A declaration of war, under treaties the US is party to, is a formality that means you intend to attack the people and property of a nation you now consider your enemy...When US ships were burning on both coasts and at sea, would your mind as to a proper coarse [sic] of action changed?
You seem to have elected - whether voluntarily or unintentionally - my previous post. Specifically:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall have power...to declare war." That would be the guiding principle. If they didn't declare war initially - which I'm not sure they would have, reserving always as we do our right to self-defense with or without such a declaration - I'm sure they would have after Germany began attacking and sinking our commercial ships.
The response would likely have come in two forms: first, providing military escorts for American cargo ships and second, bombing the German Navy (in port or at sea) into utter scrap metal.
Message 19407313;
The Germans were working on an intercontinental bomber and intercontintental [sic] rockets.
I've read up on WWII fairly extensively and never come across anything of that sort. Even if that is true, I think the proper response would be an effort to create a comparable military force and an early warning system, not necessarily a preemptive strike.
Would NYC in flames have mattered? At least some of the above was bound to happen.
LOL. Give me a break.
So you intend simply to wait for it?
Do I intend to be attacked before attacking? For the most part - overwhelmingly - yes.
This is why Libertarians don't win national elections.
In the first instance, we don't win because we can't afford - financially - to run the size and volume of campaign that the hypocrites or the socialists do. Even if we had those monetary resources, how well do you think a group seeking to shrink the government, cut back on personal and corporate welfare, and replace paternalism with responsibility might be received?
Even Democrats have better sense.
If you say so.
What of the Russian Empire following WW2?
What about it?
Would you not have formed NATO and opposed it?
How does a voluntary union of nations, in and of itself, preclude any Libertarian philosophy?
Had it taken Europe, do you think the US would be far behind?
I have no reason to believe that the Soviet Union would have been able to seize, let alone maintain positive control, of all of Europe. Especially not with - as I would orchestrate - a massive economic campaign being waged against them.
An invasion of North America? Christ, they could barely feed themselves!
Why bother with the American Revolution?
We were seeking freedom from an oppressive state. What does that have to do with a hypothetical bid by Mother Russia to (apparently) take over the world?
We could have just waited for the Canadians to revolt and liberate us.
C'mon.
The Constitution is a document whose meaning is constatnly [sic] changing.
Unfortunately, that's true. We have Republicans and Democrats at the helm - what else can one say?
Which interpretation do you follow?
I follow the interpretation inuring to that which political philosophers call negative-value rights, in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally written: this is to say that it provides a framework within which which we are left alone to pursue our own interests, as opposed to having a paternal governing structure bestow upon us permissioned activity.
As you might imagine - and, if you've read the Federalist Papers (a favorite of mine), you'll know the writers of the Constitution did - political consensus doesn't become a quagmire within a political philosopy embracing negative-value rights. On the other hand, the positive-value rights brought forth increasingly in the last hundred years is increasingly, and may ultimately be, a recipe for disintegration; it is becoming impossible to achieve even remote consensus on rights, with debates taking the form of what rights should shift to what groups, who they're to be taken from, and who should pay throughout the process.
And pretending it is perfect is silly.
Who said it's perfect? I can list at least three political thinkers who've pointed out faults (and potential solutions) to Constitutional loopholes and philosophical disconnects.
It was written by MEN, not gods.
You are correct, Laz. It was written by men. It was not written by gods. That's right.
The original version provided for and recognized slavery. How Libertarian is that?
It was a fixture of the times. The mere existence of an amendment feature doesn't, to me, suggest that the spirit of the Constitution was intended to be subject to change; it only signifies the Framers' recognition that they couldn't anticipate the many changes - technologically, economically, internationally - that lay ahead.
Which reality are you speak of? Mine recognizes the usefulness and validity of mutual defense treaties.
I'm sure they can be useful. They're certainly valid, as they, well, exist. I don't have anything, conceptually, against NATO or the UN, although I wouldn't support sending our boys to die for someone else's problems or garrisoning our troops all over the world. Nor do I believe that my country's future should be inextricably bound with the economic health of, say, Burundi.
As for the other measures such alliances bring - in general, sure, why not?
You might not like the game of nations, but it is played whether you like it or not.
Yup.
And there are those who claim to be Libertarians whom I cannot distinguish from socialists.
The operant word there is "claim." At any rate, do you have an example?
Will the real Libertarians please stand up?
I'm not sure of the exact sentiment you're expressing here, but I'll say this: it's far more likely, from what I've read, that either (a) you don't understand what you're hearing, or (b) your 'sources' aren't Libertarian...than that there's that much wiggle room within Libertarian political platforms.
That "police protection" bit is rather radical in my book...
Not necessarily. You use the example of mutual defense treaties on the international stage; what makes you think that similar such groups wouldn't come together in communities? In fact, I'm sure you're aware of the concept of community watch groups. More likely a state would tell counties or communities that they have to have some sort of a police force, whether provided for by the state or themselves, and that if it was proprietary, it would have to meet certain standards, coordinate with state-funded police forces, etc.
...this means you are fair game for anyone with a knife or gun if you can't afford protection.
Surely you know where we stand on personal defense and, in particular, on gun control. That takes care of that issue, for the most part.
I doubt anyone, Libertarian or not, would consider THAT a desirable state of affairs.
Ridiculously oversimplified. For economic reasons, the number of communities opting out of state-provided police protection would be low indeed, if only because the state would be able to provide such at scales grossly undercutting what a private police force would cost.
And buying justice? I think not.
LOL. How is choosing to arbitrate or mediate a dispute "buying" justice?
I much prefer to take my chances with a state judge who might possibly be unbiased and who, if he allows himself to be bought by the other party, goes to jail.
If your feelings are that strong, I urge you to check your brokerage account paperwork as soon as possible; the various SROs overwhelmingly stipulate that barring fraud, disputes arising in the conduct of business must be directed to mediation.
Goodness! You may already have bought justice!
LPS5 |
