Wonder why you would be as anti libertarian as you are anti Dem? I would think that their goals are very much in line with the original intent of the constitution. I think they only want the government involved with defending this country and preventing individuals from harming others. I think most Rep's would revolt at the thought of allowing people to do to themselves as they wish including taking drugs that are currently illegal. I also think the the most common argument is that they will get drugged up and then possibly go out and hurt someone . Seems that is very similar to the argument against guns. I know some would talk about the costs of addiction but I think it would be vastly less expensive if every addict were housed in a rehab as compared to how it is now where most of our jails are filled with people who were involved in drugs, be it using, selling or distribution. Rehab is cheaper than jail and most of those in jail would never get there because they might use but not in an addictive manner. I think that the libertarian beliefs are close to what was the original concept for this country but at this point in time they are light years away from what we have become.
I'm a libertarian at heart, but I am VERY strong pro-military. I want the largest military and the most technologically advanced defense system in the universe -- to the point of absurdity. I don't consider us equal with other nations -- I consider us WAY better. We don't treat our women like animals, and we put robots on Mars while wealthy dignitaries from other countries come here to get medical treatment that they don't allow their people. I love being the strongest and most advanced country on the planet.
I'm actually somewhat for complete drug legalization. I think it would wipe out most of organized crimed, especially the Mexican cartels. Plus a huge cut in costs of law enforcement, and a huge revenue in taxes, new types of related businesses, commerce, etc. What's not to like about that ?We only have the end of prohibition as an example.The downside is the prospect of increased drug misuse and addiction. I'm gonna guess that addictive people are gonna get addicted somehow, to something, anyway. And sensible people may try some things, but will revert back to their sensible ways after experimenting a little.The little twinge I have is the moral imperative that I think exists in our country's origins. Anything that hurts the family and community is a problem. Drugs, drinking, perversion, theft........But I think when it's compared to the problems caused by the illicit drug trade, you have to make a choice. The cartels have crystallized it for us, I'm afraid.We can always pursue our moral imperative through charity and religious outlets.
Is it your position, Taxed, that to accomplish the noble goal of being the strongest militarily in the world, we should hold in abeyance the Constitution, or ignore it completely to the point of excessive spending?
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit defense spending?
I do not think that this is counter to be a libertarian. I think that some say that defense of this country ends at our boarders. I do not see it as going contrary to the intent of the constitution that we intervene in other countries conflicts nor having our military bases outside of the US.
That being said I think that there is an awful lot of money that is wasted by DOD. Anyone who has done business with them or for a company that does DOD work knows that they can cost us less and still do more than they do now.
But I think defending this country is one of the things that is directed by the constitution so I think that having a military that is strong enough that anyone who thinks of starting up with the US understands that it most assuredly will be destroyed. I have no problem with our military being the equivalent of Tyson in his prime while the rest of the world are featherweights.
Don't recall I even remotely suggested such.
Then maybe I didn't understand your question. Please dumb it down for me.
Simple, our armed services, constitutionally, were charges with protecting the homeland. Even at that, standing armies were unkindly looked upon, with well equipped militias designated as the first line of defense, but still, if necessary, only to be funded for a two year period at a time. Offensive use of the armed services were not specified. Unlimited funding for military adventurism was also not specified along with any and all foreign aid and placing and maintaining troops in foreign lands. So, a very strong military is necessary and required for 'DEFENSE', but damned sure not for unlimited, undeclared, and unwarranted wars that we have absolutely not one tinkers damn of business being involved in.