Obey or die. Isn’t this the philosophy of all government in all times and all places? FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey A. Tucker
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16149/the-real-meaning-of-defense/
The Real Meaning of “Defense”
Previous post: Why Is Unemployment So High?
Next post: Seeing Like a State
{ 16 comments }
Shockingly true. One really can despair about it.
All hail the State. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians
David Friedman, Milton Friedman’s son, has a great speech about how free market defense and justice system would potentially work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXWFWIM8OCI
What does that say about Columbia University?
I think this is Jeff’s most substantive article to date. The other ones about various cultural practices and how statism ruins them are nice, but this one makes a much more important point.
To answer the question:
“Anyone who reads that chapter at the outset of an exploration of what used to be called the liberal philosophy will have already faced the ultimate challenge. If you accept that the free market is a better tool of social management, are you willing to forgo “national defense”? If not, you must consider why you make an exception in this one area but not most other areas. If there is something about government that is uniquely suited to providing this most important function, can we really rule out the possibility government has competence in a full range of other areas too?”
To win a war – and im not talking about the skimirshes today like afghanistan that are called war – subduing, oppressing, enslaving and killing of the enemy including his civilians is necessary. Private companies simply fail at being cruel and merciless enough for that task. Therefore when in case of war it is necessary to kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children the state is the only one capabale of the task.
Is this a cruel pessimistic world view?
Absolutely yes.
Does this mean, that the state is acceptable?
No, at best he is a beast, that should be kept in a cage for the few times, mwhen a beast is the only option. But those occasions are at most rare.
And pray tell, who should we be looking out for to arrange before us these hundreds of thousands of people in need of being mercilessly slaughtered?
Why the need to arrange them?
The state is able to kill that many people without them being arranged.
Presumably, in a Libetarian society, because there’s no entity called “a nation” but there’s really millions of people in the same overall area then the answer would be there’s no national defence instead it would be up to individuals to arm and train themselves if they want to, i.e. a society of free people who double as militia fighters. Supposedly some reckon that’s why Swizterland didn’t get invaded by the Nazis.
Well, in the absence of a “nation”, there’s no reason to get rid of the idea of division of labour as well. I have no desire to be a militia fighter, but if a real risk arose I would be quite willing to contribute to whomever could most effectively reduce the overall threat level.
Its always a good laugh if someone assumes, that militia fighters can stop a state who does not mind civilian deaths.
There were militia fighters in practically any country the nazis invaded. None of them mattered military.
People make the mistake to assume, that because the US has so much problems in Afghanistan and Iraq with “militia” fighters, that any other military force would have similar problems. But that is not due to inefficiencies in planning or inadequacy of the military equipment or some kind of magic invincibility of people “fighting for their home and family”. Its because the US does mind civilian causualties to some extent.
As evidence look at Lybia, if not for the air support of GB, US and F Gaddafi would already have defeated the “peoples” rebellion there, although there is far more reason to call it a militia force than the rabble that is fighting US in Afghanistan.
The difference is simply due to Ghaddafi not minding civilian casualties,therefore he could haave defeated the militia forces easily.
And for the same reason Hitler could have conquered Switzerland rather easy. He was just not interested in doing so, because he did not regard Switzerland as an enemy.
As far as militia fighters go they didn’t have all that much success against the Nazi’s, other than Yugoslavia, but the Finns sure stopped the Russians in their tracks. If I recall correctly the militia was fairly effective against the British during the American revolution and Napolean’s troops were in dread of the Spanish and Portugese militia.
At least the Libyans have someone batting for them. See…
http://pc.blogspot.com
scroll down to “Quake didn’t destroy us, council is”
Note the armoured vehicle.
Actually a mercenary army is not unheard of in modern times. The Sultan of Brunia had a totaly mercenary army at one time.
One of the underlying prinicals of being free is the ability to defend yourself. Romans slaves were allowed to own property and even other slaves but were forbiden to own weapons.
What is the fundamental difference between the mercenary army and a state?
In both cases the weapons are controlled by a small group, that at any time can turn them against those they should actually protect according to contract/constitution.
“Government rules. The people obey. Just because some sizable swath tries to overturn that system doesn’t mean that the system must be upended. Isn’t that the philosophy of all government in all times and all places? If it were not, the state would not need coercion, and it would not be a state. It would be a part of society, just another association the cumulates and represents the interests of a group, like the Rotary Club, chess club, or a house of worship. It is the power to legally beat, jail, and kill dissidents that makes the state what it is.”
This is why it is imperative for the citizens to have a Constitution and hold the government accountable to it. This is why the Constitution can not be a living and breathing document.
The citizen gives up his authority to initiate force against other individuals to the State. The State becomes the sole authority to initiate force against the citizens. This authority must be tempered by the Constitution. If the State violates the Constitution, the citizens should then have the right to punish the leaders of the State and/or dissolve the State.
Comments on this entry are closed.