WoW! I got banned from FTL

[Free libertarian]

 Luke, since my question of whether or not you'd defend your country was side stepped...what's the difference between our defending this country and a citizen in another country
wanting to defend his/hers from a foreign army?  Are we endowed with some special rights or emotions that only Americans are allowed to have?  Different rules for us because we're special?
I suppose "different rules" is official policy at least when Nuclear weapons are considered eh?
Do you think our appointed role of world police is justified?  Do you think we should be occupying foreign countries and paying for it with $$$ and lives? 

  How do you explain our interventionist foreign policy? Are we doing it for noble causes in all the circumstances?  What if we suffered an economic collapse (duh) or sunk to a lower tier in the world's power chain and another country rose as the super power and we were occupied? How bout them apples Luke...can't happen? Why not? Remember your history, we haven't always been the world superpower and there's a good chance we won't be forever, perhaps a change will occur in your lifetime...maybe you can throw rose petals at the feet of the Iraqi's who come to liberate you and your granchildren from the regime of  GW Bush II 50 years down the road.  Would you submit to a roadside stop, question and feel up session if Iraqi soldiers were here in the USA?
   
  Also how do you explain your favorite President going to war without a declaration of war by congress?
Does he have special unwritten powers or can he  ignore the Constitution when he feels like it?
Is waterboarding torture or just "enhanced interrogation? Is a warrantless wire tap something that happens in a "free country"? Opening your mail? Monitoring this forum? Free speech zones?

   Feel "free" to side step these questions too and continue to think GW Bush is a tough guy and will protect you from the terrorists that live under everybody's bed.  I just wish they could find his military records, I'm sure he deserves some metals or something.  He reminds me of the rich kid in the neighborhood who had a swimming pool, nobody liked him and you really hated yourself for even thinking about asking if you could go in his pool. I'd rather run thru the sprinkler and eat this melting popsicle, thanks anyway George.     

[NJLiberty]

Luke, since my question of whether or not you'd defend your country was side stepped...what's the difference between our defending this country and a citizen in another country wanting to defend his/hers from a foreign army? 

I can't answer for Luke, but as for myself if the roles were reversed and we were the ones who had been invaded and occupied I would be spending every day trying go make the occupiers' lives miserable in any way I could, assuming of course that I survived the initial invasion. That would include using any and all methods and materials at my disposal, whether they were approved by the "rules of war" or not, just as my ancestors did when they threw the British out.

People tend to forget that our patriots burned tax collectors' homes to the ground, tarred and feathered agents of the Crown, and otherwise assaulted their persons, as well as doing any manner of terroristic things to get their point across. The Boston Tea Party was a very tame example of what was going on then, though that seems to be the image people remember. The British sent the troops to Boston for a reason, and it wasn't because Sam Adams and the boys were marching around with protest signs.

George

[Luke S]

That is what the United States' Army is, thugs acting to protect rich businessmen, they are the mercenary scum you despise. In a free society, there would be NO restrictions on my ability to raise my own opposing army, or acquire advanced defensive hardware capable of resisting them. There would be no monopoly on organizing military defenses, and that's the point "Market for Liberty" makes. In fact, what the book ACTUALLY advocates is that everyone will get to buy into or organize their own defensive organization. That means it's subservient to its customer's demands, or it gets fired. The second half of your statement about abuse and usurpation is that those "private armies" were up against citizens who were legally and economically deprived of the means to self-defense, just as Americans are today, under the guise of "common sense gun control" and a generously subsidized military-industrial-security complex. A free market would be very, very different.

What blows my mind is you think that the government army is immune to the corruptive pressures you describe, and you imagine that the U.S. military has somehow NOT been a "terror against laborers, the poor, and anybody else who dared stand in the path of or protest against those who employed them." That is what is happening in Iraq. That is what is happening here in the militarization of the "civilian" police and the drug war. Plus, they've hired Blackwater and Custer Battles (on both fronts) to help!

I'm not claiming at all that the government police and army are immune to corruption, or haven't been responsible for abuses. I'm claiming that the rights abuses that the government police and army is responsible for will be nothing compared to the rights abuses that will happen due to private armies, and that have happened in the past due to private armies when private armies owned by businessmen existed in America.

The reason behind that is this: When abuses by the police and army are uncovered, especially serious abuses, the politicians that are in charge of them can get chucked out of office over it, which has happened many times before.

On the other side, businessmen in a "lassiez-faire society" with private armies will be able to commit all sorts of abuses and won't have to answer to anybody but themselves and perhaps other powerful businessmen.

And I think the book's assertion that insurance companies would somehow magically stop the private armies when they got out of hand is just ridiculous, because in truth that's not what happens. What happened last time we had businessmen with their own private armies in this country is that the private armies were owned by whomever they were owned by, and there was no insurance involved or anything like that, and when labor would have a strike against the businessman, the private army was called out to forcefully bust up the strike. Sometimes laborers were even killed during that process, when they hadn't done anything but peacefully strike.

[NJLiberty]

What happened last time we had businessmen with their own private armies in this country is that the private armies were owned by whomever they were owned by, and there was no insurance involved or anything like that, and when labor would have a strike against the businessman, the private army was called out to forcefully bust up the strike. Sometimes laborers were even killed during that process, when they hadn't done anything but peacefully strike.

You might want to do a bit more reading on that Luke. There was a great deal of abusive behavior on both sides. The private armies were generally called in when things started to get out of hand. Many of the strikes became very violent and many people who crossed the picket lines were severely injured by the "peaceful" strikers and whatever muscle the unions could muster.

I have to tell you if I owned a company and my employees walked out on me, that would be the last day they ever worked for me. If they didn't want their jobs then I would hire people who did. If my former employees insisted on then trespassing on my property, interfering with the workers I hired to replace them, or interfering with the activities of my business,  I would have them removed, forcibly if necessary. Now, given that I never had to fire anyone in the ten years or so I had employees, and only ever had one person quit my employment (that was for a significantly better position during the whole Y2K scenario) I doubt I would ever be in the position of having anyone go on strike from my company, or my having to have them removed.

George

[Luke S]

Luke, since my question of whether or not you'd defend your country was side stepped...

No Free Libertarian, I did not sidestep your question.

I said that there was a big problem with the fact that the government crucifies its own border agents when they try to uphold the law, even with this current situation with the Mexican Army invading the Southwest in order to help drug smugglers smuggle drugs.

So the answer to the question is yes, I am going to move down there to Arizona and I am going to watch that border. And if I see the Mexican Army come across on another one of their drug smuggler assistance invasions and I see them shooting at the Border Patrol (which is what they did last time), or if I see them shooting at anyone else, then I will shoot back at them. But beyond that, my hands are as tied by the PC liberals in the government who grovel for the Hispanic vote as Border Patrol's are.

Oh, and another note on the private armies that I forgot to mention last time:

Do you think those poor Detroiters in the middle of inner city Detroit are going to be able to pay for some private army to protect them? No, they obviously aren't. And they are in the situation where they need to be protected more than me right now in rural Ohio, or you in New Hampshire. So even though the Detroit police force is far less than ideal, at least they are better than nothing at all, which is what the majority of people in Detroit would have to protect them if we were to switch to these insane "private defense companies".

Oh, and that audiobook was flat out wrong when they said that police would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed" if you call the police because you suspect a person might commit a crime. Maybe that's what they say in a big city like Detroit, but in my home town in Michigan, and here in this town, police can be called if a person sees a suspicious person, and the police will come. There is no way in hell that they would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed", as the audiobook claimed they would. That sounds like something that the Detroit police may (or may not) do, but not our police.

[NJLiberty]

Oh, and that audiobook was flat out wrong when they said that police would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed" if you call the police because you suspect a person might commit a crime. Maybe that's what they say in a big city like Detroit, but in my home town in Michigan, and here in this town, police can be called if a person sees a suspicious person, and the police will come. There is no way in hell that they would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed", as the audiobook claimed they would. That sounds like something that the Detroit police may (or may not) do, but not our police.

I agree with you there Luke. I have never known anyone here to call the police and have them tell them, "sorry, we can't come unless a crime has been committed."

From reading the various different forums there seems to be a big difference in police behavior in different parts of the country. Down here I am on a first name basis with most of them, have had them stop along the side of the road to chat with me about the deer or turkey in my yard, and they wave every time they go by. They've picked me up and given me a ride if I got caught by a sudden rainstorm while walking and caught my dogs and brought them back home on more than one occasion when they have run off after deer (and ignored the fact that they are unlicensed.) The county park police let my 74 year old father drive his truck down the paths to the river (motorized vehicles are banned on the park paths) so he can go fishing, and let him take as much of the fire wood they split as he wants. Unless you are doing something that is actually causing a problem they by and large leave everyone alone. It isn't Mayberry here, but there doesn't seem to be the adversarial relationship here between the police and the citizens that seems to exist elsewhere. I'm sure in a place like Detroit, or here in NYC where you might be shot responding to any given call, they respond and react differently. Maybe there they have to prioritize the calls and can't respond to every one where someone is just acting suspicious.

George

[Free libertarian]

 Luke thank you for replying that if a foreign army were in your country you would defend it. I agree with you. Good call. I suppose you now have a better understanding of why Iraqi civilians want to defend their country from a foreign army?  Seems like maybe we as individuals aren't so different from the people in countries that we insist on occupying.

Also what's up with the Kurds? Geez I thought we gave them white hats and they were annointed good guys? Now they're being reported as "Kurdish Rebels" and we're giving Turkey maps of where to bomb them, I suppose the word rebels is used so we, the American public can distinguish them from everyday insurgents that live in the other parts of Iraq.
It gets so confusing keeping up with who's bad and who's good "over there", we should get a guide or something so when we turn on the TV we'll know which "team" to cheer for huh?
Or maybe we've decided we don't need the Kurds as much as we need Turkey and have now banished them to playing the part of bad guys? 

  Good luck in Arizona defending the border...oh yeah, how did the United States acquire Arizona?
 

[J’raxis 270145]

I have to tell you if I owned a company and my employees walked out on me, that would be the last day they ever worked for me. If they didn't want their jobs then I would hire people who did.

Not necessarily. Your employees might be highly skilled people that it would take months to find replacements for. Would you rather be out of business for a month, if it means losing $1,000,000 per day, or would you rather sit down and negotiate with your employees in order to get them to go back to work tomorrow, because whatever they're asking for will cost you a lot less?

In a free society, collective bargaining, unions, &c., would still exist; the owners and managers of a factory aren't going to have some sort of absolute power over their employees. What there wouldn't be is any sort of government force protecting workers' unions, of course.

[NJLiberty]

I have to tell you if I owned a company and my employees walked out on me, that would be the last day they ever worked for me. If they didn't want their jobs then I would hire people who did.

Not necessarily. Your employees might be highly skilled people that it would take months to find replacements for. Would you rather be out of business for a month, if it means losing $1,000,000 per day, or would you rather sit down and negotiate with your employees in order to get them to go back to work tomorrow, because whatever they're asking for will cost you a lot less?

In a free society, collective bargaining, unions, &c., would still exist; the owners and managers of a factory aren't going to have some sort of absolute power over their employees. What there wouldn't be is any sort of government force protecting workers' unions, of course.

I didn't suggest I would have absolute power over them, but if it reached the point that my employees walked out, then clearly they are not interested in working for me under the terms in which I can afford to employ them. Hence there is no reason for me to go back to them. I would not compensate them more than they are worth to me, nor would I expect them to work for less than what the job is worth to them. They are always free to go find another job, just as I am always free to end their employment.

As far as your question goes, if my employees reached the point where they felt they had to go on strike, then I would have no choice but to hire new employees, even if it meant my books gushed red for a while. I don't believe in wasting people's time by pussy footing around in negotiations. Whatever I ever offered my people was the most I was willing to pay them. If that was good enough for them then great, if it wasn't then there was a handshake and I wished them well. Could someone else have saved money by negotiating from a lower starting point, sure, but I would rather put the money in their pockets than waste my time having to recruit and train new people. In the end I always felt it cost me less doing it my way. I could leave and go on vacation for any length of time and knew that my people would be doing their jobs well...and I never had to call in the Pinkertons 

George