Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

I Will Not Compromise - An Open Letter to libertarians

This post has 11 Replies | 7 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 55
christinetruthseeker Posted: Mon, Nov 26 2007 8:50 PM

by Christine Smith, Libertarian candidate for president>

“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another--too often ending in the loss of both.”>

Tryon Edwards (American Theologian, 1809-1894) I have hope in the LP, although some long-time Libertarians/libertarians (former members & previous activists), individuals whom I deeply respect have told me they feel otherwise and they tell me that I, as they did years ago, will become disillusioned with the LP as a means to affect the political climate of our nation. They indicate that it is not just the entrenchment of the two-party system of bias in our country that I'm up against, but also that it will be the LP itself which will most disappoint me. They tell me they hope I do not turn away from politics just because of the discouraging disappointment they predict I will experience because of the LP--again, they were not referring to the battle of bringing our message of liberty to the American people but to the disillusionment they predict I will develop, based on their experiences, about this political party itself. >

Essentially, I've been told that a principled, anti-statist, no-compromise articulate Libertarian is not what the LP will accept, embrace or support. They say the mediocrity and incompetence, and worse yet the lack of integrity I will find in the LP, will show me it is no place for someone who takes their politics seriously. That I will come to find it to be intolerable, as they did, because finding oneself embroiled in LP politics furthers not our cause of liberty, but certainly can take its toll on the one trying to make a positive difference. They tell me the LP is its own worst enemy and barrier to success, and that I would do far better to advance liberty in other ways since the LP in all its years has yet to embrace the vision I and so many other Libertarians hope for it. I listen and ponder what has been shared with me because they are individuals who I respect due to the views we share (our commitment to advancing liberty). They tell me that perhaps I will have to suffer my own experience to learn what they learned years ago...perhaps so...because again, at this point, I still have hope and am choosing to yet believe that the LP is still the party of principle...that it can be recharged/salvaged by liberty-minded individuals. >

That hope still exists in me despite negative experiences I've already had (experiences which certainly are evidence for those who have had shared with me their own disillusionment with the LP...these experiences certainly give me pause and make me wonder), but yes that hope still exist in me solely because of the good Libertarians I have thus far met and heard from across the country. I think there are enough of us who sincerely care about the future of the LP as a political party who will not let it be destroyed--enough of us who do value principle and who will not compromise. >

As a Libertarian, I fundamentally believe in movement of people...freedom of association...freedom over our own bodies...freedom to live in any way we choose as long as it harms no other...always freedom...always economic and personal liberty. >

Since beginning my campaign, I have learned much about people, politics, and the LP...those who share my commitment to freedom and those who do not. >

Truth is my highest priority. Thus, my respect is only for those whose character is one of integrity, and I am fortunate in having had opportunity to meet such rare individuals during this campaign. >

Though we may disagree with one another in terms of approaches to creating the solutions, we enter into constructive dialogue free from attacks or hostility against one another. We truly want to share with one another in our quest to learn, grow, and make progress in society. And for me 'progress' means advancing liberty...restoring protections for our intrinsic freedoms as human beings. It means noninterventionism. It means limiting government at all times...never growing it. That's the progress I devote myself to in this country, and is why I choose to enter the political arena. Those principles comprise my platform on every issue-no exceptions.>

I will not compromise those principles. >

I believe the truest test of one's integrity is whether one will unequivocally refuse to compromise the principles one espouses-regardless of the possible 'gain' you are offered or may receive.>

I joined the LP because of it being the 'Party of Principle,' and I am glad to say I have met plenty of Libertarians who also cherish principle. >

But I have also encountered a number who believe that to advance their agenda (even if it is a goal we agree on as Libertarians) justifies compromising principle.>

Some have gone so far as to promise my campaign much support if only I would modify/weaken my platform by to getting rid of its 'radical' stances as they perceived it. They wanted me to become 'moderate' in my libertarianism and in turn they offered me support.>

Well, I reject such compromise. >

The end does not justify the means. >

You can't be 'moderate' when it comes to principle, just as you can't be 'moderate' in matters of right and wrong. >

'Moderation? It's mediocrity, fear, and confusion in disguise. It's the devil's dilemma. It's neither doing nor not doing. It's the wobbling compromise that makes no one happy. Moderation is for the bland, the apologetic, for the fence-sitters of the world afraid to take a stand. It's for those afraid to laugh or cry, for those afraid to live or die. lukewarm tea, the devil's own brew.'--Dan Millman from The Way of the Peaceful Warrior. >

Such moderation is why we've got a majority of politicians nationwide who do nothing that promotes liberty which is in the true best interests of the American people, but who use moderation as a means to advance political agendas and careers. >

It was because of principle, and its clear elucidation in our previous platform, that I found a political home in the LP.>

No perceived political advantage for my campaign, my political party, or our shared goals of advancing liberty, is worth compromising that which I hold dearest: principle. >

Compromise is only valid in areas where there is more than black and white...where there can be a middle ground or gray area if you will...But when it comes to principle--you either have it or not. Principle, by its very definition, cannot be can only be forsaken and thereby destroyed. >

Principles mean something only if you adhere to them...once they are compromised, they cease to exist. >

I appreciate 'The Party of Principle,' though it appears there is a substantial infiltration of people into the LP who would prefer it become 'The Party of Compromise.' Some have told me it has been this way for years. Those who value principle feel alone, some have left being involved in the political realm of the LP altogether, others despair...and others are willing to, at this point, continue to actively work for principles of liberty through the LP. >

My political principles stem from my values: They emanate from my heart and mind's awareness that only liberty for all and in all circumstances holds the key to advancement in society. >

Whose liberty would you sacrifice to supposedly gain some advantage? >

On every political issue where I see a Libertarian compromise, I see that for their supposed gain of 'freedom' they are willing to let some people continue to suffer persecution at the hands of government. Big government is all about compromise of principle and to the degree a Libertarian compromises they, too, are pro big-government. Compromise, for political expediency, results in the loss of integrity...and a willingness to engage in all manner of evils since compromise once it enters a person always promises more and more gain--all at the cost of the individual's integrity, a group's goodness, and a society's future. It is an endless march to defeat for the individual as well as any group or organization.>

It is due to compromise of principle that human rights, civil liberties, and economic freedom has been abandoned in America. We are so much less than we could be due to is the cause of the statist mentality. Government is not the answer, it is the problem. >

I believe we can create the freest most peaceful society in the world if we adhere to principle, and that is why I became a Libertarian, to join with like-minded individuals committed to principle. >

That which I've always believed separated the LP from the other political party (I now regard both main political parties as essentially one party-the party of big-government, big spending, big oppression), was our adherence to principle. >

Thus, on every issue - I will not compromise. On every social and economic issue I unequivocally support freedom. >

My Libertarian stances on issues such as U.S. government empire building/militarism/worldwide aggression, immigration, taxation, free trade, the drug war, equal legal/economic/governmental treatment of all Americans, are not negotiable. >

To compromise in any of these areas is to deny liberty to someone. >

Compromise is the enemy of any individual committed to truth. Compromise is the enemy of any worthy good cause. Compromise is the enemy of character and integrity. >

In short, compromise is the enemy of liberty. >

There are areas which we some Libertarians choose to support (even if it doesn't eliminate government intrusion completely) because it will limit or cut government...but never can what I define as a 'Libertarian' agree to compromise in any area which directly results in the growth of government or results in restriction of any other's liberty/freedom of choice as to how they wish to live their life. >

Why do some choose to compromise principle? I believe there are only two emotions in life: love and fear. Love is bold, strong and courageous. Fear is weak and takes many forms. Those who compromise principle are full of fear: fear of rejection, fear of not having enough, fear of losing something, fear of ridicule; the list is nearly endless. Fear, too, is the reason so many in America have accepted trading liberty for 'safety.' >

Compromise of principle, for example, is exemplified in many of the U.S. government actions we as Libertarians reject such as suspension of habeas corpus, torture, regime change, the deaths of millions of innocent civilians worldwide due to our military interventions worldwide, the suffering of all the victims of the insane 'War on Drugs,' etc. Compromise of principle is responsible for the ills of the welfare state, taxation, and enormous oppressive government regulations and mandates--all of which inhibit your freedom as an American. Any why was principle compromised? For some perceived gain the government thought it would attain and some perceived gain it promised the people...power...control...greed...presented to the American people in the guise of compassionate assistance/help. All charity must be voluntary--not funded by extortion upon the American people by the force of government. But again, those are just more examples of compromise of the fundamental values (such as self reliance) which created our great nation, and now without which, we see our nation sadly spiraling downward.>

All of the oppression we now are burdened with under this government is a direct result of compromise: Compromise of the very principles this nation was founded on: individual liberty and personal responsibility. >

Everyone who has been a part of rubberstamping such policy has compromised principle...and others worldwide suffer as a result...and we as Americans suffer because of what our government has inflicted upon others as well as directly upon ourselves. >

Compromise is what we see in the majority of politicians. Compromise makes them equivocate...they don't answer straight because they fear alienating some group of people...they fear standing for anything less they loose support...and thus they stand for nothing but the corrupt status quo we now have. >

Allowing any compromise of principle results in corruption. A little compromise...a little a little never the answer.>

'Have you ever asked yourself why one person is honorable and another dishonorable; why one is honest, another dishonest; why one is moral, another immoral? Most individuals do not intend to be dishonest, dishonorable, or immoral. They seem to allow their characters to erode by a series of rationalizations, lies, and compromises. Then when grave temptation presents itself, they haven't the strength of character to do what they know to be right.' --Ezra Taft Benson (1899 - 1994) from 'Be True to God, Country, and Self.' >

Why did I choose to seek the LP presidential nomination? Because we need a powerful strongly principled knowledgeable Libertarian candidate who will be a bold, courageous, and charismatic voice for uncompromising spokesperson for liberty and for the LP....and someone with the personal energy to commit themselves to the task before them. I personally know of only a few such individuals in the LP who fit that description -- and none of them chose to run. Had they, I could have wholeheartedly supported them...but as one essentially told me 'Better you, than I' in regards to the stress I have/will undergo in this campaign. >

Physical and mental stress is something I deal well with...I am a strong individual. But I confess the greatest stress of this campaign has not been what many would imagine, it has been the pain of seeing just how many Libertarians are willing to compromise...just how many resort to the realm of lies, deception, and attempts at manipulation...just how many believe the end justifies the means. But still, I believe non-Libertarians masquerading as 'Libertarians' for their own ego-agendas (all those big fish in a little pond playing at politics), as well as Libertarians who choose to compromise principle for some gain politically, are merely a minority (though at times a vocal minority) within the LP; I do not believe they represent nor wield superior power against the principled majority of good Libertarians, many of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting or speaking with during my campaign. >

Time will tell...but at this point I yet have hope, I have enthusiasm for the LP, and I want to try and advance liberty in this way. I yet believe there are enough principled Libertarians to make a difference in our party, and across our country. I believe this because I have met, spoken with, and heard from so many of you! I still believe each of us can be part of advancing liberty through the LP.>

I do yet have hope...I have hope in you. >

In my life, and as your Libertarian presidential candidate in 2008, I will always work boldly and courageously on behalf of principle. >

I will never compromise principle. I will never compromise what is right. >

I value dialogue, discussion, and each of us have differing perceptions and thus ideas as to how we can achieve liberty...but I will never compromise the principle behind my politics. >

I will only support positions that advance liberty never limit it; I will only support positions that make government smaller and never increase it; I will only support positions that protect freedom not hinder it. These are core principles which I will never compromise. >

Principle is the standard by which I choose to live my life and to serve. >

Principle is how we achieve liberty. >

I hope there are enough Libertarians who wish this political party to be one of integrity and ethics committed to Libertarian principle...that we be a party of the people--all people--growing by reaching out with Libertarian solutions to people from all walks of life (for it is those most oppressed by government who stand to gain so much from Libertarianism and yet is those it appears our party has most neglected in enlightening and recruiting)...that we be a party advocating freedom always on all issues. This is what I devote myself to in my writing, public speaking, and now in this campaign. >

I dedicate myself to the achievement of what I personally believe is the highest ideal the will, the spirit of humanity, can work toward in this world: the triumph of liberty. And I will not compromise my principles in the struggle. >

Thus I decided to step forward and serve my party in this way due to my principles, my ability to communicate (as evidenced at all the LP Conventions I have attended and the many radio shows reaching millions of Americans nationwide I have been on since this campaign began), and my ability to devote myself to traveling this country to passionately and energetically share our message with non-Libertarians. >

As your 2008 LP presidential candidate, I will work diligently for the principles Libertarians hold dear, bringing our uncompromising message of liberty to millions of Americans. >

Unless we remain true to principle, and reach out to all Americans through excellent candidates/spokespersons willing to passionately share liberty nationwide, I despair for the future of the LP many worked so hard for in years past. But I am choosing to believe that those who have personally tried to get me to compromise, and those who themselves compromise principle within our party, are the exception. >

It is up to you who will not compromise to be part of creating true economic and social liberty in be part of restoring the constitutional republic we were meant to be. If you share this vision, work for it hard...for you are the only hope which remains for the nation, and you are certainly the only hope for the LP if it is to even survive. Can true Libertarians reverse what has been happening to the party; do they have the will to come together to do so? Is it possible given the state of the LP now? Can a strongly principled, uncompromising, anti-statist LP presidential candidate be part of such change? I'm making the choice to try through my campaign...many others are obviously making that choice as well in their activism...the result remains to be seen. >

Libertarians, it is your choice. >

Christine Smith>

Libertarian Candidate for President>

Christine Smith for President 15400 W. 64th Ave., E9-105 Arvada, Colorado 80007 (303) 731-5879>

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 15,105

 Paragraphs are your friend...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 796
Points 14,585

There is no way I am going to read that until it is formatted properly. It just hurts my eyes. 

"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,430
CShirk replied on Tue, Nov 27 2007 3:17 PM

A lot of what you say is things I've said from time to time...just without the explatives. You mind if I cut and paste a little and send to some friends and family?

Also, I mean no offense by this, but winning a presidential election right now would be devestating to the Libertarian Party as well as the Libertarian Movement. We have too little pro-liberty representation in Congress and in the States for only an Executive Officer to do much good right now. Even the Republican Party when it first began its rise in the 19th Century sought houses in Congress before moving a presidential candidate forward. I say this because - as we're seeing with Bush (thank goodness) right now - a President who does not have like-minded people in control of the houses of Congress only has veto power. Honestly, look at the last year since the Dems picked up the majority status in Congress. What has honestly gotten done? Next to nothing. With the essentially socialist Democratic Party and many essentially socialist "neo-Cons" in control of Congress right now, I don't think you'll find the presidency to be nearly as useful to the Libertarian Party as you think it is. What we need to do is campaign for Congress, and also to make the media recognize our presence. And that, in and of itself, is a major issue. Not all that many people know about the Libertarian Party. Most people are raised believing that it's a Republican versus Democrat thing, and you have to go to one or the other (even if you like neither). Congress can override any veto you make with a 2/3 majority. Unless you can make enough noise and rally enough candidates, you'll accomplish nothing more than making the LP look bad by accomplishing next to nothing.

That though, is just my assessment of the current situation. I just do not think that a President alone will have nearly enough power to accomplish anything for the People. The only thing it will do, in my opinion, is further serve to disillusion the people.

In either case, the young voters are your friends. A lot of young voters are thoroughly disillusioned with both mainstream political parties. You need to figure a way out to get their attention. I know a lot of people right out who would vote Libertarian if an option came up for a State or Congressional seat, and a lot more people who would vote Libertarian if not for one or two different view points. Even then, should it prove impossible to get a libertarian Congress, it's going to be a lot (and I do mean a lot) more work than you think to convince people to vote 3rd Party.

 Again, this is just my assessment of what I see. Considering where I live and the kinds of people I associate with, I could be way out in left field for all I know.


  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 55

Formatted web version:




  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700
Niccolò replied on Tue, Nov 27 2007 3:29 PM

I will not compromise.... Except by running in a coerced political election. 

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,275


It's a generally good thing for the LP to run presidential candidates, even if said candidate has no shot at winning, because the LP presidential candidate usually gets far more media attention than local and state candidates.  The presidential candidate is therefore better suited to A) teach the public about libertarian ideals and B) raise awareness of the existence of the LP, thereby improving the chances of local and state LP candidates of winning.

I disagree with you on the idea that a Libertarian president would be able to do little.  A Libertarian president would be able to veto nearly all legislation that comes before him/her.  Therefore, the only new laws we would have to deal with are those which are supported by a majority in both of the Establishment parties.  This would greatly stiffle the growth of big government.

This is not to imply that I disagree with you that Libertarian congresspersons would be useful or desirable, of course.

As for Ms. Smith, I very much like her ideals.  It is clear that she was greatly influenced by Harry Browne.  I will happily vote for her if she is the LP candidate in the event that Dr. Paul does not get his party's nomination.

Unfortunately, her long post on principles was needlessly long.  I felt as though she were simply repeating herself over and over as I read that.  Make the point more succinct and it will reach more people.

LP Radical Caucus:

LP Rothbard Caucus:

Yours, Alex Peak “I’m very optimistic about the future of free-market capitalism. I’m not optimistic about the future of stat[ist] capitalism—or rather, I am optimistic, because I think it will eventually come to an end.” – Murray N. Rothbard, “A Future of Peace and Capitalism,” 1973
Not Ranked
Posts 94
Points 2,230
Dynamix replied on Wed, Nov 28 2007 8:14 PM

Good news...for the statists among us.

"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,430
CShirk replied on Thu, Nov 29 2007 5:52 AM

Oh, I'm not saying that she wouldn't have veto power, and I'm certainly not saying that I don't like her ideals. I do like her ideals. I just don't think it would be nearly as good for the LP as people seem to think.

Yes, she can teach people about libertarian ideals, but honestly what will that accomplish? I don't think she'll get nearly enough air-time to do it. The activists certainly will not like her and will go on the trail against her immediately. Why? Because, they'll realize that they're petty cause can no longer be used to force the minority will on the majority or even visa versa. They will be at the LP's throat (as they already are in some colleges), and even tossing "anarchist with money" claims, which are definitely going to hurt the LP's image and force it to have to counter on another front. The LP, I predict, would realistically spend more time staving off accusations of being anarchists - which many people automatically associate with groups who want to destroy the US, not simply groups that are for individual liberty - than they would spend teaching people about libertarian ideals. I hate to say it, but I think the mainstream media would be up at the top of that. Considering then that a lot people (for some reason) consider the media to be a viable source of information, they're going to believe it. That will do much more damage than you'd think right now. So long as the LP remains a non-viable party in state, local, and congressional politics, I honestly don't see a presidential bid as being anything short of simple futility.

And what do you think that a Libertarian president would be able to do? Veto? That's not a whole lot. Congress can override any veto with a 2/3 majority, I virtually guarantee that you'll be seeing a lot more in the way of "bipartisan efforts" going through the houses of congress, if for nothing more than so that the political machine can flex its political muscles. Executive Order? She can't actually repeal a law that way, can she? (If she can, please let me know, because that will greatly change my take on this.) I honestly think that at the end of a four year term, Ms. Smith will merely be able to look to the People and say, "I tried." Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but I don't see how anything else can happen, and I think that one moment will be burned in peoples' memory. I think that one thing alone would be enough that even if the party were to pick itself up off the ground under another name, that people will just not believe the ideal anymore.

As for your liking Ms. Smith's ideals. I agree with you 100%. I like her ideals. I simply don't think she'll be able to accomplish what she wants to. I just think she'll be handicapped by a pro-big government congress.

I'll still vote for her, though, in all probability. Especially since I think my other choices are going to be Clinton or Giuliani.

To others:
As to the "statist" comments: where do you intend to raise an army? And do not make the mistake of thinking for one second that you will not need one. That will merely be setting yourself up for complete, total failure. I want peace more than anything. I would relish a world where all was peaceful trade without violence. However that world never has been, is not, and never can be so long as humans exist. Regrettably, we are a violent and detestable race. There have always been and will always be those who enjoy hurting others. There will always be foreign entitities you will have to worry about which revolve around socialist ideas. With no army (which requires a government of some form - even if it's direct democracy - to raise), how then will you tell these people, "leave us and do not return," when they say, "come, look at these people here. See how weak they are? We will conquer them and add them to our number. We will make them happy like us." (gee doesn't that sound familiar)

There is a purpose to some form of government, even if it is a direct democracy. Even Ludwig VonMises himself would have agreed with that (he states as much in his lectures compiled into the book Economic Policy unless I completely misunderstood what he was saying). To raise an army that will man this defense, there will be needed agreement by the people - thusly government - to raise such an army and to deploy it. If you cannot find the answer to this, then your society will quickly find itself either wiped out or bending its knee to a foreign power. You need to answer the question of common defense, and do not think for one moment that everybody will be like you. Not everyone will stand up and say "let's go" when conquest comes. Many people when faced with the decision will - just like people of every other era - will seek out every possible excuse not to, even if they are betraying their own personal ideals. Many people are weak, and the only answer to that is to look to the common defense, thus some form of national army.

Regardless of this, and no offense intended, I don't think that this is the forum for that kind of commentary or this kind of debate.


  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,275


A) One does not need to be a statist of any sort to believe that it is not unethical to use electoral politics as a tool (among many legitimate tools) for attacking the state, as a tool of defense.  Counter-economics, think-tanks and educational institutions, and elections are all fair-game as far as I'm concerned, so long as they serve to decrease, and never increase, the role, scope, cost, and power of government.

B) Minarchists and anarchists need to stick together, for although our end goal may differ, we agree on the first 99% of the journey.  As Harry Browne pointed out back in 2004, "Right now, we're $2.3 trillion away from no government, and about $2.2 trillion away from limited government."  There is nothing wrong with working with minarchists in the pursuit of achieving our own goal of statelessness.

Yours, Alex Peak “I’m very optimistic about the future of free-market capitalism. I’m not optimistic about the future of stat[ist] capitalism—or rather, I am optimistic, because I think it will eventually come to an end.” – Murray N. Rothbard, “A Future of Peace and Capitalism,” 1973
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,275


You ask, "where do you intend to raise an army?"

Government is not necessary for raising armies, counter to your claim.  History, indeed, shows your claim to be incorrect.

Not only was an army raised in the American colonies under virtually no American government, against the will of the government ruling over her, and in opposition thereto; but likewise, armies have risen in other stateless and near-stateless areas as well.

I first recommend reading Murray N. Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto chapter 12, "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts."  This work will explain how the statelessness of ancient Ireland actually made it harder for invading countries to take over.

I then recommend reading The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill.  This work will explain the disincentives to attacking stateless countries, and the manner in which private armies can rise for the purpose of national defense.

Yours, Alex Peak “I’m very optimistic about the future of free-market capitalism. I’m not optimistic about the future of stat[ist] capitalism—or rather, I am optimistic, because I think it will eventually come to an end.” – Murray N. Rothbard, “A Future of Peace and Capitalism,” 1973
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,430
CShirk replied on Mon, Dec 3 2007 3:50 PM

Yes, but Ireland eventually lost. Armies are very difficult to raise, and the Continental army had the backing of the Continental Congress to raise it - as well as various wealthy persons who, although seperatist, were statists. Furthermore, had the fleets of Lafayette (a Frenchman under the very statist Louis XVI) not cut the British fleet off from getting supplies to Cornwallis, the US Continental army would also have been crushed. I further remind you that the continental army was almost routinely defeated throughout the course of the Revolutionary War. Yes, armies have risen in statelss and near-stateless areas, but most of the ones I know of were eventually defeated by mass-funded state-backed armies. Why? Because a potter is not a soldier. Unless you have at least small groups of people who dedicate their lives to combat who are capable of training others to do the same (i.e. a national army), then it's just a deal of never really had a chance to begin with. The only exception to this was Switzerland, but that rebelling army was fighting against an empire that had little to no power to begin with, that uprising being centuries before the Habsburgs (spelling? I've always been terrible with that one) came into power. And in subsequent conflicts where Switzerland was avoided by other armies it was because the Swiss militia was better trianed and equipped, being require by law (statism) to practice regularly with their weaponry. In other situations where the commons have been forced to defend themselves against national armies, they have been subsequently defeated.

The only situations I can think of where militia forces defeat national armies are either 1) where the militia is better armed, equipped, and trained than potential invaders (Switzerland); or, 2) where the national army is not dedicated enough to "do what it takes" to defeat their enemy (the US in Vietnam). Go study the history of the Boer War as well as many others. If an army is prepared to do what it takes to defeat the militia then militia loses.

 Next time I have the money for a book, I'll check out the two you mentioned, though...unless I can find it in the library.


  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS