synchroma:Damn, this guy has the solution to our problems! Must read for all American citizens and Ron Paul supporters! Ron Paul and the Militia
We don't need a mandatory militia, professionals would work just fine so long as its a free market.
Peace
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
I agree with JonBostwick. Also, after reading the linked article about how "the Militia" will instill love of community, a sense of service to others, and increase the nation's security I had to grab one of my poli sci textbooks to refresh my memory on the definition of fascism, because that is what I thought of after I finished reading it.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
In contrast, when revitalized the Militia will be permanent institutions, in continuous activity, directing the attentions of the vast majority of citizens every day towards all the needs of “homeland security” in their Localities, their States, and the Nation as a whole. The Militia will provide citizens, not only with a context in which critical political debate and action could take place, but also with a personal and collective sense of need, of mission, of cohesion, and of competence.
Just what we need to throw off an oppressive central government is a military junta to take its place...
What he fails to realize is other nations (generally) don't attack a good trading partner since it hurts them as much as the invaded nation. Get rid of the American Empire and you won't necessarily need to have a militia take over the government to 'protect' you.
As someone with quite a bit of experience in the military I can tell you it isn't a place where 'critical political debate and action could take place'. As long as the orders they give you are lawful you have no option but to carry them out or die trying -- there's no room for debate in the chain of command.
The whole conscription issue that he is advocating is also troubling since it infringes on certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, err happiness.
This guy seems to have a different agenda than promoting Liberty for the masses.
The author is attributing a false perspective to both Ron Paul and the Constitution.
He is stating what, in his opinion, Ron Paul "ought to do", not what in actuality Ron Paul has ever represented as being the proper fuction of 'militia'.
In addition, he falsely ascribes a Constitional basis for perpetual coup d'etat as the means to maintain liberty.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
G8R HED:In addition, he falsely ascribes a Constitional basis for perpetual coup d'etat as the means to maintain liberty.
I didn't catch that before.
The basis of his argument is;
Self-evidently, a constitutionalist candidate should promote whatever the Constitution requires—particularly when the Constitution describes no establishment or institution other than the Militia as being “necessary” for any purpose.
When in fact the Second Amendment says;
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I suppose you could interpret it his way but the way I see it the 'necessary' part is the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they *can* form a militia if conditions warranted. They were merely stating a fact that a militia is necessary if you want to remain free and not making a constitutional mandate that anyone must maintain a standing militia that involves the majority of the population as he later states.
JonBostwick:We don't need a mandatory militia, professionals would work just fine so long as its a free market.
Because that's working soooo well in Iraq...
It worked extremely well in the case of Executive Outcomes. In fact, both Norway and South Africa have a vibrant security industry. So taking Blackwater to be the general case is outright dishonest and little more than a strawman.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1661877.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3519352.stm
Good. May Norway's state collapse. And oh how I weep for South Africa's poor little innocent government.
If one is unfamiliar with the idea of private defence, law and order I recommend Rothbard's For A New Liberty, Epstein's Anarchy and the Law and Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense, two of which are available on Mises.org, online.
The nation of Iraq isn't a straw man which I fling around for my own benefit, it is a nation of 25 million people. The situation in Iraq is a clear example of how contractors work when they have no emotional connection to the place where they work. Blackwater is not the only example; there's also DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and Aegis. So while I am sure local groups who put themselves up for hire in South Africa may work better than a corrupt police force, I would caution against making a financial incentive the only incentive.
Avery: JonBostwick:We don't need a mandatory militia, professionals would work just fine so long as its a free market. Because that's working soooo well in Iraq...
No one who works for a government and is payed in tax dollars is a participant in a market.
Dynamix:There are more minarchists on this forum than I thought there'd be.
I'll be voting for Ron Paul and I'm an anarchist.
It is a strawman because it has nothing to do with a free market in security; it has to do with the US hiring goons to do its dirty work instead of using its own goons to do so, and as we know, the US government is hardly the most scrupulous of clients. Also, do you mean to say the US government has an 'emotional' connection to Iraq?
Are you also suggesting that a corrupt police force is a unique feature of SA, as if other Western countries do not suffer from this? In Norway's case it seems the state cannot even allocate funds properly.
Avery:The situation in Iraq is a clear example of how contractors work when they have no emotional connection to the place where they work. Blackwater is not the only example; there's also DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and Aegis. So while I am sure local groups who put themselves up for hire in South Africa may work better than a corrupt police force, I would caution against making a financial incentive the only incentive.
I've talked to some of those people in the past, they are generally professional soldiers who aren't really in it for the money but because that's what they do. The ones I talked to were all retired Special Forces and from what I got from the conversation that's the rule to get the job, a special operations background.
If you believe the propaganda coming out of the Iraqi government then they are a bunch of trigger-happy homicidal maniacs roaming around the countryside killing innocent civilians at will but if you actually know the job they do and have seen the conditions they have to work under then you would most certainly have a much higher opinion of the professionalism and restraint they have while doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the whole theater of operations.
How are they supposed to do their job, protecting VIPs, if they go around announcing their presence by shooting up neighborhoods and compromising the safety and security of the person they are being paid to keep safe anyway?
I don't think anyone advocating a mandatory militia is a minarchist. They are simply a statist.
Revere1776:You know, I really hope that all of you who support the Mises Institute & its message will be supporting Ron Paul for president. I'm amazed at reading many forums on this and other Libertarian sites that Paul is often met with moderate hostility because he doesn't, in their mind, represent the totality of Libertarian thought. All I've got to say is, people, we have NEVER been as close to getting a man in office who espouses our most sacred beliefs than we do right now. The Libertarian Party has never been and never will be a viable political force in the system we currently function in. Ron Paul represents a very serious chance that we can dramatically change course in our failing republic. So let's take action and leave the quibbling about minute differences of opinion for when he's in office.
This was in reply to me. Why? I fully support Ron Paul for President. I am the coordinator of a Ron Paul Meetup. Ron Paul does not support mandatory militia membership. Some idiot says he does, but it's not true. Mandatory militia membership is slavery. The logic of the moron who wrote that article is "we can best keep our freedom by instituting mandatory slavery." This is truly Orwellian, but the author does not have evil intent -- he's just fundamentally stupid. I don't know which is actually more dangerous.
Jason Dean: Dynamix:There are more minarchists on this forum than I thought there'd be. I don't think anyone advocating a mandatory militia is a minarchist. They are simply a statist.
Whats the difference?
JonBostwick:Whats the difference?
Cute.
But I'll answer the question. One particularl brand of minarchist, at least in the U.S., is the Constitutional minarchist. I don't believe anyone can be a "minarchist" while advocating a role for the federal government not specifically mandated by the Constitution. Since the author of the article is talking about a mandatory militia, to be enforced by President Ron Paul, it is pretty clear that this would be a federal dictate. Clearly, this is not "minarchist," but if you want to paint all minarchists as big-government statists, fine. I guess Mises and Hayek would get hit with that brush too. What is the name of this forum, by the way? Rothbard.org?
Jason Dean: JonBostwick:Whats the difference? Cute.But I'll answer the question. One particularl brand of minarchist, at least in the U.S., is the Constitutional minarchist. I don't believe anyone can be a "minarchist" while advocating a role for the federal government not specifically mandated by the Constitution. Since the author of the article is talking about a mandatory militia, to be enforced by President Ron Paul, it is pretty clear that this would be a federal dictate. Clearly, this is not "minarchist," but if you want to paint all minarchists as big-government statists, fine. I guess Mises and Hayek would get hit with that brush too. What is the name of this forum, by the way? Rothbard.org?
I think most would agree that democratic authoritarianism is not minarchy.
However, there is no real clear line dividing "minarchy" and authoritarianism. As far as I'm concerned, if you believe that people can secede from any political body then you believe in voluntary relationships and are an anarchy. If you believe that an individual can be forced to join or prevented from leaving a political body then you are an authoritarian.
But it was a joke.
I am not singling anyone out here so don't get offended. I think that if we look at the history and intent of the Framers we have the answer to the subject of militias. The Framers saw standing armies as a threat -for a varity of reasons.- hence the 2nd Amendment. Where as in the past State Militias were the norm since the Spanish American war and further the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and WWI we don't have the stucture of local controlled militias as the framers intended. I see the states as being irresponsible in not maintaining state controlled militias that are trained and Officered by the state Assemblies.
That we cannot do this for ourselves legally, and it is in the US codes we should be demanding this from our State Governments. But it should have 0 to do with the Federal Government except that the training and standards be compairable.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
...another mis-statement and misunderstanding of Ron Paul's true intent. Yes, his stated policy INCLUDES ending birthright citizenship but I take it to mean as a stopgap measure UNTIL that point at which the current (as quoted) "incoherent and unfair" immigration system can be replaced. Singling out birthright citizenship is a narrow minded perspective of his stated goals:
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
...in addition, ending a state-sponsored program of allowing birthright citizenship is an anti-statist position - pecking away at it, so to speak.
From a libertarian perspective that is better than the current system of allowing that kind of state sponsorship. Sure, it does not go quite far enough for a 'perfect' libertarian platform, but consider the alternatives....
"The problems associated with “illegal aliens” are a direct result of the welfare state, not the result of simply having more people here."
It would take a constitutional amendment to end the welfare state. Is it not the 'general welfare' clause that is at the heart of abuse?
"Allowing the state to deny people citizenship based upon something arbitrary is a power too dangerous to give them. It would enable the state to have citizenship as leverage, a weapon to force people into bind obedience. "
Does not the 'birthright citizenship' issue do the same thing? Why not get rid of it then?
No, as I am sure you are aware. It is not. All it would take to end the Welfare State is for congresscritters to obey the U.S. Constitution.
In case you do not understand why it would take an amendment to end birthright citizenship look up Amendment XIV. It begins "All persons bor or naturalized in the United States . . . "
"Does not the 'birthright citizenship' issue do the same thing? Why not get rid of it then?"
The state does not choose who is born on its soil (not yet at least).
"The state does not choose who is born on its soil (not yet at least)."
To be born here they had to GET here - either legally or illegally.
In that sense the government can choose who is born here.
G8R HED: "The state does not choose who is born on its soil (not yet at least)." To be born here they had to GET here - either legally or illegally. In that sense the government can choose who is born here.
Actually no, just ask the Navajo, the Crow, the Chrerokee, the Hawaiians etc. Also, if their parents did come here illegally the state did not choose them to come.
Everyone that is here now or may come here is not Navajo, Cherokee, or Hawaiian.
By recognizing 'birthright citizenship' is not the state choosing who may remain here?
The state also distinquishes - by law - between those who are here legally and those who are here illegally.
"Imagine, if this policy is instituted today what it will be like 20 or 30 years from now. To prove one is a “citizen or national” of the United States one would have to carry around proof that not only were YOU born in the United States but that your parents were either born here or came here legally"
We have this now.
G8R HED: Everyone that is here now or may come here is not Navajo, Cherokee, or Hawaiian. By recognizing 'birthright citizenship' is not the state choosing who may remain here? The state also distinquishes - by law - between those who are here legally and those who are here illegally.
Whether we like it or not, as in the days of Old Rome, citizenship gives people a little bit more protection from the state than being a "barbarian". I want that protection granted to as many people as possible.
G8R HED: "Imagine, if this policy is instituted today what it will be like 20 or 30 years from now. To prove one is a “citizen or national” of the United States one would have to carry around proof that not only were YOU born in the United States but that your parents were either born here or came here legally" We have this now.
No, you do not have to prove your parents came here legally to be granted citizenship. All you have to prove is that you were born in the United States or a US. Commonwealth. As a side note, if you are wondering about the term "U.S. National" it refers to people from American Samoa or Swains Island. People from all other commonwealths or territories are U.S. Citizens.
EDIT: All citizens are nationals but not all nationals are citizens.
ryanpatgray:My problem with Ron Paul is that he would (if he got his way) end “birthright citizenship” for the children of people he calls “illegal aliens”.
I do not agree with Ron Paul in this instance, but my reading of the Constitution indicates that this is a constitutional matter, and that it could only be overturned by constitutional amendment -- not by a president or even a Congress. Secondly, although immigration is clearly a blessing in a free society, and probably on-balance a blessing even in our un-free society, as the welfare state grows, it becomes less of a blessing and more of a burden. Ron Paul wants to end the welfare state, after which, he would welcome immigration. He has said so.
Personally, I don't see why ending the welfare state isn't given priority over "cracking down" on immigrants. But the only candidate with whom I would agree 100% would be myself.
Give me a break!
Birth right citizenship came about from the federal government telling the several States whom to grant citizenship to. Don't tell me you don't have a problem with that.
Sorry, but I don't get the point of such revitalization?
Is there anyone banning us from forming militia? What else you need except for guns and people.
Or maybe you can have militia with bunch of farmers wielding their plows riding on threshing machines and call that militia. Then you can go ahead and fight against the invasion of Alaskans. We are losing here in Seattle.
Real minarchism does not include military element. I think that will be more related to State Nationalism.
I have no problems with Ron Paul proposition.
Me, myself, is an immigrant. From my understanding, the question is what consitutes the qualifications for granting citizenship?
In my opinion, where you are born does not matter. I can drive my way to have a canadian child in 3 hours and raise him in the US for 20 years.
It's about how long and how much you've contributed to the state (or in this case "the government")