The German military is currently unavailable

[Swordsmyth]

Right



That wasn't always the conscious goal, but it was always the logical conclusion, yes.



Right

In order to achieve your goals it will require the very war you claim you want to avoid.

No, it's much simpler. Attempts at union will succeed when the central authority is strong enough; when not, not.

Any attempt at such a large scale union will end in violence and will not succeed unless the violence succeeds, eventually they will fail and result in division and violence as the Roman empire did.

The alternative is international anarchy (i.e. more or less constant war).

Here is a simplified history of Europe:

-(40,000 - 23 B.C) Constant War

That is debatable but hard to prove either way.

-(23 B.C. - 476 A.D.) Pax Romana*

Filled with bloody wars from beginning to end.

-(476 A.D. - 1945) Constant War

There were periods of peace.

-(1945 - present) Pax Americana (or, more recently, the EU peace)

Filled with bloody wars from its beginning to its fast approaching end.
And the EU had nothing to do with it, there was peace before its creation and it will be the cause of war when it ends.

What comes next, I wonder?

The Endtimes, wars and rumors of war, the same as always only with gusto as madmen try to create a global government.

The relationship between the US and Mexico/Canada is like the relationship between Rome and its barbarian vassal states.

Mexico and Canada exist as sovereign states at the pleasure of Washington D.C.

And D.C. has been wise enough to leave them independent and thereby avoid war with them and their allies.

I should have a unicorn which $#@!s money, but it ain't so.

It was very realistically possible for the southern colonies to go their own way after the revolution with only an alliance with the north.

The morality of it is, once again, irrelevant.

Morality is always relevant for practical reasons even if it is discounted on its own, immoral domination and parasitism breeds resentment and conflict.

It was only possible because the United States at that time was a rather decentralized federation.

If it had been centralized, under whoever's leadership, war would have been impossible - as it is now.

It is possible now and the US may end up dissolving in violence if we don't have a peaceful break up.
In addition a centralized country was not possible without the very war you decry but the war could have been avoided if the two regions has remained independent with a loose alliance.

[Swordsmyth]

You also believe that force is justified to maintain the desired social order; or have you gone native (anarchist)?

But I do not believe force is justified to impose a new order on people who already have their own.

[r3volution 3.0]

In order to achieve your goals it will require the very war you claim you want to avoid.

Somehow, you don't appreciate the difference between a war which ends war (genuinely, contra Woodrow's horse$#@! phrase), and perpetual war. As long as there are states capable of fighting wars, there will be wars. The end of war means the elimination of all states capable of fighting wars: save, one, which would then rule. As I said earlier, albeit in Latin which may have flown past you: with domination comes peace. Nietzsche had a similar view, and well expressed (I don't have a citation for you at the moment on that). But, on the other hand, it is simply common sense. Only an idiot or hopeless ideologue would deny the proposition that victory (of someone) makes peace. Your denial is viscerally similar to the insane objections of anarchists, when presented with the logic of the impossibility of anarchism. It is in fact exactly the same reasoning - someone will inevitably take control of the given territory and form a state. There is no difference between this and my view now, except space. Apparently, you think the rule "the strongest shall conquer and form a state" applies everywhere, but somehow not with respect to states which you for some well-intended but misguided reason want to see remain independent. It makes no sense.

Any attempt at such a large scale union will end in violence and will not succeed unless the violence succeeds, eventually they will fail and result in division and violence as the Roman empire did.

The Roman Empire collapsed (and prior to that, was divided in two) for lack of the telegraph.

It is possible now and the US may end up dissolving in violence if we don't have a peaceful break up.
In addition a centralized country was not possible without the very war you decry but the war could have been avoided if the two regions has remained independent with a loose alliance.

The current government will collapse, as all democratic governments do, by the hands of socialist spendthrifts.

But the US is much too centralized to have a civil war ala 1865; it won't be territorial. It will be class-based, ala Russia 1917.

It will be within, not between, states, towns, families.

Then, one would hope, a Napoleon type character will arise to end the revolution and restore order.

...frankly, our debates over the future form of government are academic; it will be a monarchy, sooner or later: like it or not.

[r3volution 3.0]

But I do not believe force is justified to impose a new order on people who already have their own.

Right, of course, we've been down this road.

You insist, in order to maintain your nationalist bone fides, and despite all liberalism or just common sense, that people have a "right to be enslaved," and so forth (their national preference, of course). And, of course, this right is based on entirely arbitrarily geography. Bob Smith has certain rights because he was born in England, while Bob Kim Sung has the right to remain a slave of a Stalinist state because he happened to be born at the wrong intersection of latitude and longitude.

That's a sound moral theory..

[Swordsmyth]

Somehow, you don't appreciate the difference between a war which ends war (genuinely, contra Woodrow's horse$#@! phrase), and perpetual war. As long as there are states capable of fighting wars, there will be wars. The end of war means the elimination of all states capable of fighting wars: save, one, which would then rule. As I said earlier, albeit in Latin which may have flown past you: with domination comes peace. Nietzsche had a similar view, and well expressed (I don't have a citation for you at the moment on that). But, on the other hand, it is simply common sense. Only an idiot or hopeless ideologue would deny the proposition that victory (of someone) makes peace. Your denial is viscerally similar to the insane objections of anarchists, when presented with the logic of the impossibility of anarchism. It is in fact exactly the same reasoning - someone will inevitably take control of the given territory and form a state. There is no difference between this and my view now, except space. Apparently, you think the rule "the strongest shall conquer and form a state" applies everywhere, but somehow not with respect to states which you for some well-intended but misguided reason want to see remain independent. It makes no sense.

No state will ever succeed at conquering the whole world, any that try will exhaust themselves and collapse, there is an upper limit on the size of successful states just as there is a lower one, there are too many people with too many different opinions and too many people with boundless ambition for any union of all mankind to succeed despite improvements in technology.

The Roman Empire collapsed (and prior to that, was divided in two) for lack of the telegraph.

It would have collapsed anyway it had grown beyond the upper limit on the size and diversity of successful states and because its excessive power had enabled too much corruption.

The current government will collapse, as all democratic governments do, by the hands of socialist spendthrifts.

The exact problem that destroyed so many monarchies.

But the US is much too centralized to have a civil war ala 1865; it won't be territorial. It will be class-based, ala Russia 1917.

It will be within, not between, states, towns, families.

It will be both within and between, territorial control will be quickly established for the most part and the different powers will then either fight or make peace with one another.
But it could all be avoided with peaceful separation.

Then, one would hope, a Napoleon type character will arise to end the revolution and restore order.

Perhaps but perhaps not.

...frankly, our debates over the future form of government are academic; it will be a monarchy, sooner or later: like it or not.

That remains to be seen and it may in some areas, GOD willing a superior republic will emerge in mine.

[Swordsmyth]

Right, of course, we've been down this road.

You insist, in order to maintain your nationalist bone fides, and despite all liberalism or just common sense, that people have a "right to be enslaved," and so forth (their national preference, of course). And, of course, this right is based on entirely arbitrarily geography. Bob Smith has certain rights because he was born in England, while Bob Kim Sung has the right to remain a slave of a Stalinist state because he happened to be born at the wrong intersection of latitude and longitude.

That's a sound moral theory..

Bob Kim Sung has a right to overthrow his government if he wishes, Individuals may have a right to assist him and neighboring states with just grievances against the Stalinist state may as well but we as a nation do not.
It is also contrary to the rights of our citizens to expend blood and treasure "liberating" other people who may not only object but fight tooth and nail to stop us.

[r3volution 3.0]

No state will ever succeed at conquering the whole world, any that try will exhaust themselves and collapse, there is an upper limit on the size of successful states just as there is a lower one, there are too many people with too many different opinions and too many people with boundless ambition for any union of all mankind to succeed despite improvements in technology.

There was a technological limit (i.e. lack of telecommunications), which is no longer relevant.

By the way, hate to be the one to break the news, but the U.S. has more or less conquered the world.

Only a few states remain (China, Russia, maybe Germany).

The problem is that the U.S. is hopelessly inept and unable to govern these states, even if it won the war.

...which, at this point, it wouldn't.

It would have collapsed anyway it had grown beyond the upper limit on the size and diversity of successful states and because its excessive power had enabled too much corruption.

No

The exact problem that destroyed so many monarchies.

Socialism destroyed a lot of monarchies, did it?

LOL, are you high?

GOD willing a superior republic will emerge in mine.

God willing a horse with the wings of a chicken and the horns of a goat will emerge, capable of shooting lightening bolts from its ass.

[Swordsmyth]

There was a technological limit (i.e. lack of telecommunications), which is no longer relevant.

There are other non-technological limits and they still apply

By the way, hate to be the one to break the news, but the U.S. has more or less conquered the world.

Only a few states remain (China, Russia, maybe Germany).

The problem is that the U.S. is hopelessly inept and unable to govern these states, even if it won the war.

...which, at this point, it wouldn't.

That is delusional.

Socialism destroyed a lot of monarchies, did it?

LOL, are you high?

Spendthriftiness did, with monarchies it was usually caused by wars to try to conquer the world.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bob Kim Sung has a right to overthrow his government if he wishes

But anyone not born within the arbitrary geographical area which the Stalinist state claims as its territory has no right to help him, right?

Individuals may have a right to assist him and neighboring states with just grievances against the Stalinist state may as well but we as a nation do not.
It is also contrary to the rights of our citizens to expend blood and treasure "liberating" other people who may not only object but fight tooth and nail to stop us.

But individuals can be impressed into the service of their local state to provide for the security of others (as by paying taxes)?

[r3volution 3.0]

There are other non-technological limits and they still apply

There are issues relating to (dis)economies of scale, and they are solvable for a minarchist state.

That is delusional.

Wait a while

Spendthriftiness did, with monarchies it was usually caused by wars to try to conquer the world.

I would suggest you stop reading Breitbart and take in your hand a history book.

[Swordsmyth]

But anyone not born within the arbitrary geographical area which the Stalinist state claims as its territory has no right to help him, right?

Read the next line which you quoted:

Individuals may have a right to assist him and neighboring states with just grievances against the Stalinist state may as well but we as a nation do not.

By the way N. Korea is effectively a monarchy under the Kim dynasty, it should be a paradise according to you.

But individuals can be impressed into the service of their local state to provide for the security of others (as by paying taxes)?

Only because it is unavoidable they are beneficiaries of the defense and justice provided, conquest of foreign lands is avoidable and does not benefit most of the citizens of the conquering state.

There are issues relating to (dis)economies of scale, and they are solvable for a minarchist state.

Not all of them, the minarchist solution to many of them is independence and noninterventionism.

Wait a while

How will waiting show that the US has conquered the world?
It has not even come close and as close as it has come is the result of leaving other countries independent rather than conquering them.

I would suggest you stop reading Breitbart and take in your hand a history book.

I have, history books are full of bankrupt monarchies (and their equivalents), war for conquest was a common theme.

[r3volution 3.0]

Read the next line which you quoted

Yes yes, I know, you make an arbitrary* distinction between individual and state intervention.

*not arbitrary insofar as it serves your purpose of allowing only hopelessly ineffective forms of intervention, of course

By the way N. Korea is effectively a monarchy under the Kim dynasty, it should be a paradise according to you.

No, N. Korea is not a monarchy; if it were, Kim would not have felt compelled to publicly explode his uncle with anti-aircraft artillery.

As has been explained before, monarchy does not mean simply that one person has de jure control of the state; that power must be real.

If the "monarch" is subject to the whims of over-powerful subjects (like uncle-generals), he isn't a monarch in any meaningful sense (of course, no monarch has ever been totally free of outside influence, so it is matter of degree). Kim is now not a monarch; he is (like many leaders of third world non-democratic states) only the not-very-secure head of an oligarchy (the party), itself not very secure. If Kim were able to consolidate power, I expect he would embark on a program of liberalization, ala China, Singapore, or the UAE.

Only because it is unavoidable they are beneficiaries of the defense and justice provided, conquest of foreign lands is avoidable and does not benefit most of the citizens of the conquering state.

In either case (national defense or humanitarian intervention), some individuals are being forced to subsidize the defense of other individuals. In either case, the tax-payer may or may not personally benefit, but whether he and the tax-consumer happen to live within the same national borders (determined by historical accident) has no bearing on whether he benefits. There is no reason to suppose that a New Yorker benefits more from subsidizing the defense of a Hawaiian than he would from subsidizing the defense of an Icelander.

Not all of them, the minarchist solution to many of them is independence and noninterventionism.

The solution to the problem is a specific type of decentralization: from the top down, as it were.

A profit-maximizing central government would decentralize for the same reasons that McDonald's sells franchises, rather than running all those venues directly. The distinction between this kind of arrangement and federalism is that the local governments would not have any share of sovereignty; they would exist at the pleasure of the central government. The reason that such pseudo-federalism (contra real federalism) is necessary is evident at Antietam, Gettysburg, etc (or, for that matter, Verdun, the Isonzo, etc, as it's essentially the same problem).

How will waiting show that the US has conquered the world?

I meant wait a while to see someone conquer the world.

It's as inevitable as the process that led to the unification of the existent nation-states that you love so dearly.

I raised the US as an example of a near world conqueror (it won't finish the job, due to its internal problems).

I have, history books are full of bankrupt monarchies (and their equivalents), war for conquest was a common theme.

They were chronically hovering round bankruptcy for lack of tax revenues, not for excessive military spending (and certainly not for excessive social spending, as that was essentially non-existent). Modern democratic states are just as prone to warmongering: the difference being that they're more ruthless (or irrational, from an economic point of view) in financing those wars. Put another way; a monarch who loses a war might bankrupt himself; democratic states who win their wars tend to bankrupt their whole populations. You might note that the development of "total war" coincided with the advent of democracy.

From the perspective of the owner of a state, war is a business proposition.

Frederick says: "Well, let's see, Silesia yields $1 million per year in tax revenues, a war with Maria would cost $4 million, so I'll break even after 4 years, assuming I win (of course I will, I'm Frederick). Gentlemen, double check my math, but that looks like good ROI."

In stark contrast, Cheney says: "Well, I don't care what happens to the US economy (why would I?), so let's spend $3 trillion to make $10 million in capital gains on Halliburton stock. We'll reap all the profit; the loss is someone else's."

[Swordsmyth]

Yes yes, I know, you make an arbitrary* distinction between individual and state intervention.

*not arbitrary insofar as it serves your purpose of allowing only hopelessly ineffective forms of intervention, of course

Except I specifically included neighboring states with legitimate grievances against N. Korea.

No, N. Korea is not a monarchy; if it were, Kim would not have felt compelled to publicly explode his uncle with anti-aircraft artillery.

As has been explained before, monarchy does not mean simply that one person has de jure control of the state; that power must be real.

If the "monarch" is subject to the whims of over-powerful subjects (like uncle-generals), he isn't a monarch in any meaningful sense (of course, no monarch has ever been totally free of outside influence, so it is matter of degree). Kim is now not a monarch; he is (like many leaders of third world non-democratic states) only the not-very-secure head of an oligarchy (the party), itself not very secure. If Kim were able to consolidate power, I expect he would embark on a program of liberalization, ala China, Singapore, or the UAE.

How many generations of inherited power does it take to turn a dictatorship into a monarchy?
What is to prevent a "monarch" from losing power to oligarchs so that it remains a monarchy and will according to you retain the best possible policies? (remember before you answer that history is full of monarchs who did lose power to oligarchs)

In either case (national defense or humanitarian intervention), some individuals are being forced to subsidize the defense of other individuals. In either case, the tax-payer may or may not personally benefit, but whether he and the tax-consumer happen to live within the same national borders (determined by historical accident) has no bearing on whether he benefits. There is no reason to suppose that a New Yorker benefits more from subsidizing the defense of a Hawaiian than he would from subsidizing the defense of an Icelander.

Actually he does benefit but if you think it is not enough of a benefit then that is an excellent argument for smaller states.

The solution to the problem is a specific type of decentralization: from the top down, as it were.

A profit-maximizing central government would decentralize for the same reasons that McDonald's sells franchises, rather than running all those venues directly. The distinction between this kind of arrangement and federalism is that the local governments would not have any share of sovereignty; they would exist at the pleasure of the central government. The reason that such pseudo-federalism (contra real federalism) is necessary is evident at Antietam, Gettysburg, etc (or, for that matter, Verdun, the Isonzo, etc, as it's essentially the same problem).

And if those "franchise" states wanted to enact policies forbidden by the master state they would rebel and you would have wars, the odds would be good that sooner or later some of them would succeed and you would be back to having many independent states.

I meant wait a while to see someone conquer the world.

It's as inevitable as the process that led to the unification of the existent nation-states that you love so dearly.

I raised the US as an example of a near world conqueror (it won't finish the job, due to its internal problems).

Nobody will ever succeed at conquering the world.

They were chronically hovering round bankruptcy for lack of tax revenues, not for excessive military spending (and certainly not for excessive social spending, as that was essentially non-existent).

I thought low taxation was supposed to be one of the attractions of monarchy.
Why were they unable to collect sufficient tax revenues? Was it because they had to share power with oligarchs and therefore were unable to follow "best practices"?
If they spent beyond their means on military adventures that is excessive military spending whether it was because of low revenues or not, it also doesn't speak well of their ability to balance a budget which indicates that with larger revenues they would still go bankrupt.

Modern democratic states are just as prone to warmongering: the difference being that they're more ruthless (or irrational, from an economic point of view) in financing those wars. Put another way; a monarch who loses a war might bankrupt himself; democratic states who win their wars tend to bankrupt their whole populations. You might note that the development of "total war" coincided with the advent of democracy.

Actually kings did impoverish their subjects through war taxation and also lost power to oligarchs who then pressured them to enact many other bad policies, foreign adventurism is bad no matter who runs it.

From the perspective of the owner of a state, war is a business proposition.

Frederick says: "Well, let's see, Silesia yields $1 million per year in tax revenues, a war with Maria would cost $4 million, so I'll break even after 4 years, assuming I win (of course I will, I'm Frederick). Gentlemen, double check my math, but that looks like good ROI."

In stark contrast, Cheney says: "Well, I don't care what happens to the US economy (why would I?), so let's spend $3 trillion to make $10 million in capital gains on Halliburton stock. We'll reap all the profit; the loss is someone else's."

Frederick is also discounting the costs and losses to anyone but himself, you are also giving him credit for military genius when the historical odds are against that, many kings lost wars that they started bringing ruin and destruction on their subjects and many won but only after spending far more than they expected to and ruining the very asset they sought to obtain.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except I specifically included neighboring states with legitimate grievances against N. Korea.

...not sure how that's related to the issue at hand (i.e. humanitarian intervention).

How many generations of inherited power does it take to turn a dictatorship into a monarchy?

...however many it takes for the ruler to be independent of external influence

As I've said, monarchy in the strictest sense of the word is an ideal unlikely to be realized, since no ruler is likely to be totally free of outside influence. It's a spectrum, between more and less secure rulers. I can't see any advantage in trying to determine exactly when a ruler crosses what must be an essentially arbitrary threshold. The important point is that more security means better incentives; it's always better that the ruler be more than less secure (as with any property owner).

Actually he does benefit but if you think it is not enough of a benefit then that is an excellent argument for smaller states.

How's that, and how's that?

And if those "franchise" states wanted to enact policies forbidden by the master state they would rebel and you would have wars, the odds would be good that sooner or later some of them would succeed and you would be back to having many independent states.

Civil war is not equally likely under every form of political organization.

Q1: Which is more likely: that a state secedes from the US, or that a county secedes from the US?

Q2. If a sovereign state is no more likely to resist the central government than a mere administrative unit of the central government (as you appear to be claiming), why do you favor federalism at all?

What is to prevent a "monarch" from losing power to oligarchs so that it remains a monarchy and will according to you retain the best possible policies? (remember before you answer that history is full of monarchs who did lose power to oligarchs)

If you mean oligarchs outside the ruling class, then it is the same factors which discourage revolution in any state (i.e. the massive military superiority of the state, and perhaps other, softer forms of power). As for rebels from within the ruling class (e.g. generals or governors), is monarchy especially resistant to this form of subversion? Yes, for the reason that these "inside rebels" would face unified opposition (i.e. in the person of the monarch), much as outside rebels would (vis a vis a state unified against them). Contrast this with an oligarchy, where anyone trying to subvert the state may find allies at the highest level. The historical evidence confirms this distinction. The very fact that non-monarchical government has been so rare speaks to its instability (in terms of its tendency to evolve into monarchy). The Roman empire had plenty of civil war, dozens, but never once did it revert to a republic, did it?

I thought low taxation was supposed to be one of the attractions of monarchy.

It is. Taxes were extraordinarily low by modern standards.

Why were they unable to collect sufficient tax revenues? Was it because they had to share power with oligarchs and therefore were unable to follow "best practices"?

Yes, insofar as the nobility and clergy were generally immune from taxation (even in France, where they had been largely neutered, the king could not easily tax them). Given this, and that the king was generally unwilling to crush the remainder of the population, loans (often forced, mind you - de facto taxes) were often used for extraordinary military expenditures.

If they spent beyond their means on military adventures that is excessive military spending whether it was because of low revenues or not

If you're arguing that wars of conquest were frequently not justifiable on liberal grounds (and so any funds spent on such wars were "excessive"), certainly. If you're arguing that monarchs were not generally doing rational calculations about the likely costs and benefits, that's mistaken. That those calculations were not always correct, well...war is the realm of uncertainty, don't you know.

foreign adventurism is bad no matter who runs it

Not all foreign adventurism is bad; as for bad foreign adventurism, yes, it's bad whoever runs it. The point is, though, that a monarchical government tends do this less, or in a less damaging way. A king cares about the costs of a war in a way which no democratic government can. The idea of fighting a war to the bitter end, regardless of cost, is very modern.

Frederick is also discounting the costs and losses to anyone but himself

As a monarch, all the costs are his; that's the whole point of monarchy in general - internalizing the costs of bad policy.

Every cent by which his taxpayers are impoverished is a cent he cannot tax in the future: a reduction in his income.

All that said, the difference in the foreign policy realm between monarchy and democracy is not nearly as stark as the difference in terms of economic policy, the latter being the basis of the argument for monarchy - anything in the foreign policy realm is a bonus. The real solution to the problem of war isn't monarchy (though that should help to some extent), but the end of inter-state anarchy, as discussed above. These are two different issue, mind you; let's not confuse them.

[Swordsmyth]

...not sure how that's related to the issue at hand (i.e. humanitarian intervention).

It was part of the list of those who had justification to intervene.

...however many it takes for the ruler to be independent of external influence

As I've said, monarchy in the strictest sense of the word is an ideal unlikely to be realized, since no ruler is likely to be totally free of outside influence. It's a spectrum, between more and less secure rulers. I can't see any advantage in trying to determine exactly when a ruler crosses what must be an essentially arbitrary threshold. The important point is that more security means better incentives; it's always better that the ruler be more than less secure (as with any property owner).

More security can also mean arrogance and carelessness.

How's that, and how's that?

He benefits because the joint defense demonstrates to any threats to his area that it will not be easy pickings, it is an argument for smaller states because in a smaller state each taxpayer more directly benefits from the collective defense and doesn't have to pay for the defense of far flung territories with little connection to him.

Civil war is not equally likely under every form of political organization.

Q1: Which is more likely: that a state secedes from the US, or that a county secedes from the US?

Global government would far exceed the threshold for unwieldiness while the regions would be large enough to have the resources for rebellion, those are not the case with your example.

Q2. If a sovereign state is no more likely to resist the central government than a mere administrative unit of the central government (as you appear to be claiming),

Am I claiming that?
I am claiming that the cost in blood and treasure to create a global empire would end up wasted when it broke apart, it is much better to not try to make one.

why do you favor federalism at all?

Because it allows smaller states which are more responsive to their citizens to handle most of government's duties while enabling defense on par with larger governments but it has its limits and it must not be enforced by the sword.

If you mean oligarchs outside the ruling class, then it is the same factors which discourage revolution in any state (i.e. the massive military superiority of the state, and perhaps other, softer forms of power).As for rebels from within the ruling class (e.g. generals or governors), is monarchy especially resistant to this form of subversion? Yes, for the reason that these "inside rebels" would face unified opposition (i.e. in the person of the monarch), much as outside rebels would (vis a vis a state unified against them). Contrast this with an oligarchy, where anyone trying to subvert the state may find allies at the highest level. The historical evidence confirms this distinction. The very fact that non-monarchical government has been so rare speaks to its instability (in terms of its tendency to evolve into monarchy). The Roman empire had plenty of civil war, dozens, but never once did it revert to a republic, did it?

Monarchies are oligarchies with a (theoretically) dominant oligarch, there is nothing built into the system to keep the king dominant and history is filled with kings who were mere puppets of those who held the real power, that is one reason why history is filled with kings who governed poorly. (the other is that kings often were drunk on
pride and power)

It is. Taxes were extraordinarily low by modern standards.

And yet you said that it kept them constantly near-bankrupt, either they had a spending problem or monarchy is incapable of collecting the tax revenues you believe are necessary, neither option is good.
Bankrupt kings often tyrannically extracted the money they needed from their subjects or sold power to oligarchs in exchange for a bailout.

Yes, insofar as the nobility and clergy were generally immune from taxation (even in France, where they had been largely neutered, the king could not easily tax them). Given this, and that the king was generally unwilling to crush the remainder of the population, loans (often forced, mind you - de facto taxes) were often used for extraordinary military expenditures.

So then why should we believe that they would be anymore likely to succeed at enacting other kinds of "best practices"?

If you're arguing that wars of conquest were frequently not justifiable on liberal grounds (and so any funds spent on such wars were "excessive"), certainly. If you're arguing that monarchs were not generally doing rational calculations about the likely costs and benefits, that's mistaken. That those calculations were not always correct, well...war is the realm of uncertainty, don't you know.

That sounds like an excuse given by a blackjack addict for why he took the mortgage payment to a casino.
If it was beyond their means it was excessive no matter how much they hoped to gain by it.

Not all foreign adventurism is bad; as for bad foreign adventurism, yes, it's bad whoever runs it. The point is, though, that a monarchical government tends do this less, or in a less damaging way. A king cares about the costs of a war in a way which no democratic government can. The idea of fighting a war to the bitter end, regardless of cost, is very modern.

History does not bear out your assertions.

As a monarch, all the costs are his; that's the whole point of monarchy in general - internalizing the costs of bad policy.

Every cent by which his taxpayers are impoverished is a cent he cannot tax in the future: a reduction in his income.

And while he risks a reduction in his income his subjects risk losing everything including their lives even if he wins.
Oligarchs also risk losing future income from the people they rule.

[r3volution 3.0]

He benefits because the joint defense demonstrates to any threats to his area that it will not be easy pickings

That's an argument for state-provided security in general, not for any particular borders (or any at all).

In other words, why are you defining "his area" in any particular way?

Suppose Iceland joins as the 51st state.

What are the implications?

it is an argument for smaller states because in a smaller state each taxpayer more directly benefits from the collective defense and doesn't have to pay for the defense of far flung territories with little connection to him.

Let's say it costs the state $1000/person/year to provide adequate security.

Small State Scenario - 1 million people each pay $1000, and receive adequate security services

Big State Scenario - 2 million people each pay $1000, and receive adequate security services

What's the difference?

Global government would far exceed the threshold for unwieldiness while the regions would be large enough to have the resources for rebellion, those are not the case with your example.

Let's put some flesh on these bones.

How many people do you think a government can govern without becoming "unwieldy"?

100,000?
1 million?
10 million?

Am I claiming that?

If not, I don't know what your point is.

I suggested that subservient local governments (contra sovereign states) would be a solution to the scaling problem.

Your response was that these would successfully resist the central government and become independent.

I took this to mean that you think subservient local governments are just as likely to successfully resist the central government as sovereign states (in which case federalism, as you advocate, would be pointless). If, on the contrary, you acknowledge that they are less likely to revolt, QED. That's the whole point of the system - the benefits of federalism without (or at least with less chance of) that nasty civil war business.

Monarchies are oligarchies with a (theoretically) dominant oligarch, there is nothing built into the system to keep the king dominant and history is filled with kings who were mere puppets of those who held the real power, that is one reason why history is filled with kings who governed poorly. (the other is that kings often were drunk on
pride and power)

Again, there is no perfectly secure ruler; it's a matter of degree.

I'm in favor of the most secure possible ruler, whatever precisely that means in practice.

It certainly does not mean elections.

History does not bear out your assertions.

As mentioned previously, every one of your beloved nation-states came about through "foreign adventurism."

The state itself, any state anywhere, any conceivable state, is a product of "foreign adventurism."

All that your doing is drawing an arbitrary line on the map and saying "not past here."

Oligarchs also risk losing future income from the people they rule.

If they receive as their personal income a share of tax revenues, indeed they do. This is the second best form of government: only second best because the oligarchs' incentives are not as good as a monarch's, since each of them only owns a fraction of state revenues.

[Swordsmyth]

That's an argument for state-provided security in general, not for any particular borders (or any at all).

Which is all it is meant to be, if you follow our debate back to where this line of reasoning started you will see that it was a question of defense vs. conquest.

In other words, why are you defining "his area" in any particular way?

For other reasons that we have dealt with at length.

Suppose Iceland joins as the 51st state.

What are the implications?

More Scandinavian socialists will get to vote in American elections.

Let's say it costs the state $1000/person/year to provide adequate security.

Small State Scenario - 1 million people each pay $1000, and receive adequate security services

Big State Scenario - 2 million people each pay $1000, and receive adequate security services

What's the difference?

Why are we to believe that the cost per citizen doesn't change?
The odds of war (during which costs will escalate dramatically) are much larger for a huge empire with far flung territories.

Let's put some flesh on these bones.

How many people do you think a government can govern without becoming "unwieldy"?

100,000?
1 million?
10 million?

Some number less than 6 billion.

If not, I don't know what your point is.

I suggested that subservient local governments (contra sovereign states) would be a solution to the scaling problem.

Your response was that these would successfully resist the central government and become independent.

I took this to mean that you think subservient local governments are just as likely to successfully resist the central government as sovereign states (in which case federalism, as you advocate, would be pointless). If, on the contrary, you acknowledge that they are less likely to revolt, QED. That's the whole point of the system - the benefits of federalism without (or at least with less chance of) that nasty civil war business.

Since you cut off the part where I explained I will repeat myself:
I am claiming that the cost in blood and treasure to create a global empire would end up wasted when it broke apart, it is much better to not try to make one.

Again, there is no perfectly secure ruler; it's a matter of degree.

I'm in favor of the most secure possible ruler, whatever precisely that means in practice.

It certainly does not mean elections.

Kings are not particularly secure and the disadvantages of monarchy outweigh any perceived advantages.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

The very fact that non-monarchical government has been so rare speaks to its instability (in terms of its tendency to evolve into monarchy). The Roman empire had plenty of civil war, dozens, but never once did it revert to a republic, did it?

That just speaks to how rare it is that humans will give up power or that lesser powers (whose best shot at retaining power is a republic) defeat greater ones.

As mentioned previously, every one of your beloved nation-states came about through "foreign adventurism."

The state itself, any state anywhere, any conceivable state, is a product of "foreign adventurism."

All that your doing is drawing an arbitrary line on the map and saying "not past here."

Not all states came about that way and it is not necessary for them to come about that way, I am drawing a line at collective defense that excludes collective offense because that is philosophically correct whether or not any nation has followed it.

If they receive as their personal income a share of tax revenues, indeed they do. This is the second best form of government: only second best because the oligarchs' incentives are not as good as a monarch's, since each of them only owns a fraction of state revenues.

They do siphon off taxpayer money to enrich themselves and as I said above all monarchies are oligarchies, all governments save perhaps theocracies with devout subjects are, the advantage of a republic is that the common man gets some say in defending his rights without resorting to pitchforks and torches.

[r3volution 3.0]

Which is all it is meant to be, if you follow our debate back to where this line of reasoning started you will see that it was a question of defense vs. conquest.

Both are instances of state-provision of security.

The question isn't whether that is beneficial for the people (we agree that it is).

The question is about which state should provide security in which area.

As I said, the argument you made above ("He benefits because the joint defense demonstrates to any threats to his area that it will not be easy pickings"), doesn't address that, since it applies to any arrangement: of any state providing security anywhere.

For other reasons that we have dealt with at length

If you're invoking a "nation owns the land" type argument, alright, but that's not what you said above.

You said that our hypothetical New Yorker benefits (materially, I presume) by subsidizing the Hawaiian but not the Icelander.

So, how does he? He pays less (why?) is more secure (why?)?

More Scandinavian socialists will get to vote in American elections.

...evading the issue

Once again, what are the implications for our New Yorker, who you claim is harmed by this arrangement?

(in terms of what he has to pay for security, or what kind of security he enjoys)

Why are we to believe that the cost per citizen doesn't change?

Obviously, costs will vary depending on local conditions.

If we randomly divide the globe into 100 states, average per person costs will vary from state to state.

But this has nothing to do with your claim that the New Yorker benefits more from subsiding Hawaiians than Icelanders.

You didn't make that claim based on an analysis of likely average security costs in Hawaii and Iceland.

You made it simply on the basis of historic borders.

I.E. Icelanders are foreign, therefore it's somehow bad for the New Yorker to subside them.

The odds of war (during which costs will escalate dramatically) are much larger for a huge empire with far flung territories

So you assert.

Some number less than 6 billion.

Is 100,000 workable in your estimate?

Not all states came about that way and it is not necessary for them to come about that way, I am drawing a line at collective defense that excludes collective offense because that is philosophically correct whether or not any nation has followed it.

Let's begin with a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society.

You and I both know what will happen - a state will emerge.

Now, analyze this process for me in terms of your views about "foreign adventurism."

Suppose you're the state-builder, you have a big army, etc.

How far from, what, you house I suppose, are you allowed to go, establishing order, until it becomes "foreign" and therefore immoral?

They do siphon off taxpayer money to enrich themselves

Ah, so by oligarchs you are referring to politically connected people in democratic states, ala Adelson?

No, those are not remotely like monarchs in terms of their incentives.

Sporadically looting an enterprise =/= owning it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Another hypothetical for you @Swordsmyth:

Suppose Mars is an Earth-like planet (breathable air, water, trees, animals, etc).

Somehow, you become the owner of the entire planet.

You can do what you like with it, except sell it or any part of it.

Now, supposing you wish to maximize your income from this property over the long term, what will do you?

People will be required, of course. Will you invite them as employees, tenants? How will you interact with them?

[timosman]

Another hypothetical for you @Swordsmyth:

Suppose Mars is an Earth-like planet (breathable air, water, trees, animals, etc).

Somehow, you become the owner of the entire planet.

You can do what you like with it, except sell it or any part of it.

Now, supposing you wish to maximize your income from this property over the long term, what will do you?

People will be required, of course. Will you invite them as employees, tenants? How will you interact with them?

LinkedIn!

[Swordsmyth]

Both are instances of state-provision of security.

Conquests are not instances of security, they reduce security.

The question isn't whether that is beneficial for the people (we agree that it is).

Defense is.

The question is about which state should provide security in which area.

That and whether conquest is security or benefits the citizens of the aggressor.

As I said, the argument you made above ("He benefits because the joint defense demonstrates to any threats to his area that it will not be easy pickings"), doesn't address that, since it applies to any arrangement: of any state providing security anywhere.

It was not meant to address the question of which areas should be defended/ruled, it was meant to explain how a citizen benefits from the defense of a distant region of his country.

If you're invoking a "nation owns the land" type argument, alright, but that's not what you said above.

There are other arguments besides that.

You said that our hypothetical New Yorker benefits (materially, I presume) by subsidizing the Hawaiian but not the Icelander.

So, how does he? He pays less (why?) is more secure (why?)?

Because the Hawaiian "subsidizes" the New Yorker in return while the Icelander doesn't.

...evading the issue

Once again, what are the implications for our New Yorker, who you claim is harmed by this arrangement?

(in terms of what he has to pay for security, or what kind of security he enjoys)

No, just adding another relevant issue to the mix, even in a state where the subjects have no say in government the addition of large numbers of new citizens with a different culture can have severe drawbacks, even if the government forcibly protects the right of its original subjects that can mean increased violence from the new subjects especially if they were annexed by force, the added territory can also expose the original citizens to new potential enemies and require expensive long distance deployments of military forces to protect it.

Obviously, costs will vary depending on local conditions.

If we randomly divide the globe into 100 states, average per person costs will vary from state to state.

But this has nothing to do with your claim that the New Yorker benefits more from subsiding Hawaiians than Icelanders.

You didn't make that claim based on an analysis of likely average security costs in Hawaii and Iceland.

You made it simply on the basis of historic borders.

I.E. Icelanders are foreign, therefore it's somehow bad for the New Yorker to subside them.

See above.

So you assert.

So history and logic assert.

Is 100,000 workable in your estimate?

It depends on the size of the threats they faced, when the world had far fewer humans that number might work but it is much less likely to now. (I am aware of some extremely small states that have remained independent but they are exceptional, they are also not my problem since I am arguing against states that are too large rather than too small)

Let's begin with a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society.

You and I both know what will happen - a state will emerge.

Now, analyze this process for me in terms of your views about "foreign adventurism."

Suppose you're the state-builder, you have a big army, etc.

How far from, what, you house I suppose, are you allowed to go, establishing order, until it becomes "foreign" and therefore immoral?

Two factors are involved, the first is when you begin to tax your citizens or draft them as opposed to paying volunteers out of your own pocket and the second is what size state is required to survive and protect its citizens from outside enemies.
If you are taxing or drafting your citizens to enlarge your domain beyond the size needed to survive and protect them then it is immoral, also even if you are paying volunteers you will still have to consider the potential for blowback, if you make foreign enemies they will come and attack all of your people not just you and your volunteers.

Ah, so by oligarchs you are referring to politically connected people in democratic states, ala Adelson?

No, those are not remotely like monarchs in terms of their incentives.

Sporadically looting an enterprise =/= owning it.

Their joint hold on the nations they control is far from sporadic.

Another hypothetical for you @Swordsmyth:

Suppose Mars is an Earth-like planet (breathable air, water, trees, animals, etc).

Somehow, you become the owner of the entire planet.

You can do what you like with it, except sell it or any part of it.

Before we go on it is worth questioning how you achieved ownership of so great an area, the legitimacy of the claim and the potential justification of squatters making a claim to part of it based on actually working it or even on simple possession.

Having introduced those thoughts I will now ignore them and simply accept your premise for the sake of argument.

Now, supposing you wish to maximize your income from this property over the long term, what will do you?

People will be required, of course. Will you invite them as employees, tenants? How will you interact with them?

I would first create a separate republican government to rule the land, this would help to avoid any future revolutions, then I would trade quick wealth for long term security by having a very selective immigration program to keep undesirable cultural elements out, after growing to a certain size I would then cap immigration at a percentage of the population so that larger numbers could be allowed to come without as much individual scrutiny but they could never overwhelm the native populace.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because the Hawaiian "subsidizes" the New Yorker in return while the Icelander doesn't.

Obviously, if Iceland is not part of the US, Icelanders don't contribute to the defense of New Yorkers.

My question for you is why Iceland should not be part of the US in the first place?

That is, how would removing Hawaii and adding Iceland to the US harm the New Yorker (in terms of the cost/quality of security)?

It depends on the size of the threats they faced, when the world had far fewer humans that number might work but it is much less likely to now. (I am aware of some extremely small states that have remained independent but they are exceptional, they are also not my problem since I am arguing against states that are too large rather than too small)

So, you say 100,000 is not too many for a government to manage without becoming unwieldy.

Now, let's do some math.

There are 7 billion people on the planet.

Divide the planet into 70,000 provinces, of equal population (i.e. 100,000 each).

The local governments each govern 100,000 people (not too many, according to you).

What of the central government? It governs 7 billion people, right?

Wrong, it has no interaction with the people; it interacts only with the local governments, which number only 70,000.

So, what's the problem?

Two factors are involved, the first is when you begin to tax your citizens or draft them as opposed to paying volunteers out of your own pocket and the second is what size state is required to survive and protect its citizens from outside enemies. If you are taxing or drafting your citizens to enlarge your domain beyond the size needed to survive and protect them then it is immoral, also even if you are paying volunteers you will still have to consider the potential for blowback, if you make foreign enemies they will come and attack all of your people not just you and your volunteers.

Who are these people?

Your immediate neighbors, or your immediate neighbors plus their immediate neighbors, ...?

I would first create a separate republican government to rule the land, this would help to avoid any future revolutions, then I would trade quick wealth for long term security by having a very selective immigration program to keep undesirable cultural elements out, after growing to a certain size I would then cap immigration at a percentage of the population so that larger numbers could be allowed to come without as much individual scrutiny but they could never overwhelm the native populace.

You need not worry about government. The government on Earth is enforcing your property rights on Mars.

The only question is how you, as secure property owner of Mars, will manage your property to maximize your profits.

So, other than restrict immigration to desirable types, whatever that might mean, what would you do?

For instance, you might either: (a) attempt to centrally plan all production on the planet, your income being the profits of that monolithic enterprise, or (b) lease your land to individual entrepreneurs, your profit being their rent payments.

[Swordsmyth]

Obviously, if Iceland is not part of the US, Icelanders don't contribute to the defense of New Yorkers.

My question for you is why Iceland should not be part of the US in the first place?

That is, how would removing Hawaii and adding Iceland to the US harm the New Yorker (in terms of the cost/quality of security)?

I explained already, adding massive numbers of foreigners to the country will result in cultural, political and possibly security problems.

So, you say 100,000 is not too many for a government to manage without becoming unwieldy.

Now, let's do some math.

There are 7 billion people on the planet.

Divide the planet into 70,000 provinces, of equal population (i.e. 100,000 each).

The local governments each govern 100,000 people (not too many, according to you).

What of the central government? It governs 7 billion people, right?

Wrong, it has no interaction with the people; it interacts only with the local governments, which number only 70,000.

So, what's the problem?

It doesn't work, the global government is still responsible to some degree for 7 Billion people, it also would be separated by too many layers of government from the people to be in touch with their issues, in addition the area it is responsible for is just too massive, it would be too easy to lose track of what was going on in Lower Spittoon or East Metrosylvania.
The only way it would work is if it had nearly zero power and responsibilities, however it would then be viewed as useless, pointless and an impediment to the desires of regional groups in the areas it did control.

Who are these people?

Your immediate neighbors, or your immediate neighbors plus their immediate neighbors, ...?

A viable state might start that small but it would have to be larger than that to survive in the long run

You need not worry about government. The government on Earth is enforcing your property rights on Mars.

But I would want my own, it would be much better than any here on earth and I would eliminate property taxes on all that land.

The only question is how you, as secure property owner of Mars, will manage your property to maximize your profits.

So, other than restrict immigration to desirable types, whatever that might mean, what would you do?

For instance, you might either: (a) attempt to centrally plan all production on the planet, your income being the profits of that monolithic enterprise, or (b) lease your land to individual entrepreneurs, your profit being their rent payments.

I would probably pursue a mixture of both, I might even sell some land.

[r3volution 3.0]

I explained already, adding massive numbers of foreigners to the country will result in cultural, political and possibly security problems.

No, you didn't already explain.

The question has nothing to do with voting, cultural influence, etc.

You said that the New Yorker benefited "more directly" (in terms of security) from subsidizing Hawaiians than Icelanders.

Why is that the case?

It doesn't work, the global government is still responsible to some degree for 7 Billion people, it also would be separated by too many layers of government from the people to be in touch with their issues, in addition the area it is responsible for is just too massive, it would be too easy to lose track of what was going on in Lower Spittoon or East Metrosylvania. The only way it would work is if it had nearly zero power and responsibilities, however it would then be viewed as useless, pointless and an impediment to the desires of regional groups in the areas it did control.

That's quite a tissue of assertions...

Explain to me why it would be possible to govern 100,000 people but not 70,000 governments.

And let us suppose that each government is itself a monarchy (within its sphere of action): i.e. 70,000 human beings (<100,000).

A viable state might start that small but it would have to be larger than that to survive in the long run

Okay, but how large?

At what point do you have some group of people who are "the citizens," who need to be protected from "foreigners."

When does the group of people you're ruling become "the citizens"?

I would probably pursue a mixture of both, I might even sell some land.

Ah, I thought you understood economics (e.g. the socialist calculation problem). My mistake.

[Swordsmyth]

No, you didn't already explain.

No, just adding another relevant issue to the mix, even in a state where the subjects have no say in government the addition of large numbers of new citizens with a different culture can have severe drawbacks, even if the government forcibly protects the right of its original subjects that can mean increased violence from the new subjects especially if they were annexed by force, the added territory can also expose the original citizens to new potential enemies and require expensive long distance deployments of military forces to protect it.

The question has nothing to do with voting, cultural influence, etc.

You said that the New Yorker benefited "more directly" (in terms of security) from subsidizing Hawaiians than Icelanders.

Why is that the case?

That is the case because they are not foreigners since they are already part of the country and because they are committed to subsidizing his defense.
If it was determined to be advantageous a mutual defense treaty could be made with Iceland without merging with them as well.

That's quite a tissue of assertions...

Explain to me why it would be possible to govern 100,000 people but not 70,000 governments.

And let us suppose that each government is itself a monarchy (within its sphere of action): i.e. 70,000 human beings (<100,000).

Because governments are not people, they represent massive groups of people, even monarchies need many government employees and have many subjects, it is simply too large of a task to rule the world.

Okay, but how large?

I'm not sure but it would probably be somewhere within the range of current nation states.

At what point do you have some group of people who are "the citizens," who need to be protected from "foreigners."

When does the group of people you're ruling become "the citizens"?

As soon as you are ruling them, anyone you don't rule would be foreign unless/until they were added to your domain.

Ah, I thought you understood economics (e.g. the socialist calculation problem). My mistake.

How do you take what I said and end up with this?
I would keep and manage some land myself like any business owner and lease some to others because managing a whole planet is beyond my abilities, I also might sell some to raise money quickly.

[r3volution 3.0]

That is the case because they are not foreigners since they are already part of the country

You are, once again, evading the issue.

I repeat, for perhaps the fourth time; the question is why the Hawaiians, but not the Icelanders, should be "part of the country" in the first place.

That is, why does it makes any difference at all to the New Yorker whether he is subsidizing Hawaiians or Icelanders....

You obviously have no answer to this question, so that settles that.

Moving on...

Because governments are not people, they represent massive groups of people, even monarchies need many government employees and have many subjects, it is simply too large of a task to rule the world.

In what way would governing local rulers be more time-intensive than governing members of the general population.

The state functions are essentially the same: adjudication (courts), enforcement (police, or army).

Be specific.

As soon as you are ruling them, anyone you don't rule would be foreign unless/until they were added to your domain.

So, if on day #1 of your state-building enterprise, you came to rule 17 people, that would be it?

Or is it hourly, or by the minute, second...

Or, on the other end, by the week, month, year?

How do you take what I said and end up with this?

You indicated that a monopoly enterprise, run by you, would be more efficient than a market.

I would keep and manage some land myself like any business owner and lease some to others because managing a whole planet is beyond my abilities, I also might sell some to raise money quickly.

Precisely

So, you would lease most/all of the land to various enterprises, rather than try to run them yourself, correct?

Because your giant monopoly enterprise would become "unwieldy," wouldn't it?

[Swordsmyth]

You are, once again, evading the issue.

I repeat, for perhaps the fourth time; the question is why the Hawaiians, but not the Icelanders, should be "part of the country" in the first place.

That is, why does it makes any difference at all to the New Yorker whether he is subsidizing Hawaiians or Icelanders....

You obviously have no answer to this question, so that settles that.

If you want an answer to why Hawaii was added to the US and Iceland was not then it has to do with who went there and who either asked to join or was conquered, the past however is irrelevant, some places perhaps should never have joined the union while perhaps others should have but did not, none of that makes any difference now, all that matters now is who is part of America and who is not, if there was a recent addition there might be a question of whether they should behave been added or even if they should be thrown back out, we may also want to throw out some old states that have diverged from American values.

But my answer to the original question still stands, Hawaii benefits the New Yorker without adding any drawbacks while Iceland might benefit him but would bring drawbacks.

Moving on...



In what way would governing local rulers be more time-intensive than governing members of the general population.

The state functions are essentially the same: adjudication (courts), enforcement (police, or army).

Be specific.

Due to the many members of the government and the even larger numbers of citizens there would be many more cases per government than there would be for an equal number of individuals.

So, if on day #1 of your state-building enterprise, you came to rule 17 people, that would be it?

Or is it hourly, or by the minute, second...

Or, on the other end, by the week, month, year?

No, I would seek to expand until my state was large enough to endure.

You indicated that a monopoly enterprise, run by you, would be more efficient than a market.

Where? I said I would pursue a mixture of running things personally and leasing out land.

Precisely

So, you would lease most/all of the land to various enterprises, rather than try to run them yourself, correct?

Because your giant monopoly enterprise would become "unwieldy," wouldn't it?

Exactly, but if I leased out land I would not be responsible for that land in the same way that a global government would be for a subsection of its empire.

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth, I think I'll call it a day.

I can talk to the wall any time.

[Swordsmyth]

French President Emmanuel Macron's vision for a pan-European army might finally become a reality...in Germany.
According to the BBC, seven years after Germany abandoned conscription, the military of Europe's largest economy is struggling to fill senior roles, and might need to start hiring non-German soldiers to occupy specialized positions in its armed forces like doctors and IT specialists, said Army general inspector Eberhard Zorn, who noted that Germany is being forced to "look in all directions" as it struggles to fulfill a promise to President Trump to raise its defense spending closer to the NATO-mandated target of 2% of GDP.


The country's military has been beset by under-investment for years and is presently struggling to expand its armed fighting force by 21,000 people by 2025 and increase its defense budget from 1.2% to to 1.5% of its gross domestic product by 2024. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said in an interview on Thursday that Germany now has 182,000 uniformed soldiers, an increase of 6,500 in two years. Within seven years, that number should reach 203,000. Of these, 12% of army recruits are women, and one in three applicants to officer positions are women.
Zorn was careful to point out that non-Germans would only be considered for "specialist" positions.

Gen Zorn told the Funke newspaper group that "of course the Bundeswehr needs personnel" and the army had to "push hard for a suitable new generation", although EU citizens in uniform were "an option" to be examined only in specialist fields.
The media group said the government had already consulted EU partners and that most had reacted cautiously, particularly in Eastern Europe.

Of course, there's one slight complication that could create problems for the German military: After World War II, Germany passed a law mandating that soldiers in the German army must be Germans. Suggestions that an exception might be made have been met with scepticism, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Though Hans-Peter Bartels, the member of Parliament responsible with overseeing the German armed services, noted that recruiting EU citizens was already a "kind of normality" as many members of the German army are immigrants or hold dual EU citizenship. Because of these exceptions, more than 900 foreign citizens are already employed by the German military in civilian roles.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...to-commitments

[Swordsmyth]

Worried about a restive Russia and President Trump's threats to stop footing the bill for the security of other nations, Germany has been working to beef up the ranks of its military to try and honor its obligations under NATO, and prepare for a scenario where the US's global military presence has been dramatically scaled back.
But as we've reported previously, this has proved easier said than done. Because even after dramatically scaling back its standards, the German military has been having trouble recruiting qualified specialists and officers, which has prompted speculation that they could look outside Germany to other EU nations for badly needed recruits.

And unfortunately for Germany, even the soldiers they have managed to recruit aren't particularly well suited for the job, according to reports in the German press highlighted by RT. By one metric, only half of German recruits are considered 'suitable' for service. The report, published by German newspaper Bild, purports to cite internal army documents.

German military is plagued by various blunders these days, and there is one more – it emerged that only half of potential recruits are suitable for service, Bild revealed. Others are reportedly unfit or have no German passport.
Bad news about the imperfect state of the Bundeswehr are coming regularly, but this one seems to be even worse, according to Bild am Sonntag tabloid. Citing internal army papers, outlet writes that only half of the 760,000-strong pool of potential recruits is eligible to serve.

The Bundeswehr currently has 25,000 job openings, including doctors, engineers and specialized field positions like combat swimmers.

The reality, however, looks murky as around 25,000 army jobs are up for grabs due to the lack of available personnel. In addition, every fifth civilian position in the Bundeswehr remains vacant.
IT professionals or doctors are most wanted in the Bundeswehr, but there is a shortage of other specialists such as combat swimmers. That said, shortage of personnel is so dire that the military are recruiting almost everyone who meets their minimum criteria.

The details about the military's personnel problems was compiled by - who else? - Boston Consulting Group. The paper found that the military has steadily been admitting more applicants.

Bild cited a strategy paper by Boston Consulting Group compiled for Defense Ministry, which said that only one in four applicants was hired in 2015. Two years later, every second applicant was deemed robust enough to serve.
The Bundeswehr has significantly reduced its manpower since the Cold War, especially after conscription was abolished in 2011. Since that time, the Defense Ministry has been struggling to fill the army as German citizens were reluctant to join the army of their own free will.

But the personnel problem isn't the only chronic issue plaguing the Bundeswehr. The report shows that out of every 100 pieces of equipment owned by the military, only 38 are fully operational.

That aside, Bundeswehr is also struggling with major problems regarding its weaponry. In November of 2018, the military admitted that out of nearly 100 pieces of equipment delivered to it that year, only 38 were fully operational.

Given all these issues, perhaps pooling their resources with other nations (like France) in the form of an EU-wide army would make sense.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-unfit-service