About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


Post 100

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 7:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel I never said anything about any individual being excluded from the law. People would pay insurance companies to ensure that their property is compensated should they be burgled. These insurance comapnies have a vested interest in ensuring that all crinimals are locked up. This means that uninsured people will enjoy the benefit of the rule of law. But since even the most rational police force cannot guarantee absolute protection, it is always adviseable for people to purchase insurance otherwise if they are unlucky to be targeted by burgulars they will loose their property.

The same idea works that if you live in a community with a lot of gun owners, your chances of being burgled are low. However if you personally don't have a gun and your house is burgled you have placed yourself and your property in greater danger than you would have if you had owned a gun.

Incidently regarding an army funded by taxation, how could you ensure you had an optimum and efficent army sufficent to deter the enemy and not waste money? How would you know whether your army is underfunded? Listen to the army bureacrats who will always say they are underfunded - as it is in the bureacrats nature to keep demanding more and more money. How would you prevent this bureacratised army from being complacent and stuck in the past like what befell the British and French armies in WW2 (who had overall more men, material and logistics and yet failed because they were using WW1 tactics and strategy whereas the Wehrmacht used blitzcrieg tactics) I think the value of this army would be arbitary. 

The Myth of National Defence is a good book, yes it is written by an anarcho-capitalist but he offers good arguments against an army funded by taxes and why a 'private' decentralised army is in many ways superior to a bureacratic centralised army. I suggest you read it.


Post 101

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Malarki wrote:
>Daniel I never said anything about any individual being excluded from the law. People would pay insurance companies to ensure that their property is compensated should they be burgled.

Uh? This happens right now. I have just such a policy, as do millions of others. It's called a household insurance policy. So what is your point? That the police should get into the insurance industry? Isn't that a job for private enterprise rather than a government monopoly, which justice legitimately is? Further, how is it germane to national defence? What, the government's somehow going to compensate me if we get invaded?

>Incidently regarding an army funded by taxation, how could you ensure you had an optimum and efficent army sufficent to deter the enemy and not waste money? How would you know whether your army is underfunded?

The same way an Objectivist military system would: through the judgement and recommendations of army bureaucrats. After all, under Objectivism military defence is to be run by government monopoly: so how else do you think it could operate other than by a bureacracy of some description? Certainly this will be wasteful and limiting in terms of responsiveness to individual choice. But sadly, that is the cost of giving the government monopoly over this issue. After all, you aren't going to argue that a government monopoly can give the same consumer choice outcomes and efficiencies as a free market? Are you?

- Daniel



Post 102

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was drafted into the South African army in 1971. I left when my year was up. My Father was a volunteer in World War Two, flying in bombers over Germany and Italy. Volunteers are generally much more effective than enlisted men and even mercenaries are better than enlisted men, most of the time. People need to fight because they believe in the cause. "Duty" is not something to motivate free thinking people. That's my opinion.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


User ID Password or create a free account.