Seriously, who would would invade us? There are only 2 countries that could; Mexico and Canada and why would they? What would be the motive for another country to invade the United States if we abolished our military? I get called a "moron" and people say "that's the dumbest thing I ever heard", but yet nobody has ever, ever, ever given me a logical response or even given me a reason why someone would invade us.
It's like these people think it's easy to invade a foriegn country. We invaded Vietnam, killed over a million Vietnamese and we left with our tails between our legs. We invaded Afghanistan, we are fighting farmers and peasants that live in caves and shacks and yet with our big bad military and all the technology we have, we can't leave.
Fill me in Mises family.
IMO maybe china due to debt repudiation but I don't know if they themselves would be in such a good situation if the U.S. just went ancap overnight.
Yeah, but China doesn't have to use their military to make our life a living hell.
http://mises.org/daily/4021
"A free-market defense system would also make it very difficult for an attacker to obtain a surrender. Just as a laissez-faire society would have no government to start a war, it would have no government to capitulate. The defenders would fight as long, and only as long, as they believed was in their self-interest. Even the insurance companies and defense agencies couldn't negotiate a surrender, because their agreements could bind no one but the persons who actually signed them. It is interesting to speculate on what an aggressive foreign nation would do if confronted with such a situation."
Morris and Linda Tannehill do not go on to describe their speculations. Since reading that I've been interested in hearing some possibilities.
There is nobody to invade if there is no central authority. The concept becomes meaningless in the conventional sense. Those calling you morons don't realize this.
The only two reasons I can think of for a foreign invasion are revenge and taxes. Revenge would most likely occur if the people from a country were trying to get Americans back for our constant occupation of their own countries, which would most likely come in the form of guerilla groups because governments would have allowed the occupation in the first place most likely. However, most people realize governments can't be controlled, so the fact that our country went ancap would act as a reason for them to not try to get revenge because we overthrew the government and would be known as a peaceful people. The other reason, taxes, wouldn't make much sense either. If we went ancap, it's a clear sign that we don't accept government, let alone a foreign government.
I'd still be a bit wary as far as intelligence goes, but I think the people calling you a moron probably just haven't seen an alternative. When I first came on this website last summer, I really supported the military and the troops and all that because it was the only thing I'd ever known. And a lot of people slapped me in the face for it which I was pissed off about because I didn't understand what they were saying, and then it finally made sense to me. I'd say it's best to keep explaining things to them because it won't get better if you ignore them.
I must clarify that I am no military fan, but if one had a neighbour like North Korea, no matter how little government one had, if North Korea could march in unapposed does anyone expect them not to do it ?
Squid Girl, of course. We would be defenceless.
Why would US national defense be compromised if it were left up to the free market rather than a government monopoly? Nothing else worth having has ever been compromised that way If there wasn't a state military going around provoking wars, they'd never happen.
Even leaving aside the obvious fact that you're isolated from the rest of the world by thousands of miles of ocean and Canada... I can't imagine how an invasion might occur.
You're scared of North Korea? Really? Their tanks probably haven't had an oil change since 1955. They probably wouldn't make it ten miles across the DMZ even if no one shot back at them. South Korea should keep an eye on them, but really... I think you Americans are pretty safe.
I am not from America nor am I scared of North Korea, it is however a good example to the argument that not having a miltary will make one immune from invasion.
South Korea has an army, which is what keeps North Korea from invading. I am saying that if they had none, the North Koreans would sweep in. Their army may not be the best in the world, but if they faced no opposing force, their army would be practically invicible.
The USA has the best defense system a place can have, and this is the right of common folks to bear arms. No one would invade a country where every 200 millions people can have a good quality rifle.
It also has worked quite well for Switzerland.
Silly. We spend 700 billion a year on our military (almost as much as the rest of the world combined). If we abolished the military equipment to 1000 different private protection agencies each would rival the average industrialized nation’s military.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
It depends what you mean by us. It seems more than likely that a part of the US would secede and then abolish the military than the entire US pulling a Costa Rica. In the first case the US would invade us.
350 million US citizens. How many guns?
"You no doubt realise some americans are "patriotic" enough to go kill, invade, destroy & maime others over some percieved threat to them in far away lands.... well wait to you see them defend their homes on their own soil!" lol... I don't think there'd even need to be PDA's, they'd no doubt form anyway though..
rephrase....if we got rid of our government controled military.
better yet...lets start with baby steps....get rid of federal control....
if we got rid of our federally controlled military.
then get rid of state controlled military....
then get rid of city controlled military....
eventually...you're left with armed citizens....that are in charge of themselves.
ulrichPf: I must clarify that I am no military fan, but if one had a neighbour like North Korea, no matter how little government one had, if North Korea could march in unapposed does anyone expect them not to do it ?
If there is no government, where do they march to? You local Sears store? Or the Wall-Mart Store? I don't think I'd mine that so much as long as they are paying customers.
Who's "us"?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Limitations of knowledge and poverty of expectations means that you can never who possibly will ever invade your country.
Let's remember that when people are asked to make statements in a manner of "I am 95% sure that the value of X will be between L1 and L2", that 5% margin of error turns up 45% of the time i.e. they are wrong half the time about the things about which they feel they are absolutely certain.
Russia and China would not invade US if US abolished its military, because they occupy a vast territory, and it is already more expensive for them to maintain certain territories than what they get from them. It would be more likely that a South American nation, with interventionism, etatism, protectionism, economic nationalism, and domestic monopolies eventually forms an outward looking autarky that is interested in invading other countries for resources rather than importing from them and producing from foreign investment. But hey, even this statement is prone to having poverty of expectations, and US could have an even more unlikely enemy from even a tiny nation.
Entrepreneurs would forecast the likelihood of invasion, not the average consumer.
You do not need that much defense, true defense that is, to really defend. 1 nuclear weapon for example provides a ton of defense if you say to say NK or China that their capital will get blasted at some random time in the future. Or just look at the logistics of attacking a place like California with its varied terrain and teeming millions of enemies.
And it takes an ever cheaper navy to defend a water bordered country like the USA, Canada and Mexico together.
The more important issue is why attack? The trade relationship between the USA and China is so large that even ammending it solicits immediate response from people depending on that relationship. Without a US military this relationship is guaranteed to expand.
And you also discount other places building militay services and selling them in bulk to the USA. Again a small amount of defense can defend against a large attacker.
Monaco has 5000 troops, and most of them are women without guns. Why are they not invaded? They are technically under the protection of France, but that is precisely the point. Why doesn't France just annex them? It would be SUPER easy.
There's also the possibility of letters of marque and reprisal to consider. Yes, I know they're no longer considered valid by international law, but why should that really matter?
I must clarify that I am no military fan, but if one had a neighbour like North Korea, no matter how little government one had, if North Korea could march in unapposed does anyone expect them not to do it ? I am not from America nor am I scared of North Korea, it is however a good example to the argument that not having a miltary will make one immune from invasion.
I get what you are saying and I think America itself would serve much better for your example. If North Korea, Iran, Russia or Mexico abolished their militaries overnight the USA would almost certainly invade them. (Not necessarily in a mayor way, but certainly to the extent it is intervening in Somalia or Yemen.)
Maybe not invasion, but perhaps a blockade and enforced tariffs could happen. Is it possible for Russia or China to blockade a couple of our busy ports and demand a fee be paid by all ships entering and leaving? Could this possibly be a profitable venture for a foreign nation to attempt?
It would piss off aaaall our customers :)
DD5: There is nobody to invade if there is no central authority. The concept becomes meaningless in the conventional sense. Those calling you morons don't realize this.
+1
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
.
ulrichPf: I am not from America nor am I scared of North Korea, it is however a good example to the argument that not having a miltary will make one immune from invasion. South Korea has an army, which is what keeps North Korea from invading. I am saying that if they had none, the North Koreans would sweep in. Their army may not be the best in the world, but if they faced no opposing force, their army would be practically invicible.
As if humans kill other humans easily. Why exactly would the North Korean people invade South Korea when there is no threat again?
Spideynw:There would be no "Americans".
Right, at least in the nationalistic sense of the term.
I notice that even Anarchists here are unable to relieve themselves of this habit of thinking about issues of defense from a nationalistic and collectivist perspective. The problem of national defense still remains in the Ron Paul or limited government State. Not in the free society. It's not to say that the free society is bullet proof. Potential problems can always arise, however, a problem of national defense or a prospect of foreign invasion is not one of them.
Prateek Sanjay:Limitations of knowledge and poverty of expectations means that you can never who possibly will ever invade your country.
Uh, I don't have a country.
Marko: I get what you are saying and I think America itself would serve much better for your example. If North Korea, Iran, Russia or Mexico abolished their militaries overnight the USA would almost certainly invade them. (Not necessarily in a mayor way, but certainly to the extent it is intervening in Somalia or Yemen.)
How is this not just pure fear-mongering? When was the last time the US government people invaded a place that had no military?
Spideynw:Why would the market provide for a national defense if there is no nation?
DD5:Right, at least in the nationalistic sense of the term. I notice that even Anarchists here are unable to relieve themselves of this habit of thinking about issues of defense from a nationalistic and collectivist perspective. The problem of national defense still remains in the Ron Paul or limited government State. Not in the free society. It's not to say that the free society is bullet proof. Potential problems can always arise, however, a problem of national defense or a prospect of foreign invasion is not one of them.
Although I did ask what's meant by "us", strictly speaking the question concerns simply abolishing the standing military forces. I don't see how it necessarily implies abolishing political entityhood per se.
I see that now. He's talking about abolishing the military only. You don't kill just part of the cancer or even most of it. It would be more productive to talk about abolishing the State. I mean, if you're going to be so radical at the dinner table anyway....you might as well go all the way.
The abolish the CIA (Ron Paul) and stick to the Constitution stuff sounds like rhetoric coming out of a bunch of pacifist and naive ideologues. And justifiably so in my opinion.
Edit: I sometimes think that Ron Paul saying he would abolish the CIA on mainstream media is his way of making sure he doesn't accidently get elected.
I have one question: Is there a possibility other governments (take China as an example) would invade in order to protect themselves from the same fate as the federal government here? Might China be afraid that if the people they control see what happened in the United States they might replicate it? I'm going out on a limb here haha
DD5:I see that now. He's talking about abolishing the military only. You don't kill just part of the cancer or even most of it. It would be more productive to talk about abolishing the State. I mean, if you're going to be so radical at the dinner table anyway....you might as well go all the way.
Whether you think it's more productive has no bearing on the intent of the thread, as outlined by the title and OP. You're effectively saying the OP should've started a different thread from the one he actually did start. How is that not off-topic?
How about right now? Or maybe the bombs being droppd on Somalia or Pakistani tribal areas are just figments of my imagination??
Marko: How is this not just pure fear-mongering? When was the last time the US government people invaded a place that had no military? How about right now? Or maybe the bombs being droppd on Somalia or Pakistani tribal areas are just figments of my imagination??
Neither the Somalian nor Pakistani governments have militaries?
The Pakistani government has a military- in terms of active troops its one of the top ten largest in the world. They're just ok with killing the people in the tribal areas
It is not Somali or Pakistani government militaries the US is intervening against, but the people battling the governments/militaries. It is not bombing state entities.