really think about it.

    I guess the difference is, some of us (and I put myself in this category, despite not being an ancap) are far more disgusted with the blind support and even worship of the military that is going on today, than I ever could be with an anarcho-capitalist for being too against it.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    This is a good example of an issue that exposes the divide between the libertarians like Ron Paul and most of us and the AnCaps on these boards who are just using Ron Paul as a springboard for their ultimate vision of a stateless society. You will find that most libertarians support the US military, albeit provided that it is reigned in and held to its constitutionally authorized functions of national defense and a Navy which protects US commerce abroad. These libertarians recognize that such a military is a valid function of a limited government and will have to be funded, to include upholding the compensation package provided to the service members.
    A different, more relevant divide between "constitutional" libertarians (those who read things into the constitution to try to get it to jive with the way things are) and "unconstitutional" ancaps (those who have read the document) on the military issue is this:

    When the founders wrote in Article 1 section 8 that congress shall have the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years", they weren't just making work for themselves by making it unconstitutional to fund the army in perpetuity.
    They were being philosophically consistent. The quotes showing that they didn't like standing armies are numerous.

    The two year time limit is clearly intended to make the funding expire and to allow for the natural disbanding of the army which was raised. There is no time limit on federal regulation of local militias: moreover, the clause

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
    clearly states that it is the job of the MILITIA to repel invasions, NOT the job of armies... no explicit power is given to call on armies to repel invasions.

    So the constitution itself supports the idea that there should be no standing army.


    As I've said so often before: The thing that made me ancap, more than any other thing, is the realization that "constitutionalists" don't know what the document was intended to do. They don't even get the good parts right, so bringing up the bad parts is pointless. "Constitutionalism" in this country boils down to the exact same thing leftists and neocons do: reading things into the document that don't exist, in order to make things the way someone thinks they should be, which disagrees with the plain meaning of the text.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  23. #20
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    The U.S. Military has become a glorified jobs program. With that said, I'm not one to needdlessly glorify the military nor vociferously condemn it like the peaceniks in the 60s. I'm certainly no pacifist and that's where a lot of that 'baby killer' nonsense was coming from. Some pacifists are too cowardly to even defend themselves.

  24. #21
    The question in the OP is one that can only be answered, 'Yes and no.'

    Should we support military adventurism? Obviously we think not, as we do not.

    Do we sit around happy that the military is so intent on starting the next war, they have no money left over to take care of our veterans? Do we happily contribute to the Wounded Warrior Project, which seems to spend ninety-odd percent of what it gets on television ads and executive perks, content in the notion that the federal government is doing all it can for the people it shoved into harm's way for no good reason? Are you effing kidding me?

    If the oil companies want to make Iraq safe for their drilling operations and Big Pharma wants to make Afghanistan safe for their opium farming, then let them do it themselves. Don't expect us to happily say that America's blood and treasure is just the sort of corporate welfare that these enormously wealthy international cartels need us to provide at no cost to them.

    '...military and soldiers' indeed. Your vocabulary lesson for the day, donnie darko, is the word 'or'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Libertarians can support a defensive military, but they should not support our current military nor should they encourage people to join.
    This....

    There's a big difference in supporting the constitutional role of the Feds in our Defense and supporting 1. Preventive War 2. Nation building 3. Imperialism

    Some of us who serve/have served in the military don't support those endeavors either.
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever.

    It won't take very long to get them home but it won't be overnight either but Iraq says they can't stay and they are coming home just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by donnie darko View Post
    I would argue they should not, and here's why:

    *The military are the ultimate welfare queens and receive enormous benefits on our tax money. They are a large part of the reason we are overtaxed and get practically nothing in return.
    *The military is a statist institution.
    *The military oppresses people in other countries and takes away their freedoms.
    *The US military has a history of initiating aggression against countries that did nothing to us like Iraq and Panama.
    *I don't understand how someone can be against the government and make an exception for the Armed Forces. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
    Before you get all righteous on us, remember there are MANY veterans on RPF, myself included. Serving two tours in Iraq is what led me on the path of self-discovery which brought me to the liberty movement. I'm about as anti-war as anyone you'll meet. I would posit that veterans and current military are an incredible asset to the cause of human liberty. That being said, I don't agree that anyone should 'worship' the military. I left the service for a reason. Go back and watch some of the military/veterans for Ron Paul videos on youtube and learn a few things before you start calling us welfare queens.

    And as far as your logic goes, the military didn't initiate aggression against anyone. The suits in DC and the brass did that.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    This is a good example of an issue that exposes the divide between the libertarians like Ron Paul and most of us and the AnCaps on these boards who are just using Ron Paul as a springboard for their ultimate vision of a stateless society. You will find that most libertarians support the US military, albeit provided that it is reigned in and held to its constitutionally authorized functions of national defense and a Navy which protects US commerce abroad. These libertarians recognize that such a military is a valid function of a limited government and will have to be funded, to include upholding the compensation package provided to the service members.

    The AnCaps are more of the "let it burn and the soldiers can go to Hell, they're lucky we don't put them on trial" types.

    Both sides tend to eschew the soldier worship which predominates in our culture today, and both sides certainly oppose the offensive imperialistic military we currently employ. I think there is more common ground than division, but nevertheless when this question gets brought up, invariably that division eventually shows itself.
    Well friggin said. I would obviously fall into the Ron Paul libertarian camp vs ancap....

    /thread
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    '...military and soldiers' indeed. Your vocabulary lesson for the day, donnie darko, is the word 'or'.
    Well put, good show. Yes, libertarians do support the soldiers in very important and profound ways, and because of that we do not support the US military.

    Our support for them in, for example, calling for them to stop being used as cannon fodder for idiotic campaigns with delusions of glory, is doubtless why the soldiers feel so strongly about supporting libertarians, as they did, for example, Ron Paul.

    People like to stay alive. They like to be able to actually cohabit with their families and raise their children. Thus, they appreciate it when people (namely us) say things like "maybe we should stop killing you." It's a nice gesture.

    Now maybe some soldiers are wusses. I'm sure some are. And such "sensitive souls" might take umbrage at being called names, and might prioritize that over the fact that we want to save their sorry lives and bring them home. They might not be able to get over their injured feelings, and thus see libertarians as their enemies despite the fact that what we want would clearly help them. They might get just all torn up that we call them murderers merely because they went and murdered a bunch of people. Sob. How dare those meany libertarians eschew euphemism and lies?

    But you know what? The numbers show, I think, that there are far more soldiers that are hard-nosed and practical. They donated to Ron Paul far, far more than to all the sad-sack GOP people pandering to their feelings, talking about them like Gods and heroes. The soldiers don't care about if their commander talks pretty and tells them how awesome they are and gives them all gold stars, they just want a commander who will keep them and their mates alive. That's us. That's libertarians.

    That's why they support us. We're the only ones on their team. They support us, because we support them. And you know what? When they go and shoot babies in the face, we'll call them baby-killers, because that's what they freaking are. It's not that hard to understand. You can't handle the truth, willwash and jllundqu? Then just stew.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Some pacifists are too cowardly to even defend themselves.
    I am not a pacifist, but that statement is just ridiculous.

    Many people who do not defend themselves against aggression may very well be cowards - but that does not make them pacifists.

    I see no reason to deride as "cowards" those who, on principle, refuse to defend themselves against aggression.

    Just the opposite, in fact: it would take a great deal of fortitude and force of will to cleave to such principle.

    It is not a thing I agree with, but I will certainly not mock it as "cowardly." It is no such thing.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 05-29-2015 at 12:56 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection ˇ FREE PDF ˇ FREE EPUB ˇ PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    ˇ tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ˇ



Similar Threads

  1. Chinese Military Display: Female soldiers!
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 11:24 AM
  2. 1,500 U.S soldiers to join military exercise in Cambodia next year
    By disorderlyvision in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 07:14 AM
  3. U.S. Military to Deploy 20,000 Soldiers For Homeland Security
    By lavis88 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 12:39 AM
  4. Think the soldiers in the military care...
    By MadViking10 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 10:25 PM
  5. Military Soldiers - Delegates for Ron Paul
    By ItDoesNotStopWithRonPaul in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 06:30 PM

Posting Permissions

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