Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military

lewrockwell.com ^ | February 10, 2004 | Brad Edmonds

[dixiepatriot]

Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military

by Brad Edmonds

To address the common claim by neoconservatives that we owe our freedom to the men and women of the US military, I've written recently that we don't owe the military anything of the sort. While many soldiers, airmen, etc. died in combat believing they were defending our freedom, they were misguided in this belief. The "for our freedom" claim is false because our freedoms were won by the founders and written into law by them, hence a military created afterward could have had nothing to do with that; the freedoms then created have only eroded over time, and the military did not prevent this (and could not, not being part of the legislative process); the military has never been necessary to prevent our freedoms being taken by other countries, as historians available all over the web are now making clear; and the military over the last century has only executed the adventurous whims of individual congressmen and presidents, and in so doing has been the muscle behind needlessly making the rest of the world hate us.

Aside from looking at the past, there are compelling reasons we should abolish all government military forces now.

1. Any standing military force aside from the Navy is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for funding of armies only two years at a time – even the typical four-year commitment for ROTC cadets and new enlistees is thus illegal, as presumably it could not be known four years in advance that there would still be a standing Army or Air Force. Many things the federal government does today are unconstitutional, but this is no reason not to continue to consider the Constitution an authoritative document.

2. The private sector could provide heavy-weapons regional defense better than the government. I neglected to mention in recent articles, but included in my "abolishing government" series, that insurers would most likely take up this task. Insurers have the resources and incentive already, and unlike the government's military, if an insurer caused "collateral damage," the insurer would be held responsible, with no protection from lawsuits. Additionally, an insurer would be required to succeed in protecting its customers, which our military isn't; and do at least as good a job of that for the dollar as the next insurer. By contrast, in today's government military, drill instructors are required to be "sensitive" rather than effective; gays and women share close quarters with men, even in combat, to the detriment of combat effectiveness; materiel is often purchased from the lowest bidder (unless the bidder represents a token minority contractor the Pentagon needs, in which case a toilet seat can cost hundreds of dollars); and in general our government military is a playground for the social-engineering initiatives of leftists in Congress, and is not dedicated primarily to its mission. The private sector, were it allowed to provide regional defense without government interference, would be more efficient, more effective, safer, and would never have incentive to engage in social engineering, nor in murderous foreign-policy adventurism and the consequent creation of bitter enemies around the world.

3. Even if the military were both efficient and constitutional, a standing military is a threat to our liberty, as has been proven in US history. The ultimate test of liberty is secession. Even Lincoln himself agreed before he became president that secession is a natural right. What made a slave a slave was that he could not secede from his owner's governance and go into business for himself. What makes the states and all their citizens slaves to the union today is that we are not allowed to secede and govern ourselves. The US military, in the only action it ever took that directly affected American liberty, prevented it – prevented the secession of several states by killing 300,000 of their citizens, then over several years enforcing draconian martial law over the survivors.

4. As the military is a government outfit, it can never be efficient. Indeed, as Ludwig von Mises showed, the US military, being a purely socialist government monopoly, can never know how much money it should have or spend, can never have a good idea how much its operations should cost. Right now, the US defense budget is over $1,400 for each man, woman, and child in the US. The private sector could provide a deterrent, enough to prevent any threat of foreign invasion, for probably 1/10 of that – which, remember, would still amount to $40 billion. No government agency can ever know what its costs should be; it is a forcible monopoly, and never can face bankruptcy, competition, or loss of customers.

For the most part, the military as we have it is unconstitutional, as have been most of its actions since 1812 (in which war most of the work was done by privateers anyway). The private sector would do a far better job for far less money, as the individual Ross Perot proved in practical terms. The only impact the standing military has on our freedom is to take it away. And the military will eternally waste money because it cannot be governed by market forces, cannot ever know what its costs should be, cannot know what value it should return to stakeholders, and will never have an incentive to do a good job efficiently. In short, just as with any government service such as education or welfare services, it can never work well. This military must be abolished.

February 10, 2004

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds182.html

[KantianBurke]

[Democratshavenobrains]

Ah LewRockwell. The only "conservatives" who were happier when Clinton was President.

[quidnunc]

This article is powerful evidence of one thing — that the Lew Rockwell &c are a bunch of raving paleocon loons.

[You Dirty Rats]

This is either a satirical piece or staggeringly stupid and ignorant. I suspect the latter.

[Semper Paratus]

Maybe we could "Outsource" our defense.

[Impeach the Boy]

And just when I thought the LoserRockwell bunch couldn't possibly say anything dumber......oh my...these idiots can leave one speechless.....

[reluctantwarrior]

When the chinese roll up your street call the rent a grunts to save your @ss. You need your meds adjusted.

[reluctantwarrior]

When the chinese roll up your street call the rent a grunts to save your @ss. You need your meds adjusted.

[lindagirl]

PLEASE! Could someone put up a barf alert!!

[mvpel]

If they abolish the military and leave the $200 machine gun tax and AW ban in place, they'd be doing the country a grave disservice.

[SamAdams76]

Anybody who believes that the United States would still be around today if we abolished our military is a nutcase.

Hell, even France wouldn't be around if it wasn't for the U.S. military.

On second thought...

[Poohbah]

This is either a satirical piece or staggeringly stupid and ignorant.

Option 3: It's a staggeringly stupid and ignorant satirical piece.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I am sure all anti-Americans would love for the USA to
get rid of our military.

[nopardons]

And you posted this because you agree, or disagree with the article ?

[Texas_Dawg]

Fans of the Confederacy and Lew Rockwell are a dangerously dumb combination.

[kellynla]

Edmonds is living proof that even morons can get published...but only by a free publication because anything more would be a ripoff! I won't even begin to dignify such an idiotic piece with a response.

[TruthSyrum]

what an ass, where is the "barf alert". I guess Brad never heard of the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

The ability to retain cheap human labor was not a good enough reason to abolish our great nation imo.

also: "the military has never been necessary to prevent our freedoms being taken by other countries" did this dumbass ever hear of WWI or WW2? I guess the nazi's would have been happy just with Europe. This guy must be talking about Canada's army...
Also

[KantianBurke]

"aww man you're ruining my buzz!" :>

[Richard Kimball]

[TheBigB]

"Captain, I'm picking up extreme stupidity in the area."

[Schattie]

This article is pretty laughable to me but his misinterpretation of the "funding the army for only two years" is even more so.

[Ff--150]

1. Any standing military force aside from the Navy is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for funding of armies only two years at a time

Hehehe, kinda hard to argue, if ya kin read???

[Poohbah]

This article is pretty laughable to me but his misinterpretation of the "funding the army for only two years" is even more so.

Yup. It is clearly stated in the enlistment that you can be involuntarily separated from the armed forces at any time, without recompense, if the needs of the service so dictate.

[conserv13]

Maybe we could "Outsource" our defense.

Great idea! Mexicans can do all the dirty work that Americans won't do, and Indian, Chinese and Russian analysts will work much cheaper than overpaid American analysts. While we are at it, the Chinese have put a man into space, why not let them run NASA and our Missile defense program. Oh I forgot, missile defense is unconstitutional. We will have to go with cannonball defense.

[Shryke]

Rather odd place to post this article, no? Did you plan on finding support amongst sane conservatives to....hard to say this.....abolish our military??????? I am beginning to think that libertarians are anarchists in disguise.

[Poohbah]

Hehehe, kinda hard to argue, if ya kin read???

The argument he uses ignores fiscal reality: the Army (and the rest of the military) is funded on a year-to-year basis. The enlistment/commissioning contract makes it clear that any servicemember can be involuntarily separated from the armed forces at any time, without recompense for the remainder of the contractual obligation, if the needs of the government so dictate (such as Congress refusing to fund the Army past the present fiscal year).

[proxy_user]

Opposition to a standing army originated in 18th-century England.

Two points should be noted:

1. England is an island.
2. No one opposed a standing Navy.

[Semper Paratus]

We will have to go with cannonball defense.

No problem just go to LewRockwell.com and ask for volunteers to man our Civil War and WWI&II coastal forts.

[MineralMan]

And Lew Rockwell speaks once again from his anus.

[inquest]

Unfortunately, we practically are outsourcing. There's a growing trend of non-citizens enlisting in the armed forces.

[MineralMan]

"Unfortunately, we practically are outsourcing. There's a growing trend of non-citizens enlisting in the armed forces.

"

Nah, not really. We have always had lost of non-citizens in our armed forces. Some have even been heroes.

[R. Scott]

A Constitutional Amendment would be nice to correct this error.
Yes, the Founding Fathers feared a standing military, but today it is a necessity. There is no way a Militia could handle the equipment we now have or be ready to respond as quickly as is needed.

[Poohbah]

Unfortunately, we practically are outsourcing. There's a growing trend of non-citizens enlisting in the armed forces.

Fine. Help reverse the trend. See your recruiter today.

[Poohbah]

The private sector could provide a deterrent, enough to prevent any threat of foreign invasion, for probably 1/10 of that – which, remember, would still amount to $40 billion.

OK, let's see the proposed force structure and concept of operations.

[genefromjersey]

I think this is a wonderful idea !

All you folks at antiwar.com could just go to the hardware store and stock up on survival gear,and guns, and ammo,and everything else you're going to need.

We'll just sit back and watch........and tell you what you're doing wrong.

[Melas]

You know, I'm not one for wanting posts pulled, but if ever there were a post that deserved to pulled for its sheer stupidity, this one is it. I felt my IQ draining as I read it, and I was just passively reading this bit of trash.

How any moron could advocate the abolition of our military forces in the middle of...or in the aftermath of....never mind....you wouldn't hear a word I said.

[IronJack]

I suggest we abolish Brad Edmonds and Lew Crockwell instead. At least the military serves its purpose.

[reluctantwarrior]

How would a Const. Amendment fix this? What are you talking about? This is banality at its zenith. The average 4 engine transport can deposit 200 paratroops on our soil in 24 hours from china, an insurance company that pays doctors 8 bucks per patient visit is going to maintain satellites and missile defense, please return to the Psych ward.

[inquest]

Nah, not really. We have always had lost of non-citizens in our armed forces. Some have even been heroes.

Your statement did not contradict mine. The trend is growing. The implications are a matter of concern.

[cinFLA]

I imagine they snared a few ...

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I love how these morons (and yes, I'm being harsh on purpose) tell us how the Constitution is being misabused, and yet those who wrote the Constitution (Adams, Hamilton, Madison, etc.) were of the same mind as most Americans on most issues. Maybe the founders didn't understand what they wrote? Maybe Lenin and Marx used a hypnometer to change the mind of Washington, Franklin, and Adams from the time the Constitution was established until Washington's inauguration? Maybe aliens, who look a lot like George Bush, kidnapped everyone and gave them "common sense" but left the tin foil hat protected people (i.e. Lew Rockwell and company) alone?

Morons.

[theDentist]

HAAAAHAhahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Oh. He was serious?

BWAHAAAAHAHAHAHahhahahahahahaaaaaa! AAAHHAhahahahahahahahahaa!

[camas]

where is the barf alert

[reluctantwarrior]

Dixieunpatriot believes that the US military is planning to take over. The reality is that having been in the US military it would remove the generals and the pols that dared to remove our liberties.

[cinFLA]

Hehehe, kinda hard to argue, if ya kin read???

Please explain yourself.

[El Gato]

Maybe we could "Outsource" our defense.

We are. There are more contracters on military bases, at home and abroad, than has been the case in the past. They are doing things that military people formerly did. While many are ex military, many are just mercenaries (in the technical not necessarily prejudicial sense of the word) in it for the money.

[PLMerite]

Is that Kerry on the right?

[j_tull]

This retard refuses to give up on this garbage. I'll repeat my post from the thread when the first installment of his trilogy came out two weeks ago, "FU Brad."

[Semper Paratus]

There are more contracters on military bases, at home and abroad, than has been the case in the past.

That worked well for the Roman Empire in the 400's.