jvquarterback wrote:
Well it seems both irony and the difference between a classical liberal, libertarian and anarchist elude you. You've got socialism and government worship down pat though so good on you.
To answer your question there are many, many examples of private individuals and groups raising armies to defend their interests. Do have any idea what the security expenditures for shell oil, BP, or the Dutch East Indies corporations are/were? In addition the existence of a large army kept at my expense, against my will and contrary to the contract I have with government (and the will of the majority of "citizens") does not make government different than an individual, it just shows that government is nothing more than a bunch of thugs.
As George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. (There's some good semi-colon use for you ;)) Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Government is simply the combined power of individuals and should be held subject to the same restraints as the power any individual holds. That power is often usurped from the people it is clear, but the right of government to the combined power of the individuals that comprise it can never exceed the right to power of any individual as you seem to think.
No you haven't explained how the right of government to power is different from the right of an individual to power. To do so you would have to say government is no contract but something transcendent. There are those who make that argument. And they are wrong just as you are.
I'm not calling you names or trying to characterize you as something you're not (a courtesy you are not extending to me), I'm honestly trying to understand what the reasoning behind your position is.
Individuals or groups raising armies can be easily as, if not more, dangerous than allowing the government that ability. I recognize that it may be necessary to oppose the government with force at some point, but when that happens it should be a larger movement, not something at the whim of some small group or faction. This is exactly the reason why I would be opposed to widespread access to grenade launchers (I recognize that you have a right to feel differently). I don't implicitly trust the government use of military, but if I am opposed to their use of power, at least as it stands I can peacefully (and if enough others feel the same, effectively) oppose that in various ways because of the rights and protections afforded me by the constitution. Is there a way to peacefully create opposition to a privately funded military group that is unfettered by law?
This is the paradox of government, the necessary evil of it. A SWAT team is empowered to exceed the power of the individuals they are needed to apprehend, but allowing them to have that power necessarily limits my rights somewhat and increases the power of the government (even if in most cases that limitation is merely supporting that team with my taxes). I agree that limiting that power is something we have to actively fight for because it can come back to bite us. I think our current federal government has too much power and I do want to reign it in. I agree with you on limiting the strength of the military. But you appear to be suggesting even more than that, that there should be no limit to the power of an individual in the face of the government, which is not how our laws were ever meant to work.
You're acting like my opposition of civilian access to military-grade weapons is because I welcome the tyranny of the government, but it's the opposite: I'm suggesting we afford the government a limited amount of regulation over the type of weapons an individual can possess so as to avoid a different sort of tyranny. You and I can argue whether that line should be drawn at grenade launchers or nuclear weapons, but I don't think it is wrong to suggest that there should be a line. Which is the whole point why I posted in this thread in the first place.
