Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Federal Deficit
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut under libertarianism, the defense would just be another gang demanding protection money. There would be no army.
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
Now granted, I know a number of libertarians who have various disagreements with the Libertarian Party so "the Libertarian Party says such and such" doesn't mean it's the general viewpoint of libertarianism, but it's often a good benchmark.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhat makes you think that my idea of "bare minimum" doesn't include a strong national defense, law enforcement, and a federally regulated free market? To function in the modern world, the "bare minimum" would still be a large government body, just not bloated and unnecessarily massive like we have now.
And that's why I'm not a libertarian.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI think that sometimes the idea of a "side" being "hypocrites" is a stretch. A person can be a hypocrite. It's not clear to me that a group can be unless they are somehow unified. This is my objection to "whataboutism." It is defended on the basis that people are pointing out hypocrisy - but if the person making the statement was never hypocritical, that argument falls flat.
Perhaps it's not hypocrisy. Perhaps saluting the flag is about valuing the nation - not necessarily the government. Honoring the military may well be about honoring the sacrifice made by those who serve, not "the government." The same is true for military spending. However, that being said, "military" is a function of "government," so I take your point. They also use the roads made possible by government, and collect their social security checks, etc. I really have no problem with the argument, "government has gotten too big." Frankly, I think it may well be true, in some instances. But I do find the anti-government theme an odd one.
I have never met a single democrat that says, "I want more government." There are democrats who think the government should be involved in things it is not currently involved in, or more involved in things it is already involved in, and that may lead to "bigger/more government." But they are not looking for "more government" for the sake of more government.
I also know of no democrat that is "against military spending."
OK Carp this is just your "I will argue against anything the other person says because I like to argue"
As for "spit on the flag," I have many friends who have engaged in protests in which the flag was burned or otherwise defiled. To a person, their position is that the flag is a symbol - and their respect is for what it represents, not for the symbol itself. If the thing it represents needs to be questioned/challenged, the flag is a powerful way to make that statement. For myself, I would not burn or defile a flag - but I also don't get all that wrapped up in it either (pun intended). It's a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. My awe is for what the flag represents - not for the object itself. My awe is for the men and women who protect this country - not for the fluttering cloth on a pole. I don't fly a flag because lately I have been more embarrassed of our country than proud of it. I find myself wondering if that will ever change.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postoh please! have you been living in a hole? They want government to give them free college, a basic income, healthcare, and so on. That is "more government"
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThen you are depending on the government just like carpe said.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNo. To say that a central government empowered by the people can most efficiently and effectively facilitate certain services (at least in theory) is not the same as saying that citizens are beholden to the government for those services.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postif you rely on the government to protect you via an army, you are depending on the government. If you rely on the government to provide any services you are depending on the government. You also depend on the government to make laws, protect us from crime, serve out justice. Without those services your life would be pretty dangerous and miserable. You are beholding to the government. It's pretty simple.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postoh please! have you been living in a hole? They want government to give them free college, a basic income, healthcare, and so on. That is "more government"
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
OK Carp this is just your "I will argue against anything the other person says because I like to argue"
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwow. of course the flag is a symbol. OF THE GOVERNMENT.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS."The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI don't think you entirely understand the term "beholden". The government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
You seem to want it to be a one-way street - but you don't live that way. If the word "beholden" is sticking in your craw, then use "responsibility" or "duty" or "obligation." Any of them will do.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI don't think you entirely understand the term "beholden". The government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostGo rob a bank then tell the police they work for you and they can't arrest you. We elect the people in the government, but the government is in charge of us all. That is why it is called a 'govern'ment. They make laws, we have to obey. They decide to draft your butt into the army, you have to go. They want to throw you in jail, you go to jail. They want to revoke your citizenship and deport you, then off you go. You depend on the government to provide the rules and structure of our society which if it didn't exist, would be pure anarchy and you would probably have been killed for your stuff by now.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostHuh? That's not the case at all. In my experience, almost all libertarians that aren't outright anarchists think the US should have an army, their contention is just that (1) way too much is spent on it right now, and (2) we shouldn't be getting involved in as many conflicts with it as we have. I mean, you look at the Libertarian Party's platform regarding the military:
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
Now granted, I know a number of libertarians who have various disagreements with the Libertarian Party so "the Libertarian Party says such and such" doesn't mean it's the general viewpoint of libertarianism, but it's often a good benchmark.
There is a thread right now complaining about the difficulties of our NATO allies securing the latest US fighter technology in NAT SCI and one of the problems is our older planes (F16 etc) are no match or the current Russian MIGS so they just feel no worries flying in Denmark's airspace. Do you suppose Denmark has the capacity to field air superiority to the Russian MIGS on their own. Do you suppose it benefits us that Russia feels no feer flying in European airspace? To tight a military budget and we lose big time.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI don't follow the 'way too much is spent on it right now'. How do the people that want to reduce military spending significantly suppose we would fight off the inevitable invasion from the Russians or the Chinese if we did not retain sufficient power to fend them off (short of destroying the world with Nuclear weapons). OR worse, how do you suppose we could keep Russia or China from spreading themselves out into Europe and Asia without that power? Especially considering how hard it is to stop it WITH that power? 5th generation fighters, stealth this and that, the ability to have or maintain security in the coming age of quantum computing and encryption, advances in cyber warfare, the expansion of space as an operating environment. None of this comes cheap. And nobody has noticed China or Russia reducing their spending on their own steady march to and attempt to trade places with the US as the primary world power. The appear to be ahead of us in quantum encryption and computing.
There is a thread right now complaining about the difficulties of our NATO allies securing the latest US fighter technology in NAT SCI and one of the problems is our older planes (F16 etc) are no match or the current Russian MIGS so they just feel no worries flying in Denmark's airspace. Do you suppose Denmark has the capacity to field air superiority to the Russian MIGS on their own. Do you suppose it benefits us that Russia feels no feer flying in European airspace? To tight a military budget and we lose big time.
Jim
Personally, I think the DoD should not see another penny of increase to their funding, nor a penny of decrease, until there is a comprehensive audit of the entire establishment. Once that is done, we will know whether we should be looking at an increase or a decrease (or level funding).The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment