Will the first libertarian State (minimalist) have to be armed to the teeth against foreing Statists? Discuss.


David Davis

I do worry about this, really I do: and I lie awake at night and I do not know what to suggest.

It does occur to one that in the event of a truly Libertarian “government” – if that’s not oxymoronic – arriving in power somewhere any time soon – and I don’t somehow think it will be here in the UK – what will we do about the following?  

By this I mean the inevitable ire, fulminations, threats, missiles such as the Shithead-3, the Gramsci-VII, the Fabian-V, the Skcidpan-flying-dustbin-Mark37,478-people’s-sword (based as always on the V-2 and about as effective as seen in 1991) sanctions (you name it, we didn’t invent it!) outright attempts at piracy of out trading-ships on the High Seas by the “people’s spontaneously-arising-revolutionary forces of the” states-most-threatened, and the like?

And what is all this sword-iconography about, that “people’s states” seem to affect strongly? Like this stuff?

I do not mean to be churlish about people who sell us things, but why do that when others do or did this?

 

Must like swords, then

Must like swords, then

I confess that I don’t see the point. I don’t think even the statist forces of the UK do swords much on their badges. Swords are old hat (bad pun.)

Perhaps they still use them as machinery to behead people. Well then, personally, I believe that to be repellent and disgusting and (even) very very pre-barbarian, and I would put a stop to it in Westminster now  __in__  all those “nations” (Ha!) who do it today, and I’d go after the f****rs on the High seas if needed. As you all know, this writer does not favour the death penalty under the present cicumstances here, for this reason:-

For we cannot delegate to the Agency at Westminster any rights that we do not ourselves posess.

But to get back to the point of this post, as I have to go out and do orange-diode-stuff to the meters on the Steel Beast for a bit, a Libertarian Admministration would have hard choices: I don’t think all of them will involve domestic policy decisions – which will be easy as we can just fire everybody on the State-payroll, raze the buildings, and mallet the hard-drives of the State departments that will need to be “let go”.

I think some decisions will involve what foreign powers think of us, and I don’t think they will be initially friendly.

Really, I was just looking at this stuff, and thinking strategically. Obviously battleships are a no-no, as they are noe deadmeat, but you get the point.#

About these ads

7 responses to “Will the first libertarian State (minimalist) have to be armed to the teeth against foreing Statists? Discuss.

  1. Simply repeal all private weapon restrictions so that Swiss-style militias can form, maintain enough air power for the area of the UK, and for while nuclear weapons still exist worldwide keep a small, higly mobile deterrant.

    The shipping companies can provide their own protection (easier with legalised weaponry).

    A libertarian administration would have no military business in foreign countries, whether or not they use the death penalty or not, so it’s rather surprising to hear your warmongering, David.

  2. There is no such thing as a libertarian state!! Your own state is the biggest threat to your freedom. I wouldn’t worry to much about other states in the first place.

  3. Agreed, Nico :)

    PS to David: I love the names you thought up for the missiles!

  4. I just worry that a coalition of non-libertarian states would act quickly to stamp on an emergent libertarian one.

  5. Someone might even launch a “Tip-of-Dong” with a multiple-bomblet-delivery system”….

  6. Bodwyn Wook

    /The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress/ by Robert A Heinlein (pbuh) tells in a specific way the story of the emergence of such a free state. Of course he doesn’t in that novel then go on with the (inevitable?) decline & fall….

    That is the great point about the attempt to adduce events beforetime, they are always /specific/ and, naturally, our goals as libertarians, if they be indeed /libertarian/, then are as well transcendant by definition. If they are not, then we will merely wind up shooting the “unsuitable” as in every so-called “revolution” before. This means that we must await (or rather those so gifted among us must continue the work on) parallel developments in the Sufi kinds of perception, or “intuition,” necessary to supplement successfully our undoubted characteristically already-developed very great intellection. Short of that sort of evolutionary grasp we /will/ slip back “into the shit,” as they say. Surely it can not have escaped everyone’s grasp that when we speak of Liberty we are speaking as much as anything else of forging ahead in Nature to something beyond human being?

    Peace and quiet here-and-now greatly is not to be despised, of course. It is the root need for this that makes us lovers of Freedom to begin with — but even that state will arise only spottily at first, and as a result of the largely hidden work of the supplementary personalities. After all, the freedom of which we dream is too often conflated with sentimental memories of the past and fantasies of going backward — this needless to say is my own bent, profoundly. But while we in America wring our hands over The Founders, we’d better not forget the reeking shithouses, man slavery and more-or-less nonstop epidemics. The study of History also can show us what has already been tried, if only that we might pick and choose, and — as our specie’s functions improve — be sure to work out /with a gain in clarity over the last time/ the exact needed /next/ step toward Freedom.

    In 1776 in North America at least some perceived that our relative distance from Europe would make it easier to work out some of our national questions, and so it was relatively.

    But our “need” as driven by trade for a sphere of “influence” (dominance) led to such stuff as the Monroe assertion that the Western hemisphere is “ours.”

    Coupled with this was the intermittent push for a national bank — so often today the driver of the business cycle and not its “cure.”

    Also, the need to close the backdoor to the burrow so to speak and keep out the Dagoes, Frogs and, yes, you Limeys, led us into taking over the much of the continent by 1846 or so.

    In this material world the sheer fact of existence, not to say growth, attracts resistance.

    Obviously for starters the Swiss militia idea is the only moral basis I can see for defense of the territorial libertarian state.

    The real problem alluded above by the gentleman, Davis, but alas not elucidated, is the not-inconsiderable fifth column we shall create for ourselves on firing all the hypercredentialists and Public Liberals, not to mention monopoly “private” corporation CEOs.

    These gentry will lead the charge to paralyze trade by not letting us in if we insist on a gold standard — I believe this is how The Pricks did Estonia….

    However, as noted at the outset, I am indeed stating that parallel work by the so-called “mystic” is indispensably needed. This is because of the paradoxical physical reality of thought. This is irritating to more reasonable (or resigned) people, but it is also just true. As mathematician “Ferret” Ball points out repeatedly, “When you finally get it through your head that outwardly all things are NOT possible and that “Smoke It, Fuck It Or Wreck It” is only an American and not a Libertarian saying — then you will dive headlong into fantasy…and in effect clear the road BEYOND tomorrow!”

    In this image, the coming realm of improvements in our species and our “minds” is foreshadowed by the more crude molecular and physical frontiers of the historical past.

  7. Pingback: As Matters Stand Now: At The Frontier Of Freedom « Bodwyn Wook