LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[jrodefeld]

I have a friend who was a ranger. He tells the story of a guy who used to go out of his house every day and spray the passing convoy with bullets, then he'd drop his weapon, making him unarmed. No further action could be taken against the aggressor.

There are two things I'd say about this.  First, why are our soldiers occupying his country?  Is there a legitimate reason for us to be doing so?  If China was occupying the United States against our wishes, and some of us fought back, you'd be defending us and not China.

Second, if a person fires a gun at another person with the intent to kill, then drops his weapon, any law enforcement officer or soldier has the right to take that person into custody or shoot back.  Libertarian proportionality theory says that retaliatory force can be used up to an included the initial aggressive act.  If someone takes the life of another, their just punishment can be anything up to death.  It is up to the victim or their family to be more lenient if they are so inclined. 

But this is missing the larger point.  If our military is immorally occupying a foreign land, and some of them fight back against the aggressor, then we are in the wrong.  Period.

[Ghoulardi]

I'm not presuming anything.  I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you said:  "Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands".

Post #100

From my brief searching, the only Rules of Engagement reform proposals I've found simply attempted to prevent our soldiers from committing war crimes.  And you seem to be objecting to such reforms. 

But let's get one thing clear up front.  The entire invasion of Iraq was a war crime.  Iraq did not threaten the security of the United States, so our invasion of that country was an act of aggression.

Even many veterans were appalled at what US soldiers were permitted or even encouraged to do during that war.

http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=12536

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june08-witnesses_05-21/

Here's something to consider: the only reason an anti-war movement exists is because there's someone else risking his life, someone protecting their freedom to protest against the very people that are protecting their rights.

Will war ever cease? Doubt it. For war to cease we'll need to stop having things to protect.

If you actually elaborated on what you meant by your statement, I could respond in a clearer way.

Check post #100

[jrodefeld]

The founders haad an answer to the world is a much different place issue---it's called amending the Consitution.

You're right.  But have we amended the Constitution to allow the actions we've taken in the "war on terror"?  Of course not.  The Constitution demands a declaration of war by the Congress, yet we invaded Iraq without one.

The actions our government has taken domestically have blatantly and flagrantly disregarded the Bill of Rights. 

Do you support formal amendments to the Constitution which permit the actions taken by our government over the last fifteen years or so regarding National Defense?  Which actions do you approve of and which do you disapprove?

The final thing I'll say is that there is a difference between what a document says our government should be allowed to do, and what is moral and just.  This is just one reason I am not a Constitutionalist.  I am an anarchist because I see written Constitutions as providing legal justification for governments to subjugate their subjects and being completely ineffectual in restraining their growth.

[Ghoulardi]

There are two things I'd say about this.  First, why are our soldiers occupying his country?  Is there a legitimate reason for us to be doing so?  If China was occupying the United States against our wishes, and some of us fought back, you'd be defending us and not China.

Occupying? I think it had something to do with Osama Bin Laden running to the country for sanctuary. There was no occupying, only going after someone who committed an atrocity on the US.

Second, if a person fires a gun at another person with the intent to kill, then drops his weapon, any law enforcement officer or soldier has the right to take that person into custody or shoot back.  Libertarian proportionality theory says that retaliatory force can be used up to an included the initial aggressive act.  If someone takes the life of another, their just punishment can be anything up to death.  It is up to the victim or their family to be more lenient if they are so inclined. 

Not according to my friend. Once the aggressor dropped his weapon, there was nothing they could do.

But this is missing the larger point.  If our military is immorally occupying a foreign land, and some of them fight back against the aggressor, then we are in the wrong.  Period.

And what of the person that immorally killed 3000 Americans who went to work in the morning and expected to spend the eveving with their families?

[jrodefeld]

Post #100

Here's something to consider: the only reason an anti-war movement exists is because there's someone else risking his life, someone protecting their freedom to protest against the very people that are protecting their rights.

Will war ever cease? Doubt it. For war to cease we'll need to stop having things to protect.

Check post #100

Modern US soldiers are NOT protecting my life.  They are making me less safe by stirring up hatred and resentment against the United States.  I am not going to excuse the atrocities committed by US soldiers or kowtow to the US military machine as so many Americans foolishly do.

For our liberties to be protected, we do need a military or defense capabilities to some degree.  But the necessary existence of the institution is a separate matter from the sorts of actions US military personnel are participating in.  We don't need to conflate the two.

I don't defend US soldiers when they overthrown and occupy a foreign nation that did not threaten us.  I don't defend US soldiers when they operate drones that kill civilians in foreign lands.  I don't defend US soldiers when they participate in acts of aggression against others.  I don't defend US soldiers when they enforce crippling economic sanctions against foreign lands that have no capacity to seriously threaten us.

Nearly all of the actions of the US military in 2016 are things that I strongly object to. 


Ending all war is not possible, but it is a direction moral people should be pushing humanity towards.  It may not be possible to end all war on the planet, but individual countries can and have avoided participating in aggressive war and foreign occupation.

[Ghoulardi]

You're right.  But have we amended the Constitution to allow the actions we've taken in the "war on terror"?  Of course not.  The Constitution demands a declaration of war by the Congress, yet we invaded Iraq without one.

I notice you'll harp on Iraq. What about Libya? Or is that different because a liberal (HRC and Obama) caused that abortion?

The final thing I'll say is that there is a difference between what a document says our government should be allowed to do, and what is moral and just.  This is just one reason I am not a Constitutionalist.  I am an anarchist because I see written Constitutions as providing legal justification for governments to subjugate their subjects and being completely ineffectual in restraining their growth.

A government such  as a republic has to be a government ran by principled men, anything less and you encounter the problems your complaining about.

I find that ironic because that's what anarchy is: no principles. And tell me, as far as governments subjugating subjects and growing unchecked, what pray tell do you think will happen under anarchy

[jrodefeld]

Occupying? I think it had something to do with Osama Bin Laden running to the country for sanctuary. There was no occupying, only going after someone who committed an atrocity on the US.

Not according to my friend. Once the aggressor dropped his weapon, there was nothing they could do.

And what of the person that immorally killed 3000 Americans who went to work in the morning and expected to spend the eveving with their families?

Going after Osama bin Laden does not require occupying a foreign nation.  All it required was a pinpoint accuracy strike, good and diligent foreign intelligence, diplomacy and a small, elite force to capture or kill him.  After we got our man, we should have immediately vacated the region.

In fact, I would have supported Ron Paul's suggestion that we use the Letters of Marque and Reprisal to apprehend or kill bin Laden.  For non-State actors, the military is a blunt instrument when we needed a precision instrument.

Surely you don't think that invading and occupying Iraq or invading and occupying Afghanistan for fifteen years was required to get bin Laden, do you?  Everyone knew that bin Laden escaped from Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and escaped into Pakistan.  What were our troops doing occupying Afghanistan if we knew that bin Laden wasn't there anymore?

[Possum]

Out of curiosity, can you explain how Obama "hurt" the military?  I hear this all the time from the Right.  Our military has been "gutted", we need to "rebuild" our military, etc.

The truth of the matter is that military spending has continued to grow every year of Obama's presidency. 

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  By the way, I'm "still here" because I like to see what different ideological groups tend to think about a variety of subjects.  Maybe you'll learn a little bit about libertarian thought and I'll learn something about conservatism.

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2016/03/25/americas-military-is-in-much-worse-shape-than-youd-think/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2021USb_30t
http://observer.com/2015/01/reckless-cuts-to-us-military-spending-leaving-america-vulnerable/
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024/fact-check-has-president-obama-depleted-the-military


Well, your evidence is above, a quick search will fill up pages. I am curious , for someone who likes to see evidence you sure don't supply any, telling us what books you read to get your viewpoints is not evidence. But, I have learned enough about liberalism, excuse me, libertarian to know there is nothing there. 

[Possum]

That's more or less why I left it to hardier souls like you to dissect his spiel.

Now that you've chewed him like a dog's hard-biscuit, can I now hear your second for the motion from the floor, by old sup there?

Been in the pasture all day shedding and watching the cow pies fly when the shredder hit them. So after a good hot day of watching the bull shit fly I guess his is not too different, too bad only the other bs can be used as compost. I will say where I do not think he brings anything to the table, I have learned from the other posters who have responded and am thankful this forum has the quality of members that is does. And for that I am thankful to you and all of yall who run this forum. But back to the question, I have to second Sup, this forum is too good to have those who bring nothing but b.s

[tac]

How can anyone support a candidate that has said,"Gary Johnson: I Agree With 73% of What Bernie Sanders Says"?

Bernie is an avowed communist and Johnson supports what he says? Unless you are a loopy communist, you cannot support Johnson.

As for libertarians; I cannot even consider a party that supports open borders.

Go peddle your nonsense on a forum that might agree with your crap. The people on this forum are not buying your con. 

[jrodefeld]

I notice you'll harp on Iraq. What about Libya? Or is that different because a liberal (HRC and Obama) caused that abortion?

A government such  as a republic has to be a government ran by principled men, anything less and you encounter the problems your complaining about.

I find that ironic because that's what anarchy is: no principles. And tell me, as far as governments subjugating subjects and growing unchecked, what pray tell do you think will happen under anarchy

The overthrow of Gaddafi and invasion of Libya was a complete disaster.  That decision alone should disqualify Hillary from consideration as our next president. I'm not playing favorites and I don't trust either of the two major parties more than the other.  I'm against military intervention against foreign nations no matter who supports them.

I don't know if you supported the War in Iraq.  Did you?

The humorous thing is that some conservatives heavily criticize Hillary for the disaster in Libya (as they rightly should) while still defending the invasion of Iraq.  They don't seem to see how similar both of these invasions were.  Primarily because of her military hawkishness, Hillary may be even more dangerous than Trump and that is saying a lot.

Anarchy is not no principles.  In fact, it is the result of the principle of non-aggression taken to it's logical conclusion.  If the State was immediately abolished tomorrow, one would just grow in it's place.  For us to either shrink government to that of a limited Republic or eliminate the State altogether, we need to get a sufficient number of people to understand the harm that governments do.  If enough people start to see the State as being illegitimate, then a Stateless society becomes possible.

If the Civil Rights Act were to be repealed tomorrow, do you think that we'd start to see many business owners put up "whites only" signs?  I don't think so.  The reason that Jim Crow-era segregation is not coming back has less to do with the State enforcing integration at the point of a gun, it has more to do with the fact that America is a far less racist place than it once was.  Decent people reject bigotry.  It is the changing of hearts and minds that allows social reforms to be sustainable.

Similarly, if enough people reject politics and see the State as inherently destructive, then a Stateless order is possible.  I'd argue that anarchy is actually more sustainable than a limited government is.  If people accept the premise of the State, then it is hardly a leap for them to slowly begin to accept a growth of the government until the result is essentially unlimited centralization of power with no practical limits.

On the other hand, if people reject the State at a very principled level, then a free society can be maintained because we would never permit the establishment of a State that then had the ability to slowly grow and take over more of social life.

[jrodefeld]

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2016/03/25/americas-military-is-in-much-worse-shape-than-youd-think/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2021USb_30t
http://observer.com/2015/01/reckless-cuts-to-us-military-spending-leaving-america-vulnerable/
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024/fact-check-has-president-obama-depleted-the-military


Well, your evidence is above, a quick search will fill up pages. I am curious , for someone who likes to see evidence you sure don't supply any, telling us what books you read to get your viewpoints is not evidence. But, I have learned enough about liberalism, excuse me, libertarian to know there is nothing there.

I'll concede one thing.  My saying that "military spending has increased every year" under Obama was incorrect.  I was hasty in trying to dispel the myth that our military was "gutted" and needs to be rebuilt, which is still very much a lie.

The relative reductions in military spending that occurred in the several years after 2010 were primarily the result of us withdrawing troops from Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.  These wars were never really ended since we maintain a military presence there.  However, it is logical that there will be a reduction in overall spending due to this fact alone.

I'll cite Wikipedia on this subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Here is the annual military spending over the Obama years:

2009:  698 Billion
2010:  721 Billion
2011:  717 Billion
2012:  681 Billion
2013:  610 Billion
2014:  614 Billion
2015:  637 Billion

Okay, I was not technically correct to claim that spending went up every year.  But the notion that the military was "gutted" and now we might not be able to win a war is complete bullshit.

I'm not defending Obama one bit.  I think he should have cut military spending FAR more than he did.  And over the last three years the budget has been increasing again.

In November of 2007 the number of US troops in Iraq peaked at 170,000.  Are you trying to claim that ending a war with that sort of commitment of ground troops is not going to result in a smaller military budget for a few years?  Obama has continued to intervene into the middle east, but has refrained from committing ground troops into the region in the numbers that George W. Bush did.  He has relied on Drone strikes and advanced technology more than his predecessor.

So Obama entered office with a military budget of 698 Billion dollars a year and will leave office with a budget of 637 Billion dollars a year.  The country that has the second-highest annual military budget is China and we are STILL spending seven times as much per year as they are.

This is not enough for you? 

We don't know yet how much the total military spending for 2016 will be, but there is a good chance Obama will leave office with a military budget very close to the same as the one he had when he came into office.  Factoring in inflation it will still be less in real numbers but we also aren't fighting the Iraq War anymore.

The hyperbole on the Right about this issue is beyond the pale.  "Only" spending 7 times what China spends on military leaves us "vulnerable" and "weak".  Preposterous.

[jrodefeld]

How can anyone support a candidate that has said,"Gary Johnson: I Agree With 73% of What Bernie Sanders Says"?

Bernie is an avowed communist and Johnson supports what he says? Unless you are a loopy communist, you cannot support Johnson.

As for libertarians; I cannot even consider a party that supports open borders.

Go peddle your nonsense on a forum that might agree with your crap. The people on this forum are not buying your con. 

I'm not supporting Gary Johnson and most libertarians aren't either.  And being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to support the Libertarian Party.  Not all libertarians are for open-borders.

Frankly, if you believe the things you claim to believe, you'd be much better off among libertarians who are actually serious about reducing the size and scope of government than you are participating in the Republican Party.  Surely Donald Trump is farther away from Constitutional Conservatism than any libertarian is.

What fun would it be to post in a forum where everyone agrees with me?

[Possum]

I'll concede one thing.  My saying that "military spending has increased every year" under Obama was incorrect.  I was hasty in trying to dispel the myth that our military was "gutted" and needs to be rebuilt, which is still very much a lie.

The relative reductions in military spending that occurred in the several years after 2010 were primarily the result of us withdrawing troops from Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.  These wars were never really ended since we maintain a military presence there.  However, it is logical that there will be a reduction in overall spending due to this fact alone.

I'll cite Wikipedia on this subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Here is the annual military spending over the Obama years:

2009:  698 Billion
2010:  721 Billion
2011:  717 Billion
2012:  681 Billion
2013:  610 Billion
2014:  614 Billion
2015:  637 Billion

Okay, I was not technically correct to claim that spending went up every year.  But the notion that the military was "gutted" and now we might not be able to win a war is complete bullshit.

I'm not defending Obama one bit.  I think he should have cut military spending FAR more than he did.  And over the last three years the budget has been increasing again.

In November of 2007 the number of US troops in Iraq peaked at 170,000.  Are you trying to claim that ending a war with that sort of commitment of ground troops is not going to result in a smaller military budget for a few years?  Obama has continued to intervene into the middle east, but has refrained from committing ground troops into the region in the numbers that George W. Bush did.  He has relied on Drone strikes and advanced technology more than his predecessor.

So Obama entered office with a military budget of 698 Billion dollars a year and will leave office with a budget of 637 Billion dollars a year.  The country that has the second-highest annual military budget is China and we are STILL spending seven times as much per year as they are.

This is not enough for you? 

We don't know yet how much the total military spending for 2016 will be, but there is a good chance Obama will leave office with a military budget very close to the same as the one he had when he came into office.  Factoring in inflation it will still be less in real numbers but we also aren't fighting the Iraq War anymore.

The hyperbole on the Right about this issue is beyond the pale.  "Only" spending 7 times what China spends on military leaves us "vulnerable" and "weak".  Preposterous.

One habit that I have always found annoying is when others try to put words into your mouth, like this   "This is not enough for you?  "   You have no idea how I feel about any damn thing. If you want to dispute anything, stick to the facts or evidence given. You keep saying the military should be cut, we get that, I do not agree and there is nothing you have posted that proves it will not harm the military, or would somehow make us safer, NOTHING!

[Billy's bayonet]

Going after Osama bin Laden does not require occupying a foreign nation.  All it required was a pinpoint accuracy strike, good and diligent foreign intelligence, diplomacy and a small, elite force to capture or kill him.  After we got our man, we should have immediately vacated the region.

In fact, I would have supported Ron Paul's suggestion that we use the Letters of Marque and Reprisal to apprehend or kill bin Laden.  For non-State actors, the military is a blunt instrument when we needed a precision instrument.

I agree with you on this point, with the caveat that it is often necessary to occupy a foreign territory in order to establish a base to work from, logistics demand it. Besides, OBL, (Who wasn't the only target, many Al Q'ieda hiearchy) moved around a lot. In fact he managed to escape to Pakistan.

In some of your posts you indicate you don;t condone drone strikes that can potentially harm civilians, yet you want an  air strike drone strike in the case of OBL....in truth these people are clever enough to  engage in, 'hugging' civilians and civilian facilities like schools and hospitals where they often store munitions, weapons and communication centers, knowing they are generally safe from an air/drone strike.

I absolutely agree that once OBL was killed the US should have declared victory and left Ghanny.

Letters of marque are just contracts, contracts handed out to civilians so that they are acting under color of law. I support this also especially on our borders and coastal lands, they would be more effective in stopping illegals, contraband and drug smuggling if they were paid only by the assets they seize