H/T Jackart
Next year we are to bring all the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.
It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it's been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds.
Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it's a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.
Philip Larkin, The Whitsun Weddings, 1964.
In the words of Ron Paul- we marched in lets just march out again
The fact that we would rather prop up the Welfare State than maintain adequate defences in a dangerous world shows how low we have sunk. Defence means defence not invading sovereign countries with zero resources and no war aims and extraction plan.
The only defence cuts we should be having is ending this bloody war.
10 comments:
Guthrum,
I'm not clear on your meaning here:
"The fact that we would rather prop up the Welfare State than maintain adequate defences in a dangerous State shows how low we have sunk. Defence means defence not invading sovereign countries with zero resources and no war aims and extraction plan."
Your second sentence appears to contradict your first?
You have got to be joking. Am I correct in understanding that you mean to suggest we withdraw from offensive operations but otherwise make no cuts to defence spending?
There is a spectrum of libertarianism spanning from libertarian-when-it-suits-their-self-interest-tories all the way to radical minarchists. Stopping short of anarchism, the one thing this spectrum can agree on is that some level of limited state should be formed to provide collective defence. However I don't believe one can be described as being anywhere on the libertarian spectrum if one advocates a defence force that extends beyond strict territorial defence. Anything more not only infringes the liberty of the territory you advocate intervention within but also the economic liberty of your fellow libertarians forced to fund this expanded role.
The current British 'defense' force is quite clearly an offensive force for global power projection in the interest of the state. It arguably makes us less safe within our own territory by causing resentment by interfering in the affairs of others. In addition this 'defence' service 'provided' by the state infringes our economic liberty by unnecessary taxation.
In order to do no more than effectively defend our territory we do not need overseas bases or fleets of aircraft carriers. I believe libertarian principles would support nothing more than a small force to protect our airspace and coastal waters.
Why do we pay for a 'defence' force so massively disproportionate to our geographic, demographic and economic size?
IIRC Afghanistan spending is maintained, but other spending on Defence is vulnerable. To me that says that the adventurism is still given priority.
From the OP, I took it to mean that decisions should be strategic, not purely financial. Unless you provide proper defence (armed neutrality) the State has no real legitimacy to raise taxes for that or anything else.
"I believe libertarian principles would support nothing more than a small force to protect our airspace and coastal waters. "
How we defend airspace, territory, coastal waters etc is not always a matter of just having patrols in those spaces. We need to make sure that if someone tries it on, they will suffer. We cannot defend ourselves by believing we can just defend from attack. Defence's best weapon is deterrence, to make any potential aggressor have a moment of pause, to realise that any attempt will have a harsh response.
If we just had our MTBs and home guard, an aggressor could chance an attack then retreat, knowing that if they fail we have no retaliatory capacity.
The government is just running down the armed forces to make it easier for the European Union to take over.
K- aplogies the word State should have been world- don't know what happened there hope it makes sense now.
The Passage of Blood is a term that the Swiss have for even thinking about invading their territory.
They like Jefferson rely on the citizen soldier. On most things I am with Jefferson.
Having worked in Sweden, they have the same strategy.
Sweden and the Swiss Federation have the best equipment that money can buy. The British Army was yet again let down by Blair/Brown- cheap pakistani ammunition that jammed, no helicopters until, recently troops were wearing North European forest green not desert fatigues.
No wonder we were called the borrowers !
The Channel is no longer a defence, helicopters and military hovercraft could cover anywhere from the isle of wight to Gt Yarmouth in less than an hour.
Potential enemies need to believe in the'passage of blood' through deterrence. Also we should stop being military adventurers.
'However I don't believe one can be described as being anywhere on the libertarian spectrum if one advocates a defence force that extends beyond strict territorial defence'
That is why I call myself a classical liberal rather than a libertarian, IMO going to war to overthrow an opressive dictator is perfectly justifiable. I am for the expansion of liberty everywhere
"IMO going to war to overthrow an opressive dictator is perfectly justifiable"
Then go, but don't ask others to on your behalf.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment