Posted on 02/10/2004 12:55:47 PM PST by 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
Hehehe, kinda hard to argue, if ya kin read???
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.
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.
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).
No problem just go to LewRockwell.com and ask for volunteers to man our Civil War and WWI&II coastal forts.
Fine. Help reverse the trend. See your recruiter today.
OK, let's see the proposed force structure and concept of operations.
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.
Your statement did not contradict mine. The trend is growing. The implications are a matter of concern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.