The case for government

[tolbiny]

Your position is that the Gov is nessecary to provide national defense. I take it from this that you mean to say that a central government will provide the most efficient means of national defense. If someone could convince you that there is a better means of providing national defense then you would (presumably) agree that a large gov is unessecary for "national" defense. Have i stated your view accurately?
Assuming i am close, my posts have been examples of how haveing a large standing army built up has been totally worthless in providing national defense for its citizens on the onset of war (prevention through deterrance we can also discuss). I believe that the most efficient way to drive out invaders is through geurrilla tactics by small groups who are under no control of a local government. I can cite examples of where and when this worked against enourmously powerfull armies.
[ QUOTE ]
Should Russia not have fought off Hitlers invasion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Russia was absolutely crushed in WW1, Stalin spent 10 years and billions of dollars rebuilding their army (and i believe that at the beginning of WW2 Russia had the largest standing army in the world). That army was essentially worthless when Germany invaded, all the time, money and resources that were put into the Soviet military machine was totally ineffective in preventing an invasion. When it came down to beating the Germans- destroying thier own crops, Winter, Distance, Time and peasants with antiquated bolt action rifles did what thousands of tanks, machine guns and billions of dollars could not do. My point is not that you ought to appease an aggressor, but that the government is usually ineffective at preventing an attack, no matter how much money in spends in preparation.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guerilla tactics by small groups unaffilaited with a largescale government have been very successful over the years. Afghanistan for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats irrelevant to the discussion though, because standing armies have been built to defeat standing armies, and because society currently doesnt have the will to inflict the collateral damage that is engendered by guerilla tactics. There are armies quite capable of defeating the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents, or the NLF if the citizenry wants/wanted them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was specifically referring to Afghanistan of the 1980s against the Russian machine. However the argument is about weather or not the government provides the greatest effeciency for national defense, so my point is not moot. Small groups of guerrilas are as effective in my view in fighting off an invading army as a government supplied army with very few exceptions. Therefore i see no need for decades of military build up and waste when doing nothing for years is just about as effective once an invasion has begun.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If a single person owned all roads in an area, it is in their interest to drive up all the prices since they want to make as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
How did that person come to own all the roads in an area without coercion? He must have provided such a great product that his competition just couldn't keep up. So now you assume he's going to destroy all that good will by trying to extort them? When another company comes in, do you think people are going to use the roads of that first one that tried to screw them?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, about education. I know you guys are for privately funded schooling. I assume that means that schools will be developed, and people will pay to attend them, yes? If so, how are the children of the pooer partents going to get educated?

[/ QUOTE ]
All of this has been discussed at length. In short, scholarships/charity and homeschooling.

[ QUOTE ]
Without a governing body, what prevents companies from excessively polluting?

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that unless their pollution only affects their property and no one else's, they are causing damage to someone's property and are therefore liable. This has also been discussed a great deal.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guerilla tactics by small groups unaffilaited with a largescale government have been very successful over the years. Afghanistan for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats irrelevant to the discussion though, because standing armies have been built to defeat standing armies, and because society currently doesnt have the will to inflict the collateral damage that is engendered by guerilla tactics. There are armies quite capable of defeating the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents, or the NLF if the citizenry wants/wanted them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was specifically referring to Afghanistan of the 1980s against the Russian machine. However the argument is about weather or not the government provides the greatest effeciency for national defense, so my point is not moot. Small groups of guerrilas are as effective in my view in fighting off an invading army as a government supplied army with very few exceptions. Therefore i see no need for decades of military build up and waste when doing nothing for years is just about as effective once an invasion has begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

And repeating yourself doesnt add support your argument. If you can name examples of guerilla forces that have been thrown together in the face of impending aggression that have been able to withstand the aggrssion of a standing army that has the full support of the country backing the army, and where the guerilla force hasnt been supplemented with the arms, personnel or economic clout supplied by other countries and where the guerilla force isnt an integral part of a larger standing army Id love to see it.

The defense of a country ultimately cannot depend on allies to bail it out, and an army should not be expected to be victorious when those responsible for the execution of the wars they enter dont give their full support. You mentioned Israel as an exception:
1) they have incorporated guerilla tactics into their standing army
2) they have the unwavering support of the vast majority of their citizenry
3) they are willing to do what it takes to win without regard to collateral damage

any standing army with those 3 qualities will be devastatingly more efficient than a bunch of guerillas thrown together in a desperation defense

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

The defense of a country ultimately cannot depend on allies to bail it out, and an army should not be expected to be victorious when those responsible for the execution of the wars they enter dont give their full support. You mentioned Israel as an exception:
1) they have incorporated guerilla tactics into their standing army
2) they have the unwavering support of the vast majority of their citizenry
3) they are willing to do what it takes to win without regard to collateral damage

any standing army with those 3 qualities will be devastatingly more efficient than a bunch of guerillas thrown together in a desperation defense

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The vast majority of standing armies do not have these attributes
2. Isreal also had the added benefit of the best technology from the west.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can name examples of guerilla forces that have been thrown together in the face of impending aggression that have been able to withstand the aggrssion of a standing army that has the full support of the country backing the army, and where the guerilla force hasnt been supplemented with the arms, personnel or economic clout supplied by other countries and where the guerilla force isnt an integral part of a larger standing army Id love to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized Geurilla movements are supporting half of the Civil war in Columbia, over threw the Cuban Government. MOre importantly the onus is on those who claim that government does a better job of providing national defense to give some examples of countries that have repulsed invasion with their standing army as the main reason/defense.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The defense of a country ultimately cannot depend on allies to bail it out, and an army should not be expected to be victorious when those responsible for the execution of the wars they enter dont give their full support. You mentioned Israel as an exception:
1) they have incorporated guerilla tactics into their standing army
2) they have the unwavering support of the vast majority of their citizenry
3) they are willing to do what it takes to win without regard to collateral damage

any standing army with those 3 qualities will be devastatingly more efficient than a bunch of guerillas thrown together in a desperation defense

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The vast majority of standing armies do not have these attributes <font color="red">I didnt say they do have them, I maintain they would be succesful if they did have them </font>
2. Isreal also had the added benefit of the best technology from the west. <font color="red"> the best techonology from the west hasnt helped the west much, because it lacks the other features </font>

[ QUOTE ]
If you can name examples of guerilla forces that have been thrown together in the face of impending aggression that have been able to withstand the aggrssion of a standing army that has the full support of the country backing the army, and where the guerilla force hasnt been supplemented with the arms, personnel or economic clout supplied by other countries and where the guerilla force isnt an integral part of a larger standing army Id love to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized Geurilla movements are supporting half of the Civil war in Columbia <font color="red"> Colombia doesnt have a legitimate standing army for the guerilla movement to defeat</font> , over threw the Cuban Government <font color="red">not even close without Russia </font> . MOre importantly the onus is on those who claim that government does a better job of providing national defense to give some examples of countries that have repulsed invasion with their standing army as the main reason/defense.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> I disagree that where the onus lies. Countries with strong standing armies arent invaded because of that strength, so you cant expect a litany of victories and you cant show a litany of failures. </font>

[tolbiny]

so you cant expect a litany of victories and you cant show a litany of failures.

<font color="blue"> I most certainly can show alitany of failures. France was amoung the highest in national defense spending from WW1 to WW2. The Maginot line at up most of it. Russia had the largest standing army in the orld at the beginning of WW2. The united states commited 500,000 troops to south Vietnam in addition to the south vietnemiese army, failure. China had an enormous army numerically at the beginning of WW2, absolutely routed by the Japanese at every turn.
Where are the successes? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt say they do have them, I maintain they would be succesful if they did have them

[/ QUOTE ]

But most countries are incapable of having all three criteria. Number 3 especially, what good is freedom to a dead man, the reason that Isreal is willing to accept collatoral damage is the belief that ALL (or a high majority) would be killed if they fail. Fear is a great motivator.

[ QUOTE ]
over threw the Cuban Government not even close without Russia

[/ QUOTE ]
Russia provided very little in the way of assistance untill the revolution had already gained several victors and was starting to arouse large scale support. If the US hadn't been involved on the Cuban governments side they probably could have overthrown without any help from the Russians.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While we're at it...

what about preventing monopolies and mergers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Getting rid of government would 100% prevent monopolies.

All monopolies exist only through government coercion.

Government, of course, being the biggest monopoly of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drastic, sweeping generalizations like this are wrong 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, provide a counterexample. Name one monopoly that formed without government coercion. One will do.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While we're at it...

what about preventing monopolies and mergers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Getting rid of government would 100% prevent monopolies.

All monopolies exist only through government coercion.

Government, of course, being the biggest monopoly of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drastic, sweeping generalizations like this are wrong 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't generalizations. They are logical truths.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
so you cant expect a litany of victories and you cant show a litany of failures.

<font color="blue"> I most certainly can show alitany of failures. France was amoung the highest in national defense spending from WW1 to WW2. <font color="red"> and they are still speaking French with the help of a real standing army, and is standing army vs standing army, so one wins one loses...no gain for your argument. I would love to see our "geurilla" response to Pearl Harbor </font> The Maginot line at up most of it. Russia had the largest standing army in the orld at the beginning of WW2. <font color="red"> again thats standing army vs standing army </font> The united states commited 500,000 troops to south Vietnam in addition to the south vietnemiese army, failure. <font color="red"> a failure of will, not of the army </font> China had an enormous army numerically at the beginning of WW2, absolutely routed by the Japanese at every turn. <font color="red">temporarily. In fact im surprised you didnt claim this as a guerilla victory against a standing army, since that was the end result, albeit with some strategic blunders by the Japanese </font>
Where are the successes? <font color="red">where are the failures, other than one standing army beating another, which does nothing for your argument? </font> </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt say they do have them, I maintain they would be succesful if they did have them

[/ QUOTE ]

But most countries are incapable of having all three criteria. <font color="red">that inability is a modern phenomenon borne of politics, not the inherent inviability or inefficencies of standing armies . Makeshift guerilla defenses would still be a failure in that environment. </font> Number 3 especially, what good is freedom to a dead man, the reason that Isreal is willing to accept collatoral damage is the belief that ALL (or a high majority) would be killed if they fail. Fear is a great motivator.

[ QUOTE ]
over threw the Cuban Government not even close without Russia

[/ QUOTE ]
Russia provided very little in the way of assistance untill the revolution had already gained several victors and was starting to arouse large scale support. If the US hadn't been involved on the Cuban governments side they probably could have overthrown without any help from the Russians. <font color="red">If If If...could have. Not dealing from strength here, are you. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]