in which brute says things about libertarianism

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
Jean
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:27 am

If issued some panzerfaust type anti tank weapons, i would feel confident facing tanks with my neighbours. I have 420 days of training behind me, and while it could have been better, i still learned a few things. I would add we have bunkers all over the place.
We only miss combat experience, but no one listened when i suggested we go raid france and germany to get cheese sausage and training

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:20 am

Jean wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:27 am
no one listened when i suggested we go raid france and germany to get cheese sausage and training
Preemptive action is often necessitated.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:44 pm

I hadn't quite meant that a militia would only face enemy troops and tanks, Jean. Judging by what happened to Russian tanks in Grozny in the first Chechen war, simply sending tanks and a few troops into a militia troop defended city in effect suicides the tanks (and few troops).
Rather, I was comparing a militia (without state-given arms) facing a combined-arms modern military. In that case, the city here would be heavily bombarded with artillery\airstrikes first, then troops backed by armor (including tanks, APCs, and the like) would invade the city. The result is the defending militia gets wrecked, along with the city (see Grozny during the Second Chechen war).

To my knowledge, the only cases where a local militia-like force successfully repulsed an invasion from a organized military occurred via a guerrilla-warfare like attrition strategy. Additionally, in all cases, the defending militia (and country) paid an extremely heavy price to make this happen. So it seems like eliminating the standing defense force merely to save money in the short term discounts the potential future costs of such an action greatly.

To be clear here: I'm not arguing for 'defense' spending levels on par with, say, current American levels (those seemed more aimed at maintain the Imperium Americanum). But I would say that maintaining a credible, standing defense force would present a greater deterrence to would-be aggressors than a citizen militia would on its own. Of course, having a standing defense force in addition to a considerable militia would seem like having the best of both worlds here.

Of course: perhaps I am overthinking this? If only Jean and company had been allowed to raid European countries for provisions, they would have created a Dune-like fremen militia force? Perhaps the first course of action should be raiding Belgium for chocolate :D
Gotta start off small, right?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:23 pm

Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:51 am
You're not seriously suggesting a gaggle of your neighbors with whatever arms they can afford is gonna go toe to toe with any modern military, are you? Or defend territory as well as a modern army?
even a huge standing army had no chance against Hitler in France - so for the same outcome, paying for the army was a waste of money.

"going toe to toe with a modern military" is only important if the goal is aggression or pride.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:34 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:23 pm
Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:51 am
You're not seriously suggesting a gaggle of your neighbors with whatever arms they can afford is gonna go toe to toe with any modern military, are you? Or defend territory as well as a modern army?
"going toe to toe with a modern military" is only important if the goal is aggression or pride.
Not quite. A large standing army could also allow time for the citizen militia to mobilize (the proverbial speed bump). It also allows you the option of a coordinated first strike.
It also provides a sizable deterrent all on its own.

Actually, I could keep going for awhile here. I'm still not seeing why you are saying a standing army has no apparent utility.

Also: I'm not arguing that a standing defense force is the perfect solution for the defense of a nation. Some standing forces are stronger than others. I don't dispute this. But what I am saying is that standing forces provide a range of defensive benefits to the nations that have em.

One other point: If the French army had been successful against Hitler (hypothetically), then the standing army would have prevented much of the devastation that befell France during WWII (especially if they prevented Hitler from crossing the border). Seeing as they are always more of less ready for battle, whereas a militia would need a time-consuming mustering phase, I don't see as you can argue a militia has this same feature.

Jean
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:59 pm

I don't understand the dichotomy beetween militia and standing army. Hitler's army was a militia. We have tanks and jet fighters even as a militia. Jet pilots serves several years in a row, but tanks pilot train three week a year like any other militia man. There is always someone on duty you can use in a few hours, and all the rest can be mustered quickly because they train regularly and we have a logistic that allows it. I don't see the advantages a standing army has over a militia. Military training has diminishing returns too.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:11 pm

Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:34 pm
A large standing army [..] also allows you the option of a coordinated first strike.
aka aggression.
Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:34 pm
I'm still not seeing why you are saying a standing army has no apparent utility.

Also: I'm not arguing that a standing defense force is the perfect solution for the defense of a nation. Some standing forces are stronger than others. I don't dispute this. But what I am saying is that standing forces provide a range of defensive benefits to the nations that have em.
brute isn't saying a standing army has zero utility, just that the costs outweigh the benefits in pretty much all cases brute has ever seen or heard of.

but Jean is a much better proponent of militia-based defense than brute is, so brute will just let Jean's arguments stand.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10211
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by jacob » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:31 pm

Lets get practical, eh, because we already have examples ...

If you wanna see an unorganized militia defense with more access to weapons than what you can get under the US constitution (automatics and rpgs or panzerfausts) against a superior organized force, look at Iraq (2003-now) or Afghanistan (2001-now) or Syria (2011-now). If you wanna see organized militia defense against the same..... look at ISIS (see Syria) ...

Neither will stand up up even the smallest kinds of actual organized MODERN(*) militaries once they commence concerted bombing/droning runs. They [the militias and the organized militaries that fight them] do, however, make living extremely difficult on the ground: Both for the army that proposes to occupy and those civilians who didn't have the foresight or wherewith to leave yet. This includes killing tanks or low-flying planes. But there's more to life or living than killing tanks and helicopters. See refugee crisis.

It will, however, drag on for decades ... thus turning into a political problem. That's not a fun way to live :-P

(*) Not front loading muskets that fire 3 rounds a minute on a good day.

This is not just fancy theory. It happened in the US too, 150 years ago. Which role would you play if it happened to you? Hope it goes away? ...

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:10 pm

Let’s make sure it remains a political problem at home.

There are no statistics for deterrence.

Jean
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:14 am

And we just explained why terror bombing happens, because it is the cheap answer to mass bombing and drone raids.

Jean
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:34 am

But when someone starts to bomb your city, it's just a matter of how much money you put in city bombing devices do detter potential aggressors. The kim understood this.
I just realised that to not bombing people should be a high libertarian priority, and that trump bombed really few people when compared to other potus of the last 80years. Which made my bombing is unfair anger go away.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack » Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:20 pm

@BRUTE

I thought you were going to handle the tough questions, but everyone else seems too polite to ask.

This has never been a problem for me, though. :twisted:

So. What's the libertarian take on pollution solutions?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:31 am

the canonical answer:
1)court
2)ostracism

pollution is a negative externality. negative externalities can be resolved in court. there is a large body of history about the role of government in denying claims against government favored companies and industries - for example the entire energy sector and many others typically mentioned as examples of pollution.

another solution is "professional shaming", aka the Better Business Bureau and related organizations. membership could come with regular inspections, and the badge could guide consumers in purchase decisions.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:00 am

Well.

I was hoping for something better.

For instance, externalities are subjective to the culture that surrounds the deal. We can see this in bottle deposits. Some states require a bottle deposit at the purchase of a soda. The bottle can then be returned to claim the deposit. If the purchaser doesn't return it, anyone else can. This increases recycling, adds a source of income for the extremely poor, and is a bandaid solution to the littering problem with sodas.

None of that was required to be done. There are plenty of states that don't have bottle deposits. They get by just fine. But by changing the rules about the retail transaction, the externalities changed.

If we are.going to a libertarian system, you are pretty free to decide how transactions will change, to get better results. People are used to being told how this will work, through regulations. If you are proposing a system that has less regulation, then some detailed explanation of the way to get better results needs to be spelled out in detail.

And it's in the details, that I find libertarian ideas lacking. We have faith in market solutions, because we are used to looking in detail at the effects of command systems and market systems, and which makes decisions most closely aligned with human interests. But this faith is not common. This interest in systems is not common. The challenge libertarians face is one of faith. We have it, most folks don't.

So vague hand waving won't cut it. It doesn't convince the unconverted. If a market solution is going to be better, it needs to be demonstrated in detail, in a way that doesn't require faith to fully comprehend.

I can't do that. But I have high hopes for BRUTE.

prognastat
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by prognastat » Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:03 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:31 am
1)court
2)ostracism
1) How will the court work without the backing of a government imbued with the right to serve out punishment up to and including violence if necessary?

If a court decides I have to pay for the pollution and I simply refuse to pay/concede. If it gets to this point you require a police force with the capability and right to deprive me of freedom in the form of imprisonment which I think we both would agree is a form of violence even if indirect as if I refuse to cooperate with their attempts to imprison me they would need to use force to "encourage" me.

2) Ostracism can be effective, but sufficient power/wealth can isolate oneself from the effects.

Jean
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:10 pm

@riggerjack
Effectively, pollution is an aggression, so it should be treated as one.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:05 pm

@ Jean
I agree.

However, I think you have a surplus of energy, time, and frustration. For you, this would be a solution to all of the above. With some righteous, bloody vengeance, as a bonus.

But that is a relatively rare combination in citizens, and a system that requires a significant fraction of the population to have those surpluses is destined to fail. In a spectacular way.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:07 pm

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:00 am
If a market solution is going to be better, it needs to be demonstrated in detail, in a way that doesn't require faith to fully comprehend.
the whole point of a market economy is that it can't be micro managed, and those details can't always be predicted in the future. this is why humans who don't understand economics prefer government micro managing everything.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:10 pm

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:05 pm
But that is a relatively rare combination in citizens, and a system that requires a significant fraction of the population to have those surpluses is destined to fail. In a spectacular way.
it will fail less than other systems, where meaning well leads to terrible outcomes.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:16 pm

prognastat wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:03 pm
If a court decides I have to pay for the pollution and I simply refuse to pay/concede. If it gets to this point you require a police force with the capability and right to deprive me of freedom in the form of imprisonment which I think we both would agree is a form of violence even if indirect as if I refuse to cooperate with their attempts to imprison me they would need to use force to "encourage" me.
assumptions, assumptions. brute does not agree on the "requirement of police force" assumption. plenty of systems work and have worked that do not use the monopoly on violence to enforce law.

prognastat wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:03 pm
2) Ostracism can be effective, but sufficient power/wealth can isolate oneself from the effects.
sufficient power/wealth can isolate from any effects, see: current political system. libertarianism isn't heaven, just better on average.

Post Reply