Chefelf.com Night Life: Libertarianism - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

Libertarianism Could it work?

#1 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 24 September 2007 - 11:36 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 24 2007, 11:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't see how voting for someone with no chance of winning isn't the same as wasting a vote. I know all the people who voted for Nader a while back figured they were making siome big statement, but since that's pretty much forgotten and Nader might as well be dead for all the press he's getting, they might have been just as successful with their "statement" had they stayed at home, not bothered to vote, and then bitched about politics on this very site.

But what do I know. Go ahead and vote for soemone who can't possibly win, then tell everyone that you're neither left nor right, or whatever it is that allows you to feel you don't have a stake in the system. In the end you know that either a Republican or a Democrat will come into power and send troops somewhere to defend US business interests abroad.


If everyone (who was disenchanted with the way Democrats and Republicans ran things) got off their asses and actually voted, Libertarians wouldn’t be a third party. Though I think it would be best if all the third parties started a coalition.

QUOTE (Slade @ Sep 24 2007, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Cobnat: Libertarians are greedy, selfish people with a political mindset that belongs in the 1700s. (I mainly take offense to their open support of laissez-faire capitalism and total negligence of the protection of people from being voliated by other people.) Unless you want to fight tooth and nail to the top, you'll get uncermoniously stomped on by the rest of them because you'll be in their way.


I’m guessing your one of those people who believes in a welfare state with high taxes and a caste economic system.
0

#2 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 September 2007 - 12:23 AM

In a laissez-faire society, what would happen to Central Park?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#3 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 12:45 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 24 2007, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In a laissez-faire society, what would happen to Central Park?


You mean economy, anyway, it would be privatized.
0

#4 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 September 2007 - 01:32 AM

In that case, it would be bulldozed and turned over to industry. Condos, Warehouses, a shipyard maybe. But there is no precedent for a private park that size in a Capitalist society, and if there were, you wouln't be able to afford to visit it. Whya argue for an economy that would benefit you less than the one you already live in? Why yearn for a destruction of all public space? Because trust me, that's what you'd get.

The libertarian dream is all ad-hominem arguments; rather than describe the commnity you would be able to build in your dream economy, you immediately assume that any opponent is "one of those people who believes in a welfare state with high taxes and a caste economic system." That's the rhetoric f all of the Ayn Rand novels, non-stop lineupos of people spouting completely bogus "socialist" opinions, akin to the non-Christians in Chick publications. And what is this "Welfare State" everyone keeps talking about? Is this the only alternative to Libertarianism? That is, is this the society we have now? Is the world really only capable of two alternatives after all, whatever you claim to desire and whatever you claim to hate the most?

PS: Do you support the idea of taxation at all? And if so, for what should your tax dollars be utilised?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#5 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 02:35 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 24 2007, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In that case, it would be bulldozed and turned over to industry. Condos, Warehouses, a shipyard maybe. But there is no precedent for a private park that size in a Capitalist society, and if there were, you wouln't be able to afford to visit it. Whya argue for an economy that would benefit you less than the one you already live in? Why yearn for a destruction of all public space? Because trust me, that's what you'd get.


Alternatively the person who buys the park could rent it out to mobile businesses.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 24 2007, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The libertarian dream is all ad-hominem arguments; rather than describe the commnity you would be able to build in your dream economy, you immediately assume that any opponent is "one of those people who believes in a welfare state with high taxes and a caste economic system." That's the rhetoric f all of the Ayn Rand novels, non-stop lineupos of people spouting completely bogus "socialist" opinions, akin to the non-Christians in Chick publications.


What are your economic opinions?

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 24 2007, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And what is this "Welfare State" everyone keeps talking about? Is this the only alternative to Libertarianism? That is, is this the society we have now? Is the world really only capable of two alternatives after all, whatever you claim to desire and whatever you claim to hate the most?


The Welfare State is an economic system where income earners pay high income tax to subsidise the unemployed.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 24 2007, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
PS: Do you support the idea of taxation at all? And if so, for what should your tax dollars be utilised?


I believe that an economy cannot survive without some form of taxation. Though I believe that (income or business) tax should not exceed 10%. I also believe that everything except public roads, the military, the police and the courts should be privatized.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 25 September 2007 - 02:36 AM

0

#6 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 September 2007 - 06:02 AM

So you're happy with no parks then. Civilised areas will not have any green space, because it is not profitable. I don't know who you think would be able to buy a park and rent it out as a park, because that's flat out unprofitable. Inevitably the park would disappear.

This "Welfare State" you speak of, with the income earners paying "high taxes to subsidise the unemployed," this is the only alternative you see to laissez-faire capitalism and the privatization of all public space? I say you have a limited imagination.

But while we're talking about your imagination, what is so special about the police or the military that they should be supported by taxation? Why shouldn't we just have private security forces for our cities, and anyone who can't afford police just doesn't get them? And why was it so predictable that you'd say "Police, Military and Roads," and that you didn't even think of Hospitals or Schools? Also, in your society, who decides to what use we put the military? Is it the same as now, the Capitalists, to defend their overseas operations and to occasionally subdue labour movements? Or do you imagine that in a corporate-run limited government, the military would be used only in the case of invasion by a foreign power? Because history disagrees.

I wonder too in a world with no body external to corporations and the military, how we would ever respond to corporations making an environment too toxic for human life? It took decades for non-partisan scientists finally to get the lead out of gasoline; in your dream world they never would have. Just to name one example.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#7 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 07:25 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So you're happy with no parks then. Civilised areas will not have any green space, because it is not profitable. I don't know who you think would be able to buy a park and rent it out as a park, because that's flat out unprofitable. Inevitably the park would disappear.


Small food businesses would hire the spots within the park. If the business tax is bellow 10% then there is a good chance a lot of people will decide to become self-employed.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This "Welfare State" you speak of, with the income earners paying "high taxes to subsidise the unemployed," this is the only alternative you see to laissez-faire capitalism and the privatization of all public space? I say you have a limited imagination.


No personal attacks please, I would like to think that we are both above that sort of thing.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But while we're talking about your imagination, what is so special about the police or the military that they should be supported by taxation? Why shouldn't we just have private security forces for our cities, and anyone who can't afford police just doesn't get them?


What are you on about? The external and internal security forces of the country have to be kept in public hands lest they are abused by private enterprise.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And why was it so predictable that you'd say "Police, Military and Roads," and that you didn't even think of Hospitals or Schools?


Hospitals and schools as well as social and medical welfare would be privatized. Since people are paying less income tax and since the there would be competition among the hospitals and schools, there is a good chance that most if not all people would be able to afford it.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also, in your society, who decides to what use we put the military? Is it the same as now, the Capitalists, to defend their overseas operations and to occasionally subdue labour movements? Or do you imagine that in a corporate-run limited government,


As a libertarian, I am opposed to any violence perpetrated onto civilians by and government organizations. Small businesses would prosper because of the small business tax. There would be corporations but there would also be a lot of family and individually run businesses so the government wouldn’t be controlled by the corporate ‘elite’.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the military would be used only in the case of invasion by a foreign power? Because history disagrees.


Exactly. If the military budget is cut enough then the military wouldn’t be able to afford a foreign war and also keep the country safe. Since there would be relaxed gun laws (since we do believe in individual freedom) it would be easy for the official military to organize militias.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Sep 25 2007, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wonder too in a world with no body external to corporations and the military, how we would ever respond to corporations making an environment too toxic for human life? It took decades for non-partisan scientists finally to get the lead out of gasoline; in your dream world they never would have. Just to name one example.


Your confusing privatization with corporate takeover. Of course there would be regulations and laws against pollution and bio crimes against the populace. Though it is interesting why you believe that the police and courts would not be able to enforce the law since they would be government funded.
0

#8 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 September 2007 - 10:34 AM

Who's going to keep all of those small food businesses from being undercut and pushed aside by the corporations with more economic clout? And you've done an awesome job of dodging just about every one of Civ's questions. Oh, and healthcare is already privatized, so treatments can cost millions of dollars. It's great if you're the drug industry or a doctor, but not if you're someone who needs help and doesn't see it as morally responsible to put prices in dollarsigns on human life. The same sort of thing would happen were schools privatized. The few schools that didn't completely fall apart would be occupied and supported only by the wealthy, which would serve to create an enormous economic caste system much stronger than it already is in this country, and surely stronger than the one that you decided I support because I don't like Libertarians. If you look at any state, you'll see some very nice schools in wealthy areas, and crumbling schools in areas of lower income, complete with associated higher crimerates and dropouts. Doesn't that also go against your supposed support of equal opportunity?

Anyway, as far as the debate at hand goes, who is supporting who and why? Is there any way to get of this big international mess? Can we repair the horrible damage that has been done to everyone but the wealthy corporations in the US in the past eight years?
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#9 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 11:06 AM

He's right about the parks. Special intrest groups are needed to keep these things alive. In your world, they wouldn't count. If it doesn't turn a profit then it doesn't float.

Central park is not just for looks. Parks are needed for cities period. They help curve rainfall run off (sewer built up and puddling effects). The less that goes into the sewers, the less money is needed to treat sewage which in turn means less out pour into the ocean. Central Park is a massive catch basin for rainfall.

Central park aside, what about all the small plant life and freshly cut grass patches scattered around most cities. These need to be maintained. They play a functional role and look great.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#10 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 12:11 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Sep 25 2007, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Who's going to keep all of those small food businesses from being undercut and pushed aside by the corporations with more economic clout? And you've done an awesome job of dodging just about every one of Civ's questions.


I thought I did answer all his questions.

QUOTE (Slade @ Sep 25 2007, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, and healthcare is already privatized, so treatments can cost millions of dollars. It's great if you're the drug industry or a doctor, but not if you're someone who needs help and doesn't see it as morally responsible to put prices in dollarsigns on human life.


The thing is, rich people are in short demand and I doubt they are sick (physically) all the time. The drug manufacturers will no doubt be in competition with one another over price, so chances are that the drugs will become cheaper. Combine that with the low income tax and viola! Even a normal person can afford basic healthcare.

As for other problem with the lack of organ donations, (we have massive problems with that here in Australia and you probably have too in the U.S) people can be paid to donate organs. I know it seems like a harsh thing but its not different then donating blood or sperm for money.

QUOTE (Slade @ Sep 25 2007, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The same sort of thing would happen were schools privatized. The few schools that didn't completely fall apart would be occupied and supported only by the wealthy, which would serve to create an enormous economic caste system much stronger than it already is in this country, and surely stronger than the one that you decided I support because I don't like Libertarians. If you look at any state, you'll see some very nice schools in wealthy areas, and crumbling schools in areas of lower income, complete with associated higher crimerates and dropouts. Doesn't that also go against your supposed support of equal opportunity?


If there is a need for education, an entrepreneur will no doubt invest the money. I mean, here in Australia private schools get twice as much funding from the government then public schools anyway even though they educate less then a quater of Australia’s kids. This is a massive drain on tax payer moneys especially since most tax payers are sending their kids to public schools.

QUOTE (Jordan @ Sep 25 2007, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
He's right about the parks. Special intrest groups are needed to keep these things alive. In your world, they wouldn't count. If it doesn't turn a profit then it doesn't float. Central park is not just for looks. Parks are needed for cities period. They help curve rainfall run off (sewer built up and puddling effects). The less that goes into the sewers, the less money is needed to treat sewage which in turn means less out pour into the ocean. Central Park is a massive catch basin for rainfall. Central park aside, what about all the small plant life and freshly cut grass patches scattered around most cities. These need to be maintained. They play a functional role and look great.


Like I said before. There is a profit to be made from not destroying the parks. How much does it cost to build a condo or warehouse and then rent it off? A reasonable businessman would buy the park and rent it out to small business and probably charge entry/parking fees or something similar. Though not every city is the same, I am sure that in places like New York or Tokyo a park would quickly turn into a parking garage. If the government declared it a national park then it would be safe, like a historical monument.

Obviously I don’t believe in complete privatization, that would be anarchy. It would also destroy the culture of many countries. I do believe that everything that does not interfere with a nation’s culture, defence or legal system should be privatized. I also believe there should be regulations when it comes to international trade (i.e. you cant own a company that operates in another country) for economic and moral reasons. So I am not 100% libertarian but then who is 100% anything?
0

#11 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 September 2007 - 12:55 PM

There's a lot I could rebut, but I find this to be the funniest and therefore most fun to rebut:
QUOTE
As for other problem with the lack of organ donations, (we have massive problems with that here in Australia and you probably have too in the U.S) people can be paid to donate organs. I know it seems like a harsh thing but its not different then donating blood or sperm for money.


Okay, tell me, please. How is this going to work when you have to DIE in order to donate an organ??? Other than a kidney. AND you have to die in such a way so that you're only about to die, and are on life support, and then they'll take you off it to give your organs to someone else. So it's not like they can pay you ahead of time - what if you die the wrong way? That would have been a wasted investment. In fact, chances of dying in this way are so low that no one would even think to begin some sort of "pay people to donate organs" business.

There are numerous other flaws and fallacies in your most recent argument for Libertarianism but I only had time for that one.

Also, I think maybe this topic should be split into the presidential race one, plus a new one for Libertarianism since this is getting pretty off-track. Slade, I don't have that power - think you could do that?

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 25 September 2007 - 12:57 PM

I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#12 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Sep 25 2007, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's a lot I could rebut, but I find this to be the funniest and therefore most fun to rebut:
Okay, tell me, please. How is this going to work when you have to DIE in order to donate an organ??? Other than a kidney. AND you have to die in such a way so that you're only about to die, and are on life support, and then they'll take you off it to give your organs to someone else. So it's not like they can pay you ahead of time - what if you die the wrong way? That would have been a wasted investment. In fact, chances of dying in this way are so low that no one would even think to begin some sort of "pay people to donate organs" business.


The money would obviously go to the people in your will.

QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Sep 25 2007, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There are numerous other flaws and fallacies in your most recent argument for Libertarianism but I only had time for that one.


Well all my arguments are theoretical. Since there hasn’t ever been a libertarian society, we can only speculate if these theories would work or not. But the opposite of libertarianism has been practised (National Socialism and Stalinism) and those systems destroyed the economy and society of the countries they attached themselves onto.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 25 September 2007 - 01:37 PM

0

#13 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:50 PM

It's not an opposite, Cobnat. "National Socialism" (quoted for sarcasm) and Stalinism were State-capitalist systems, with the Nazi party being more like a big corporation and Soviet Russia trying to dictate the market. Haven't you seen those political spectrum charts? There are two axes. Libertarians want no governmental or economical control. The parties you mentioned wanted full government and economic control. There are ranges of both scales. And no matter how you word it, Libertarians are still primarily concerned with fucking everyone with their greed, whether intentionally or not.

Spoon: I'm on it for the splitting thing.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#14 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 September 2007 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Sep 25 2007, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not an opposite, Cobnat. "National Socialism" (quoted for sarcasm) and Stalinism were State-capitalist systems, with the Nazi party being more like a big corporation and Soviet Russia trying to dictate the market. Haven't you seen those political spectrum charts? There are two axes. Libertarians want no governmental or economical control. The parties you mentioned wanted full government and economic control. There are ranges of both scales.


…are you agreeing with me or not?

QUOTE (Slade @ Sep 25 2007, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And no matter how you word it, Libertarians are still primarily concerned with fucking everyone with their greed, whether intentionally or not.


What is the basis of your opinion? I am (going to be) a libertarian because of the ideal of low taxes and a more diverse market. I honestly believe that this way will help people more then hinder them. I mean most western nations are taxing the hell out of low-income earners and allowing major corporations do what they want and for what? To lose a war halfway across the earth? So we can pay for other peoples unemployment checks? So we can fund private schools while the government fucks the children of the working class? I don’t think so, you might think me greedy but in end it is simply stupid to be paying money for such things.
0

#15 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 September 2007 - 04:24 PM

Well Slade said everything I might have said about dodging questions and how Nazis weren't the same as Socialists. I don't think anyone proposing Libertarianism has a really clear idea what it is to live as a retarded orphan, or an elderly sufferer of dementia, or so on, but the society they propose is one in which those people would die unassisted. Folks just like to say "Lower taxes and more money for corporations will mean that everyone is wealthy. Reagan tried to sell it as "trickle-down economics," and it was flawed then as well. Smaller businesses will not prosper in a country of WalMarts, lower taxes or not.

Parks would not exist. Long-term care would not exist. Companies would enforce overseas interests with military contributions. No one would enforce environmental restrictions on companies because no one would be investigating the effects of toxic output. I say no one because there would be no one with a budget for it. Right now such studies are state-funded, and your economy would cut that.

I'm glad you're falling back and acknowledging that you can't be 100% Libertarian. What I don't understand is how you still assume that any society that is not 100% Libertarian must be a Welfare State with cradle-to-grave state support of the lazy and a weak weak economy. Why can you be less than 100% Libertarian yet promote 100% Libertarianism as though the only other alternative is absolute social failure? I think you're falling for the old lie that any sort of state management of people's money is weak, and altruistic, or religious, or anything other than good mangement. A well-run society can include social spending; in fact the very well-run society you live in is such a one.

On to new business: how do you figure that the military would not be abused if it were run exclusivley by the public? Isn't your chief complaint that the military is being sent abroad against the will of the people? A public-run military is just as prone to abuse as a corporate one. In fact, an amusing tangent would arise were I to mention that there is these days no difference. But also: do you really believe that a smaller military would defend the US better? That if the US were unable to invade foreign nations, not just that it chose not to, but that it were incapable of it, it would still be able to defend its international business interests? That it hold the political clout that it does? If you're saying that the US should only worry about its own borders, then fine, but without its international holdings, the economy woud collapse. And without a military to deter attack, it would lose those holdings.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size