Okay, shouldn't then. I also know quite well that disagreement with the existence and myriad activities of the military is quite prevelant. But since when did the prevalance of a viewpoint become a qualifer? It's okay to enforce views that people don't agree with, provided it isn't too many people? How many is too many? So does the military. That's what they do - kill people, ostensibly in an effort to save other people. Except that the entire purpose of the military is to deprive certain people of their lives. Is there any way to actually accomplish that, short of simply refraining from collecting taxes from pacifists at all? If so, then why didn't Ron Paul suggest doing so when it comes to federal health insurance funding abortion? Could it be that he's actually opposed to abortion as such - like he says he is - and not simply acting out of some general principle of not enforcing viewpoints? That analogy is all mixed up. Abortion is certainly under Congressional authority, in exactly the same way that the military is, and both relate to the right to life in similar ways.
The Military doesn't necessarily take lives- it is also a deterrent. Anyways bring that up as a bill, who knows he might support it. He is pretty anti-war so I think those who don't like our wars or are pacifists would consider him Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! World would have been a better place if we didn't have standing armies so I'm all for it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But abortion is meant exactly for that to destroy life (as some believe). You can't abort without killing. You can have a military without killing someone though.
Protecting the right to life does not neccessitate the existence of a standing army. In fact I think it's faily obvious that one of the reasons why Congress is allowed to maintain a standing army is related to the same reason the states weren't - because the writers of the constitution feared a rebellion, and giving congress the power to maintain a standing army gave them the power to quell that. In fact, the constitution also gives congress the power to use state militias, so maintaining an army for defense of the nation isn't really neccessary.
Has Ron Paul introduced any bills addressing that issue? Because he's introduced plenty of other bills (that had zero chance of passing) on other issues. He's sponsored plenty of bills dealing with the military, in fact, but never any that attempt to defund it to protect the consciences of those who disagree with their tax money going towards it. And why doesn't Ron Paul ever list such an issue in any of his various statements about these principles? How is it that the principles only seem to come up when he needs justification for supporting a right-wing cause like getting rid of abortion, or resurrecting segregation?
It actually goes farther than simply giving Congress said authority, but actually endorses the use of militias as the best, primary means of national defense, and says that armies should only be raised as needed, and that appropriations for such should be strictly time-limited to avoid creating a standing army.
Congressmen (like Ron Paul) are the only ones that can bring something up as a bill. He's never done so, despite sponsoring numerous bills dealing with the military (all of which were basically attacks on the war powers resolution). He doesn't display any problem with the existence of a taxpayer-funded standing army (despite the conscientious objection to such by segments of taxpayers) anywhere in his voting record, sponsorship of bills, or general statements of positions and platform. Unless you believe that a fetus isn't a "life," in which case there's nothing to "kill." Which position you claimed to respect and refuse to use force to override - and yet here you are, demanding that others answer to that position, and premise their approach to government on such. In principle, maybe, but regardless you certainly can't use a military without killing anyone.
They will, to whatever extent they can get away with. But booting them out periodically when such gets too obvious, at least keeps the level of screwing down, and focusses most of their energy on screwing one another to get our votes.
Yes you can. Military is used on rescue operations if need be. As for the fetus issue- but that is what I'm saying people are divided about it- but the very action of aborting is killing (on that divided issue), that is why they shouldn't fund it by people who believe its murder. I think what you suggested that only money from -pro-abortion tax-payers be used for it.
Okay then: as a Paul supporter, how about you send an email to Ron Paul asking him why his argument for defunding abortion in federal health insurance doesn't apply to any of the myriad other things that federal taxes pay for and that substantial portions of the electorate morally disagree with. And then you can get back to us with the answer. Meanwhile, you'd have to be pretty damned thick not to have noticed that the military, and the taxation of pacifists to pay for it, is a controversial issue, and long has been. Could it be that going after the military would be bad politics for Paul's right-wing base, whereas going after abortion is good politics for that base, and that he is simply behaving like the right-wing politician he is, and using the arguments about principle as a craven justification? Because if the narrative is that Paul is simply to dim for the question of how to apply his principles to other major, salient aspects of federal governance to have occurred to him during his 40 years as a politician, then this throws his supposed credentials as a serious, consistent applier of airy principle, eschewing petty politics, into extreme doubt.
You don't need a military for "rescue operations" that don't involve hostile forces shooting at you. That's the sort of thing that the fire department or police or FEMA or etc. are for.
This whole discussion is consuming too much of my time. 23 pages is too much and I don't expect any end in sight. Thanks for the discussion though :wave:
Yes you do, rescue operations also happen internationally, there are 'bases' internationally. And we do 'use' them. We still have troops in japan, and I don't see them going on a killing spree. Anyhow bye ya'll.
And you can still send specialist rescue personell internationall, you don't need a standing army to do that.
So if I'm following you, you're saying that taxing pacificists to fund the military is okay, because the military can also help out earthquake victims in other countries? That doesn't make a very convincing reason - we could as well just eliminate the military and spend a tiny fraction of its current budget on an international rescue force that would do that stuff just as capably. The reason for having a military is to fight wars - that other stuff is just a sideshow - and I note that our military has been fighting wars pretty much continuously ever since we erected a standing army. Such being exactly the danger the Founding Fathers were addressing in their opposition to such expressed in the Constitution. Many pacifists find "deterrence" (i.e., the maintenance of deadly forces, and the credible threat to use them if one doesn't get one's way) to be plenty objectionable. To be, in fact, exactly an application of force. And we got those troops into Japan, exactly by using them to kill millions of Japanese and force their government to accept their permanent presence, and Japan's permanent military subservience to us. Doesn't Ron Paul want to get rid of all the foreign bases anyway? What kind of libertarian invokes the open-ended application of American power in east Asia (established by decades of bloody warfare) as justification for the military, and specifically as a counter to pacifist objections?
In fact, this is already done: USAR; which I believe you kindly lent us to help clean up after the earthquake in Christchurch in Febuary (Note, of course, that it was USAR that was sent over, not the Army).
This is typical of libertarian fundamentalism. There's only two ways that such "discussions" ever conclude: the libertarian fundamentalist outgrows the ideology, or the libertarian fundamentalist simply gets frustrated and goes elsewhere in search of a more receptive audience. There is no scenario in which the libertarian fundamentalist convinces his interlocutors of the correctness of his position and triumphs. The reason for this, is that said interlocutors have themselves invariably flirted with these exact same positions back when they were adolescents, and then eventually outgrown them after discovering what it all adds up to. All of which is to say that you should rethink the standard libertarian discursive canard that the reason people disagree with you is that they just haven't been sufficiently exposed to libertarian thought, or spent enough time considering it. On the contrary, most adults have been through this stuff more deeply than you have. The ready stock of cogent counter-arguments for every iteration of libertarian theology should have made that apparent very quickly. More generally, the standard American political positions are themselves the endpoints of taking libertarian principles seriously and attempting to cope with their relation to and implications for the real world. This should be obvious - you're starting with the same ideal of liberty that America was founded on, and arguing from the same founding documents that everyone else started with.
