Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, military and a few other functions. The basic point remains: you're happy to have big government providing the finest possible military (including socialist things like free health care), but it's the end of the world if we have big government preventing people from starving to death. It's completely inconsistent to say that anything less than the best possible military is not a viable solution but not hold other things to that same standard.

If you really think military healthcare's free, I encourage you to experience getting it for yourself sometime.

Numerous libertarians, incidentally, don't want the best possible military. Most are in favor of a much smaller one, in fact.

Right, I keep forgetting that you're a social darwinist and don't see any problem with limiting education to those lucky enough to have parents who can afford it.

There's always loans.

I don't really see the problem with privatising the military. Surely the magic of the market would provide a large range of different, competitive mercenary companies, each kept in check by the knowledge that if they tried to seize power then the others would immediately be paid to destroy them? Besides, the US spends a ridiculous amount on the armed forces right now. Maybe some competition could reduce overheads a great deal?

Also, I have to admit I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with anything. Shouldn't your philosophy be able to stand without reference to the Constitution, the Constitution being a natural product of the implementation of that philosophy rather than its genesis? When you handwave and say but the Constitution! it sounds very much like it's the other way around.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't really see the problem with privatising the military. Surely the magic of the market would provide a large range of different, competitive mercenary companies, each kept in check by the knowledge that if they tried to seize power then the others would immediately be paid to destroy them? Besides, the US spends a ridiculous amount on the armed forces right now. Maybe some competition could reduce overheads a great deal?

Also, I have to admit I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with anything. Shouldn't your philosophy be able to stand without reference to the Constitution, the Constitution being a natural product of the implementation of that philosophy rather than its genesis? When you handwave and say but the Constitution! it sounds very much like it's the other way around.

Tell you what, we'll wait for you guys to privatize the military to see how it goes. All's well in fifty years, I'll be on board.

As for the Constitution...yeah, I'm not sure why it's so much in the mix at the moment. I may very well have brought it up, for all I know. Libertarianism certainly doesn't depend on it, and though it has many libertarian aspects, it's not entirely a libertarian document, so it's not entirely relevant.

Seaward - true, most of us Libertarians are most interested in State run Military, ala National Guard,Coast Guard whose main mission is to NOT be deployed anywhere overseas, but to defend the borders, and protect the country from threats both from outside and within.

Back onto topic about why Libertarians are more aligned with Republicans, I think someone else summed it up. We generally want as little Government involvement in our day to day lives.

For instance, the government is involved in pretty much every aspect of our lives right now, what type of toilet you can install in your house, what kind of light bulbs you can manufacture or purchase, what blend of fuel you can get for your car on any given day. etc etc etc.

Most of us will agree doing drugs is stupid and you should not do it, but you should have the right to do so.

A lot of Republicans while not advocating for Gay marriage, aside from prominent members of the party like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman, will tell you they would rather not have Government involved in regulating marriage, and know full well once the Government is no longer involved in handing out marriage certificates, gay marriage will be de facto legalized except in places that passed a law expressly forbidding it.

 Seaward wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't really see the problem with privatising the military. Surely the magic of the market would provide a large range of different, competitive mercenary companies, each kept in check by the knowledge that if they tried to seize power then the others would immediately be paid to destroy them? Besides, the US spends a ridiculous amount on the armed forces right now. Maybe some competition could reduce overheads a great deal?

Tell you what, we'll wait for you guys to privatize the military to see how it goes. All's well in fifty years, I'll be on board.

You might be waiting a long time. I don't know if Libertarians even exist here. I guess someone must be, but there's no general awareness of it like in the US.

 Seaward wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Also, I have to admit I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with anything. Shouldn't your philosophy be able to stand without reference to the Constitution, the Constitution being a natural product of the implementation of that philosophy rather than its genesis? When you handwave and say but the Constitution! it sounds very much like it's the other way around.

As for the Constitution...yeah, I'm not sure why it's so much in the mix at the moment. I may very well have brought it up, for all I know. Libertarianism certainly doesn't depend on it, and though it has many libertarian aspects, it's not entirely a libertarian document, so it's not entirely relevant.

It should not depend on it, but many of your arguments have been appeals to its authority. "This is okay because it's in the Constitution; this is not okay because it's not in the Constitution or maybe it is but the Supreme Court says it doesn't count or at least doesn't say that it does count and that's just as good" etc.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
You might be waiting a long time. I don't know if Libertarians even exist here. I guess someone must be, but there's no general awareness of it like in the US.

Why would they need to? Privatizing the military isn't a tenet of libertarianism.

 Seaward wrote:
It should not depend on it, but many of your arguments have been appeals to its authority. "This is okay because it's in the Constitution; this is not okay because it's not in the Constitution or maybe it is but the Supreme Court says it doesn't count or at least doesn't say that it does count and that's just as good" etc.

Not really, no. We got into the weeds on the fething Taxing and Spending clause, for reasons that I can't entirely explain, but the basic points have been pretty clearly stated. As little government intrusion as possible = good. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Back onto topic about why Libertarians are more aligned with Republicans, I think someone else summed it up. We generally want as little Government involvement in our day to day lives.

Since when is the republican party concerned with small government? The only real "small government" ideology it stands for is "fewer regulations so our wealthy corporate donors can make as much money as possible".

For instance, the government is involved in pretty much every aspect of our lives right now, what type of toilet you can install in your house, what kind of light bulbs you can manufacture or purchase, what blend of fuel you can get for your car on any given day. etc etc etc.

And you know why those regulations exist? Because otherwise you have water shortages, wasted energy and pollution from people who don't understand how high-efficiency light bulbs work, and unethical gas stations selling cheap ethanol blends that will destroy your engine (without any appropriate warning labels).

A lot of Republicans while not advocating for Gay marriage, aside from prominent members of the party like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman, will tell you they would rather not have Government involved in regulating marriage, and know full well once the Government is no longer involved in handing out marriage certificates, gay marriage will be de facto legalized except in places that passed a law expressly forbidding it.

Oh yes, "a lot of republicans" want government out of marriage instead of blatantly arguing for government recognition of only christian-approved marriage. Let's not forget that it's the republican party that is passing additional laws specifically banning gay marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Numerous libertarians, incidentally, don't want the best possible military. Most are in favor of a much smaller one, in fact.

Best in quality, not quantity. If we can settle for a health care system that leaves people to die because they aren't rich enough to afford treatment then we can settle for a mercenary military that isn't as good as you might like.

There's always loans.

Oh good, so if you aren't lucky enough to have wealthy parents you can get a degree and graduate with crippling debt (take a look at the tuition prices for universities that aren't subsidized by the government). This is obviously a much better idea than having affordable government-run universities available.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:

Back onto topic about why Libertarians are more aligned with Republicans, I think someone else summed it up. We generally want as little Government involvement in our day to day lives.

And yet I see the anti-gay, prolife stance of the republican party as being more intrusive than democrats, democrats just want to build infrastructure and tax me towards that. Republicans want to tell me who I can marry, refuse me medical procedure (well, my wife), that seems more controlling to me.

 Seaward wrote:
Why would they need to? Privatizing the military isn't a tenet of libertarianism.

Only because libertarianism as an ideology pretty much consists of "I'm rich already, the rest of you". If you apply the fundamental arguments of libertarianism consistently the inevitable consequence is a military composed of private mercenary corporations paid for by those who wish to purchase military services. The fact that most libertarians don't want this is really just a concession that libertarianism as an ideology is broken.

As little government intrusion as possible = good. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Except you don't apply that principle consistently. You're happy to accept more government intrusion than is strictly necessary if it accomplishes a goal that you value.

 Peregrine wrote:
Best in quality, not quantity. If we can settle for a health care system that leaves people to die because they aren't rich enough to afford treatment then we can settle for a mercenary military that isn't as good as you might like.

Nope. The country could very well cease to exist without effective defenses.

Oh good, so if you aren't lucky enough to have wealthy parents you can get a degree and graduate with crippling debt (take a look at the tuition prices for universities that aren't subsidized by the government). This is obviously a much better idea than having affordable government-run universities available.

Oh, you want a completely free ride? Of course, what was I thinking.

ROTC, service academy, GI Bill. Hey, you'll even get some of that military healthcare that you think is free!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Only because libertarianism as an ideology pretty much consists of "I'm rich already, the rest of you". If you apply the fundamental arguments of libertarianism consistently the inevitable consequence is a military composed of private mercenary corporations paid for by those who wish to purchase military services. The fact that most libertarians don't want this is really just a concession that libertarianism as an ideology is broken.

Again, simply saying the country doesn't need effective defenses doesn't make it so.

Except you don't apply that principle consistently. You're happy to accept more government intrusion than is strictly necessary if it accomplishes a goal that you value.

Not at all. Providing for the defense of the nation is strictly necessary. We've covered multiple times now why mercenaries can't do it. That you refuse to accept it hasn't gotten less amusing, but it hasn't changed the fact.

 Seaward wrote:
Nope. The country could very well cease to exist without effective defenses.

It could. Or it could continue to exist just fine. But I thought we value freedom? If people wish to live in a country where they trade security for lower taxes then why should they be forced to pay taxes to fund the military that you want to have? Shouldn't the libertarian answer be to let the market decide whether there's enough demand for high-quality military services to have a military composed of loyal professional soldiers?

Oh, you want a completely free ride? Of course, what was I thinking.

I didn't say that. The simple fact is that even "full price" tuition at state universities is subsidized by the government, and if you remove that support it's going to mean a huge increase in student debt.

ROTC, service academy, GI Bill. Hey, you'll even get some of that military healthcare that you think is free!

Oh good. So socialism is good, as long as it's part of the military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
We've covered multiple times now why mercenaries can't do it.

No we haven't . We've covered how mercenaries can't do it to your satisfaction. However, the libertarian answer is to let the free market decide what level of defense is desired, not to impose unwanted taxes to provide an arbitrary level of defense that you personally want to have. Just like in your social darwinist utopia my desire to not have people starving to death does not mean that the government should impose unwanted taxes to pay for it.

 Peregrine wrote:
It could. Or it could continue to exist just fine. But I thought we value freedom? If people wish to live in a country where they trade security for lower taxes then why should they be forced to pay taxes to fund the military that you want to have? Shouldn't the libertarian answer be to let the market decide whether there's enough demand for high-quality military services to have a military composed of loyal professional soldiers?

No. Libertarianism is not anarchism. I realize you're having a tough time in understanding that, but maybe pure, rote repetition will do the trick.

I didn't say that. The simple fact is that even "full price" tuition at state universities is subsidized by the government, and if you remove that support it's going to mean a huge increase in student debt.

Sure would. Maybe we'd have fewer people incurring it. I mean, seriously, I like a bartender with a BA as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

Oh good. So socialism is good, as long as it's part of the military.

Do you even know what socialism is? I'm starting to think that may be the problem here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
No we haven't . We've covered how mercenaries can't do it to your satisfaction.

Or to anyone else's, at least if we count those who have even a remote idea what they're talking about.

However, the libertarian answer is to let the free market decide what level of defense is desired, not to impose unwanted taxes to provide an arbitrary level of defense that you personally want to have.

No, it definitely isn't. The fact that you're unable to produce any mainstream libertarian ideology espousing this notion should have told you you're barking up the wrong tree a long, long time ago. All of them, from the Cato Institute to the random bloggers, acknowledge that it's the government's job to provide a military. The only guys you've got in your corner are those two dudes you claim to have talked to. When even the internet doesn't want a piece of your crazy theory, it's time to pack it in.

 Seaward wrote:
No. Libertarianism is not anarchism. I realize you're having a tough time in understanding that, but maybe pure, rote repetition will do the trick.

Of course it's not anarchism. We all know that anarcho-capitalists who call themselves libertarians are not "true" libertarians. A "true" libertarian is one who stops applying libertarian ideology at a specific level of government rather than abolishing even more of it.

Sure would. Maybe we'd have fewer people incurring it. I mean, seriously, I like a bartender with a BA as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

1) This still applies to "useful" degrees. If the price of getting an engineering degree increases by 5x (or more) because of the end of government support then anyone who isn't lucky enough to have wealthy parents that can pay the higher tuition costs will be facing a crippling level of debt and likely be forced to abandon their hope of getting one. The end result is that even "useful" degrees will become more and more restricted to the children of the wealthy. And I think even a social darwinist like you can see how it's a bad thing when talented people with valuable things to contribute to society are forced into low-end jobs because their parents failed.

2) I know you're a social darwinist, but try to imagine how a better-educated population is a desirable thing and how education for the sake of education can be good even if it isn't directly useful in a job.

Do you even know what socialism is? I'm starting to think that may be the problem here.

Socialism seems to be defined as "anything I, as a conservative/libertarian, don't like", considering how many times I've heard things like free tuition labeled as socialism.

Or to anyone else's, at least if we count those who have even a remote idea what they're talking about.

So what you're saying is that individual freedom should be limited to those you decide are qualified to exercise it? I thought you were in favor of libertarianism, not a big-government conservativism?

No, it definitely isn't. The fact that you're unable to produce any mainstream libertarian ideology espousing this notion should have told you you're barking up the wrong tree a long, long time ago. All of them, from the Cato Institute to the random bloggers, acknowledge that it's the government's job to provide a military. The only guys you've got in your corner are those two dudes you claim to have talked to. When even the internet doesn't want a piece of your crazy theory, it's time to pack it in.

Sorry, I can't get beyond this idea that there's such a thing as "mainstream libertarian ideology". You do realize that the libertarian party is a about as "mainstream" and relevant in US politics as the communist party, right?

(And, TBH, if you exclude the 'libertarians' whose sole political goal is legalizing pot, the communists are probably a lot more relevant.)

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course it's not anarchism. We all know that anarcho-capitalists who call themselves libertarians are not "true" libertarians. A "true" libertarian is one who stops applying libertarian ideology at a specific level of government rather than abolishing even more of it.

Again, you seem to believe that libertarianism is about removing all government, everywhere. Until you can acknowledge that's not the case, there's simply no point in talking to you.

Liberalism, by the way? It's about resurrecting Stalin so he can run the country right. See? We can both make stupid-ass claims without the slightest hint of truth to them.

1) This still applies to "useful" degrees. If the price of getting an engineering degree increases by 5x (or more) because of the end of government support then anyone who isn't lucky enough to have wealthy parents that can pay the higher tuition costs will be facing a crippling level of debt and likely be forced to abandon their hope of getting one. The end result is that even "useful" degrees will become more and more restricted to the children of the wealthy. And I think even a social darwinist like you can see how it's a bad thing when talented people with valuable things to contribute to society are forced into low-end jobs because their parents failed.

You're leaving out the part where useful degrees become more rare and thus command a higher premium on the job market, resulting in increased wages to pay off that debt with. I work with plenty of guys who financed their entire ride to expensive private schools. They're not crippled by the debt. It's almost like they figured out what they were getting into and had a reasonable plan to handle it.

Your debt's going to be crippling if you're getting a worthless degree. You know that. Whining about it after the fact and expecting the rest of us to mitigate your bad decisions isn't the answer.

Do you even know what socialism is? I'm starting to think that may be the problem here.

Socialism seems to be defined as "anything I, as a conservative/libertarian, don't like", considering how many times I've heard things like free tuition labeled as socialism.

I'll take that as a no.

So what you're saying is that individual freedom should be limited to those you decide are qualified to exercise it? I thought you were in favor of libertarianism, not a big-government conservativism?

We'll try rote repetition one more time: libertarianism is not about the abolition of all government functions. Just let me know when that sinks in so we can move on.

Sorry, I can't get beyond this idea that there's such a thing as "mainstream libertarian ideology". You do realize that the libertarian party is a about as "mainstream" and relevant in US politics as the communist party, right?

Yep. Does that mean you believe there is no such thing as a mainstream to communist ideology, or is this just yet another reading comprehension problem on your part?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

Let us not forget most of the define marriage is only between one man and one woman have been state ballot initiatives. The most famous being Prop 8 from California that recently made it to the supreme court. The majority of people who turned out to vote in California 2008 were Democrats. So you can not really go about saying that Democrats are really better on this issue.

Libertarians are really for the party of the misunderstood. Don't worry MGS, even our own fellow citizens don't get it as this thread clearly shows.

 Seaward wrote:
Again, you seem to believe that libertarianism is about removing all government, everywhere. Until you can acknowledge that's not the case, there's simply no point in talking to you.

It isn't, but only because libertarians refuse to apply their ideology consistently and insist on preserving certain government functions that they personally feel are necessary even when it contradicts their ideology.

You're leaving out the part where useful degrees become more rare and thus command a higher premium on the job market, resulting in increased wages to pay off that debt with.

You mean the part where labor costs become too high and the company moves to China?

I work with plenty of guys who financed their entire ride to expensive private schools. They're not crippled by the debt. It's almost like they figured out what they were getting into and had a reasonable plan to handle it.

Yes, it's possible. That doesn't change the fact that ending state-subsidized universities would mean either a crippling increase in debt (don't forget that student loan debt is already a big problem) or an even greater divide between people lucky enough to have wealthy parents and people who don't.

I'll take that as a no.

Yeah, because I'm clearly talking about the dictionary definition of socialism rather than the habit of conservatives/libertarians declaring any random thing they don't like (such as state-funded tuition) to be socialism...

Yep. Does that mean you believe there is no such thing as a mainstream to communist ideology, or is this just yet another reading comprehension problem on your part?

No, I don't think there's any kind of "mainstream" communist ideology, just a bunch of irrelevant factions arguing over what the ideal fantasy world is. The term "mainstream" implies unity and relevance to society as a whole, not just having a blog with the most page views out of all the irrelevant fringe groups.

 Peregrine wrote:
It isn't, but only because libertarians refuse to apply their ideology consistently and insist on preserving certain government functions that they personally feel are necessary even when it contradicts their ideology.

There's nothing inconsistent about saying the government's job is to take on the roles that the private sector or the individual cannot.

You mean the part where labor costs become too high and the company moves to China?

I'm also leaving out the part where the zipzorps take on the waggleworms in the Uberdome, because I thought we were sticking to practical reality.

Yes, it's possible. That doesn't change the fact that ending state-subsidized universities would mean either a crippling increase in debt (don't forget that student loan debt is already a big problem) or an even greater divide between people lucky enough to have wealthy parents and people who don't.

Or people smart enough to figure out other ways to finance their college education.

No, I don't think there's any kind of "mainstream" communist ideology, just a bunch of irrelevant factions arguing over what the ideal fantasy world is. The term "mainstream" implies unity and relevance to society as a whole, not just having a blog with the most page views out of all the irrelevant fringe groups.

That's not what mainstream implies, actually. You're close with the unity, at least.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of libertarians - I'm leaving out those two totally real guys you know, obviously - believe that one of the roles of government is to provide for the common defense makes it a mainstream libertarian tenet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(science_fiction)

I don't get it. Are we just listing theoretical concepts? Am I doing it right?

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Let us not forget most of the define marriage is only between one man and one woman have been state ballot initiatives.

State ballot initiatives led, supported, and funded by the republican party and groups associated with the republican party.

The majority of people who turned out to vote in California 2008 were Democrats. So you can not really go about saying that Democrats are really better on this issue.

Sorry, but that's just insane. Let's do some basic math here.

Assume for the sake of simplicity that everyone who voted R in the presidential election in California also voted for proposition 8, and that all voters completed their entire ballot (the vote totals are roughly the same for each). That's 37% of all voters, compared to 52% in favor of proposition 8, so we need 15% of the population to defect from "democrat" to "republican". Since 60% of the population voted D, that means that 25% of democrats in California voted for prop 8. IOW, 75% of democrats voted against it.

Yes, this is an approximation, but it's just laughably wrong to say that a party where the majority votes in favor of gay marriage is no better than one where the majority votes against it and invests huge amounts of effort and money into opposing it.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(science_fiction)

I don't get it. Are we just listing theoretical concepts? Am I doing it right?

No, you have to provide a libertarian supported and proposed replacement for the socialist military arm of the tyranny of government, that thing you worked for, remember...?

 Seaward wrote:
There's nothing inconsistent about saying the government's job is to take on the roles that the private sector or the individual cannot.

The private sector can take on the defense role. It just can't do it to your satisfaction. However, libertarian ideology says to let the free market and voluntary choices decide what level of military protection people want to fund, not to impose taxes on everyone regardless of their opinion.

I'm also leaving out the part where the zipzorps take on the waggleworms in the Uberdome, because I thought we were sticking to practical reality.

Yeah, because companies leaving a country to go somewhere with cheaper labor costs is just as unrealistic as your pointless gibberish...

Or people smart enough to figure out other ways to finance their college education.

Given that a college education is most effective when it happens as early in life as possible (not much point in getting an engineering degree when you're 75 and too old to use it) that's a pretty unrealistic plan. The overwhelming majority of college funding is always going to come from either student loans or the student's parents.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, you have to provide a libertarian supported and proposed replacement for the socialist military arm of the tyranny of government, that thing you worked for, remember...?

No, I don't. Libertarians support the establishment of the military.

Yet another guy who doesn't know what socialism actually is. Man, this is becoming an epidemic.

 Seaward wrote:

Yet another guy who doesn't know what socialism actually is.

It seems you are the last man standing who 'truly' knows then, like charlton heston in the omega man.

So, enlighten us to your definition of socialism then chum.

 Peregrine wrote:
The private sector can take on the defense role. It just can't do it to your satisfaction. However, libertarian ideology says to let the free market and voluntary choices decide what level of military protection people want to fund, not to impose taxes on everyone regardless of their opinion.

Nope. Libertarian ideology says that the government is responsible for providing for the common defense.

Yeah, because companies leaving a country to go somewhere with cheaper labor costs is just as unrealistic as your pointless gibberish...

The assumption that labor costs go up because fewer people are getting paid more is pretty amusing.

Given that a college education is most effective when it happens as early in life as possible (not much point in getting an engineering degree when you're 75 and too old to use it) that's a pretty unrealistic plan. The overwhelming majority of college funding is always going to come from either student loans or the student's parents.

As I said before, you're always free to enlist at 18. You'll be out with nearly full tuition by 22. You'll also shed a fair amount of the kumbaya crap, so, double bonus.

Otherwise, choose your loans and your major carefully. Think before making a decision. I know it's a tough concept, but...better get used to it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It isn't, but only because libertarians refuse to apply their ideology consistently and insist on preserving certain government functions that they personally feel are necessary even when it contradicts their ideology.

There's nothing inconsistent about saying the government's job is to take on the roles that the private sector or the individual cannot.

"Cannot" is a strong word. Leaving aside the military, would you say the private sector cannot perform a traditionally public task such as maintenance of the roads? What about, say, removing the cadavers of people who couldn't afford health care from the streets, or vaccination/treatment of infectious diseases (a matter of public good, as even if I am a good citizen with plenty of money to pay for my own healthcare I can still catch a disease from some pleb dying on the sidewalk as I go about my day). What about fire departments? It's certainly in my best interest to have a fire near my house stopped before it gets out of control and can threaten my property, but surely I shouldn't have to pay to protect someone else's house from fire? Is that something that cannot be performed by the private sector?

I am just wondering how you define "cannot be performed by the private sector or the individual."

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It seems you are the last man standing who 'truly' knows then, like charlton heston in the omega man.

So, enlighten us to your definition of socialism then chum.

Socialism's putting production under social ownership.

Now, let's hear why you believe the military's socialist.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The private sector can take on the defense role. It just can't do it to your satisfaction. However, libertarian ideology says to let the free market and voluntary choices decide what level of military protection people want to fund, not to impose taxes on everyone regardless of their opinion.

Nope. Libertarian ideology says that the government is responsible for providing for the common defense.

No, that is simply the stance of the libertarian party of the United States, of which a great many libertarians in the US do not approve, not libertarian ideology.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
"Cannot" is a strong word. Leaving aside the military, would you say the private sector cannot perform a traditionally public task such as maintenance of the roads? What about, say, removing the cadavers of people who couldn't afford health care from the streets, or vaccination/treatment of infectious diseases (a matter of public good, as even if I am a good citizen with plenty of money to pay for my own healthcare I can still catch a disease from some pleb dying on the sidewalk as I go about my day). What about fire departments? It's certainly in my best interest to have a fire near my house stopped before it gets out of control and can threaten my property, but surely I shouldn't have to pay to protect someone else's house from fire? Is that something that cannot be performed by the private sector?

I am just wondering how you define "cannot be performed by the private sector or the individual."

"Cannot" involves more than simple capability. Can a private company go around putting out fires? Absolutely. Can a private company go around putting out fires where needed regardless of profit? No. Libertarianism's about freedom, not anarchy. There is absolutely a certain level of security and safety that the government is responsible for providing.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It seems you are the last man standing who 'truly' knows then, like charlton heston in the omega man.

So, enlighten us to your definition of socialism then chum.

Socialism's putting production under social ownership.

Now, let's hear why you believe the military's socialist.

Putting production under social ownership is one (and only one, but possibly the most important) of the processes that socialism tend to want to apply on society. Generally speaking, socialism is a political theory which aims at implementing a social progress toward a specific ideal of justice. Public possession of production must be accompanied by a democratic direction of those means and the general aim at satisfying the individual and collective needs of the members of society.

Saying that the military is a socialist entity is wrong. But it does seems like the military allows itself many benefits which are, in the States, associated with a certain definition of socialism, while the rest of the people are not provided with them. I think this all boils down to Americans (and perhaps the anglo saxon world) using terms with specific definitions too loosely.

The only things I'm interested in libertarianism is why the fixation on freedom? Why go over and above liberalism? Why the obsession with the Constitution?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, that is simply the stance of the libertarian party of the United States, of which a great many libertarians in the US do not approve, not libertarian ideology.

I've been begging for some established counterpoints, because I'd honestly like to read the perspective. You sound like you've read some libertarians who disagree. Can you point me to them?

Also, the title of the thread, and your initial post, led me to believe you were asking about libertarianism in the United States.