reidbump:I'm afraid your reasoning if flawed from the get-go. Look at the United States military before it began advertising itself. Was it deficient?
Actually... It was!
Though I appreciate the OP's efforts, I'm afraid they are rather misconceived. Government doesn't possess authority by military might perse, have you ever been contacted by a government official for posting here? No. The government doesn't need to. People on this forum, like reidbump do the governments job for free by beating you down whenever you voice opinions against the government. Free and effective is far more efficient than costly and counter-active.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
You don't need a military. You need a Vietnam.
reidbump:Look at the United States military before it began advertising itself. Was it deficient?
The U.S. military was not a very formidable force until WWI. The American military always advertised itself to increase numbers, even before the colonies officially became a country! But the U.S. didn't have to possess a powerful military to survive. This still holds true today.
reidbump:If we stopped being the police of the world our military needs would greatly decrease, lessening the burden on taxpayers.
I agree. If the U.S. doesn't involve itself in all these international disputes, the military would decrease and be less of a financial and physical burden.
reidbump:The military would then become a profession again and people would pursue a military career as they would law or medicine simply because that is what interests them.
This statement shows that a number of people join such an institution because they simply want to, which I think is true. One doesn't have to be brainwashed by propaganda to join the armed forces, though this certainly does happen.
Niccolò:Actually... It was!
It wasn't deficient. It was sufficient for the needs of the U.S. If by "deficient" you mean not it wasn't a military super-power. Then yes, you are right.
Niccolò:People on this forum, like reidbump do the governments job for free by beating you down whenever you voice opinions against the government.
I'm not sure how I did this.
.
I don't see any reason why the military should have trouble recruiting people anymore than any other enterprise seeking to employ people. As long as it is willing (and able) to pay the market rate, it should not have a problem.
However, willingness to join the military is not necessarilly required in a minarchist state. Mises himself believed that conscription, purely for the purposes of repelling an aggressor, is perfectly compatible with a free society:
"If it wants to preserve its freedom, it must be prepared to defend its independence. If the government of a free country forces every citizen to cooperate fully in its designs to repel the aggressors and every able-bodied man to join the armed forces, it does not impose upon the individual a duty that would step beyond the tasks the praxeological law dictates. In a world full of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors. He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government."
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec6.asp
Was Curusoe a Minarchist, since his reign was over one, friday. He found that exchange worked better than totalitarianism. What would the state of affairs be called after friday became free too? Where they ever free from the state at all. Friday's tribe Vs. Curosoe's church, which allows slavery.
I want to say the division of labor makes a good means verses, servitude.
What kind of relationship does a family have if it were to be analagous to a type of government.
Sorry to interupt. In the Anarchist Cookbook" the intro-author purports that Marx was an anarchist. I can't see it when I try to say something like anarcho-socialist, and not supress giggles. Well if communism can be re-invented as the state of affairs in which communities can govern themselves without the aid of the state, than I believe Individualism as a strong movement will pervade justice.
Authoritarians suck!
Individualism Rocks
I also used to think that - what evidence is there of it?
I do not think Marx was an anarchist. The author list's the deciples of socialist movements like~Lenin
As long as there is the state there is no freedom: when there is freedom there is no state.
He makes an error when he equates anarchy whith the absence of private property. We should turn the wheel to make it private property communism. A voluntary socialism is O.K., for me itdoes not negate liberty.
Also; Peter Bergman, says Kaspar Schmidt(Max Sterner) was the progenitor of anarchism. Is that probable. Should I take the time to investigate Hegel. Was the youthfull Hegel an anarchist. I think there is as mentione, a difference between nihilism, and anarchism.
Just because followers of the socialist doctrine where overthrowing the current state, they have proven to provide famine, slavery, true class seperation, of the elite, and the slave class.
Just questioning really how small can the state if roughly or definatly defined really be.
Is the liberal tradition one that says a states only purpose is to protect the people from it and invasions to the people and their property?
Bank Run:Sorry to interupt. In the Anarchist Cookbook" the intro-author purports that Marx was an anarchist.
I have read the Communist Manifesto and Capital: Volume One. That writer is simply mistaken, and any attempt to "shake things up" with such a statement should not be taken seriously. The most revisionist argument I have come across on this topic is Thomas Sowell's statement that Karl Marx did not believe in a labor theory of value.
Did Marx want to remove the current system? Yes, but he wanted to replace it with a totalitarian government. He does not qualify as an anarchist, at least the kind with no adjectives. I guess one could artificially categorize him as an anarcho-communist or anarcho-socialist, but the ability to do so shows just how meaningless such terms can be.
Rothbard probably gave the best advice on this issue, "The key to the intricate and massive system of thought created by Karl Marx is at bottom a simple one: Karl Marx was a communist." His analysis can be found here:
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_5.pdf
I agree that minarchism (or ministatism, if you prefer) will not work. However, I do not agree with your reasoning. I think that minarchism will fail for two very simple reasons. The first is that power corrupts. Give people limited authority, and they will find excuses to demand that their authority be expanded. Given time, the government will run out of new excuses, and simply claim that it needs more power in order to carry out the duties it has already taken on. The second is that people, for the most part, prefer to say that "there ought to be a law" instead of finding ways to deal with problems that do not depend on coercion. The "there ought to be a law" mentality, unfortunately, plays right into the hands of the politicians; it provides them with excuses to take more power for themselves at the expense of individual rights and personal autonomy
libertarian:First reason: Without the state spreading propaganda that you must "join the military"; people do not have the incentive to join the military anymore. Therefore, people would avoid joing the military altogether. Second reason: In a free market, the poor would become much richer, so the incentive to join the military would be significantly less (close to zero). Thus, the state must pay a salary like one million dollars per year to encourage a person to join the military. Minarchism is worse than a larger government.
Maybe I'm not understanding Minarchism, but the incentive to join the military would (and should) be that you are defending yourself against an invader. Regardless of social status most people will respond to a genuine (I hope I'm not misspelling the word I'm emphasizing...) threat to their freedom. I think the reason our current military has to resort to increased salaries and propoganda is because the threats they are preparing for are at best perceived, and the trust is gone that those sending our military into battle truely have respect for the lives of the men they command.
Stolz25:I think the reason our current military has to resort to increased salaries and propoganda is because the threats they are preparing for are at best perceived, and the trust is gone that those sending our military into battle truely have respect for the lives of the men they command.
I think the reason our current military has to resort to increased salaries and propoganda is because the threats they are preparing for are at best perceived, and the trust is gone that those sending our military into battle truely have respect for the lives of the men they command.
I agree, and once said to a USMC recruiter who tried to give me his pitch in high school that the Corps couldn't pay me enough to be willing to do Uncle Sam's dirty work.
Most of the reasoning for why the military was not deficient prior to all the advertising, was because of the romanticism of combat, and the view of combat as an activity that was essentially constitutive of perfect masculinity. So while the draw for the military was not based on advertising qua advertising, it was based on the perception of military service in a romantic way, which is essentially the same as advertising, in that it is a product of culture. Just this product of culture, does not come from the state but from the social norms that had came to be at that given point in history.
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/