Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead.

But every action has both benefits and costs, and no action is worth taking if the costs outweigh the benefits. You always have to ask yourself, is it worth it? What am I giving up in order to gain the desired goal?

"There are...only three possible political and economic conditions: liberty, tyranny or chaos. All systems are variants of these three...Washington's grand strategy in this 'war on terrorism'... remove the tyranny, then call the chaos victory."
Richard Maybury, 2003

::Rolling my eyes:: Is that what he really thinks we should do?? Yikes.

No, that is not what he is advocating we should do, this is what he says our government has done.

I have not written on this subject in a while so allow me to recapitulate my thoughts, as briefly as I can, so that my position is understood (even if not agreed with.)

I believe the best way to fight terrorism is with unabashed, 100 % laissez-faire capitalism.

Imagine, if you will, an airliner where all the passengers are armed. 9/11 would never have happened. Or imagine if, rather than our government screening airline passengers, airlines actually competed over who had the best security measures in place, at the best price and with the least inconvenience.

Imagine entrepreneurs, scientists and inventors unshackled from the strangulating laws and regulations promulgated by the priests and the politicians. Could we have human clones manufactured and stored for parts replacement or even brain transplants? New weapons for self-defense? New, cheaper energy sources? New technologies developed in all fields? More time for study, recreation and philosophy?

The threat from terrorism is minimal. I am more threatened by the possibility of getting injured or killed in a car accident, which is statistically much more likely, than I am of being the victim of some terrorist act. Even the threat of a dirty bomb attack, which I believe is likely to occur at sometime, is still a minimal threat to me. The real threat is from the statists who would take away my rights in order to protect "us."

James Valiant made an excellent point on the SOLO immigrant thread about the difference between citizens and persons. While persons have the same inalienable rights everywhere, the government's proper function is to protect the rights of its citizens, not all persons. Maybury has said, "...the Bill of Rights stops at the border." If you seek to trade with foreigners outside our borders, you do so at your own risk. Why should I be burdened with protecting you when you've left the protection of a lawful society to pursue your own interests in an unlawful society? The risk may be worth it to you but it is your risk, not mine.

I could go on and on about the follies of American foreign policy from the early days of our republic to the present, but, let's see, recently the US financed Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, supported and financed Iraq under Saddam Hussan when it was in "our interests," and currently supports and helps finance Saudi Arabia in spite of it being a theocratic dictatorship. Does this make sense to anyone?

In Iraq, Bush is bringing them democracy, incorrectly equating democracy with freedom. You cannot force freedom on people. Bush, a theocrat himself, is just creating another theocracy. No good will come of it.

What would I do? I would immediately withdraw our American troops from every nook and corner of the world. To every nation of the world, I would say, "You are on your own." I would establish a policy of strict non-intervention in the affairs of other countries. I would state clearly, "Don't tread on me." If I perceived any country as a direct and imminent thread to the US, I would go to war, that is, destroy that enemy by any means possible up to and including the nuclear option.

Simple? Yes! Isn't it really more complicated than that? No!

The US, if it adopted the "unknown ideal" that is capitalism, would be a beacon of light to the world. Individuals could trade with foreigners as they saw fit, help to individually finance and overthrow dictatorships around the world if they wished (out of their own pockets,) and live the good life.

Bad governments will eventually fall from within, just as did the Soviet Union, and their citizens will finally have a proper government to emulate.

Our primary military strategy should be patterned after Switzerland which remained uninvolved during two major world wars in spite of being surrounded on all sides by participants in those wars. Switzerland's means of staying out of those frays was not because of a policy of "neutrality." Maybury writes, "There is an old saying, Switzerland does not have an army: Switzerland is an army. It is an entire nation of Minutemen."

Maybury continues, "In World War II, the Swiss militia numbered 850,000, a fifth of the population. These were more troops than the U.S. Army had when the World Trade Center was destroyed. Not bad for such a small country.

"Under the six-to-one ratio, the Germans and Italians would have needed five million troops to successfully occupy that tiny nation. Facing 850,000 snipers, the German generals decided they could invade, but they would never get out of Switzerland alive."

 
Sounds like a plan: peace through trade and a well regulated militia. What are we waiting for? Oh, yea, we have a cultural war to win first.

James Valiant made an excellent point on the SOLO immigrant thread about the difference between citizens and persons. While persons have the same inalienable rights everywhere, the government's proper function is to protect the rights of its citizens, not all persons. Maybury has said, "...the Bill of Rights stops at the border." If you seek to trade with foreigners outside our borders, you do so at your own risk. Why should I be burdened with protecting you when you've left the protection of a lawful society to pursue your own interests in an unlawful society? The risk may be worth it to you but it is your risk, not mine.

 

What would I do? I would immediately withdraw our American troops from every nook and corner of the world. To every nation of the world, I would say, "You are on your own." I would establish a policy of strict non-intervention in the affairs of other countries. I would state clearly, "Don't tread on me." If I perceived any country as a direct and imminent thread to the US, I would go to war, that is, destroy that enemy by any means possible up to and including the nuclear option.

 

Simple? Yes! Isn't it really more complicated than that? No!f the world. To every nation of the world, I would say, "You are on your own." I would establish a policy of strict non-intervention in the affairs of other countries. I would state clearly, "Don't tread on me." If I perceived any country as a direct and imminent thread to the US, I would go to war, that is, destroy that enemy by any means possible up to and including the nuclear option.

 

 

So, threats to trading partners would be a threat to our boarders, or not? 

I have to tell you that I really appreciate the history of the Swiss military during WWII. Tell me, if you know, was service to the Swiss military conscripted, and compulsory, like in Israel?  And if it was, does that diminish the effect of it at all, or was that a rational way for them to protect themselves? 

I'm asking for your view on this: if enlistment was compulsory, how does that square with laissez-faire?  

If it wasn't compulsory...then...damn!

So, threats to trading partners would be a threat to our boarders, or not?

have to tell you that I really appreciate the history of the Swiss military during WWII. Tell me, if you know, was service to the Swiss military conscripted, and compulsory, like in Israel?  And if it was, does that diminish the effect of it at all, or was that a rational way for them to protect themselves?

More from Maybury:

"In Switzerland, a man joins the militia at age 20 and remains until 50. For officers, age 55. A militia is all the able-bodied males of good character (in this context, good character usually means no criminal record) in the country. They are trained, equipped and ready at all times to turn out for guerrilla operations.

"Contrary to the unflattering picture of militia often painted by the news media, a militia is a military version of the volunteer firemen who are always trained and ready to turn out to fight fires.

"Each Swiss militiaman trains regularly, much like the National Guard in the U.S. He keeps his battle rifle and ammunition in his home ready for immediate use.

"Militia-guerrillas are trained to ambush privates and corporals only when a more valuable target is not available. They prefer colonels and generals.

Marksmanship is the Swiss National sport, and all Swiss militiamen are required to be expert marksmen. This means they are all qualified to be snipers, and the colonels and generals of surrounding nations know it."

And:

"To a tyrant, there is no place in the world as scary as Switzerland.

"America has never had anything remotely resembling the Swiss system of protection. The American armed forces are not defensive, they are offensive. They are designed not to defend their homeland, but to get into other people's wars, and they do this very well...

"Nearly every book and movie about the World Wars omits Switzerland. The attitude seems to be, the Swiss were not in the wars, so they are not important; they are not part of the story.

"To me, no country in the World Wars is more important than Switzerland. It is the example the others should be copying."

And:

"Always remember, little Switzerland occupied the most dangerous location in the world--the exact center of Europe--entirely surrounded by enemies, but stayed out of both World Wars, and stayed free.

"The Swiss avoided the carnage so common all over the globe by doing what America's Second Amendment requires. They know a well-regulated militia is not optional, it is necessary. When it comes to achieving the peace and liberty  we all want, I challenge you to find a system of military defense that has worked better than that of the Swiss. All countries can use it."

if enlistment was compulsory, how does that square with laissez-faire?

It doesn't. Capitalism remains "the unknown ideal."

"Go ahead and steal from or kill any US citizen who travels anywhere outside our borders...we don't care!".

Teresa I'm not sure if you wrote this with a sense of hostility towards me or do you genuinely agree with me?

It's true that we could simplify all of this by saying that citizens who trade with foreigners or who leave the country are on their own.  It's true that foreign policy could be a lot easier if we never looked beyond our borders.  But are our rights really protected if we're only allowed to exercise them under specific conditions?

But I do have some sympathy for that argument. What if Great Britain was besieged by a totalitarian agressor nation? For example WW2 Germany. Great Britain, a country that we trade with extensively, that is a country that for the most part upholds the ideals of freedom like we do, that by allowing them to be besieged, they cease to be a country of liberty and freedom, do we not have an obligation to help them? Would an attack on Great Britain that succeeded, mean that we ourselves should not feel safe from attack from the agressor nation such as was the fact in WW2? Also say we rely on Great Britain, say for oil to run our military vehicles and thus keep a working Army, would a defeated Great Britain mean America is at a severe disadvanatage and at greater risk of being attacked?

You might turn your head when evil bullies are beating up the aspiring good, but I can't, regardless of where they come from.