Hello! Do I belong here?

[socalserf]

Hello Tornos, I'd like to give you late but hardy welcome to the forum.
(My laptop was down for a while.)
While I'm of the self-government out look, I'm more than ready to make common cause with small government folks. Frankly, we aren't numerous, and I say any friend of Liberty is a friend of mine.

I think you'll get allot out of reading 'Molon Labe' and 'Hologram of Liberty', I know I did.

As you might have guessed I'm in SoCal, have you been to an Appleseed?
We have been to a couple of San B. locations and we have shoots at MIKE RAAHAUGE's near Corona every couple of months.
http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php

There might be no better preperation for Wyoming than to become a Rifleman.

[rhodges]

But it would be quite the impressive, well funded, organized militia indeed that would be necessary to defeat a modern army.

I have to wonder if it would be necessary to actually face an army in battle in order to defeat it.  Logistics, morale, funding, and the need for a soldier to "have a good time" suggest interesting possibilities of alternate resistance.

I'm not sure I can even imagine private persons owning and maintaining jet fighters, tanks or naval warships on a large scale.

That is a good point, since these military items have great offensive capabilities, defensive attributes (altitude, armor, distance), and the tremendous cost that prevents regular people from having them.  As you say.  All I can say in response is that the tremendous cost per unit would necessarily require the government to decide its priorities when allocating thousands of machines against tens of millions of targets.  Jet fighters suck fuel, parts, and maintenence hours like a bottomless bucket.  Warships are pretty much limited to the coastline plus some XX miles inland.  Tanks are pretty strong, but they also require plenty of fuel and maintenance.  I also seem to remember from "somewhere" that tanks really need dismounted infantry for full protection.  The idea being that "naked" tanks have tactical weaknesses.

Guerillas can be an annoyance to a modern army, yes.  They can even repel a modern army through attrition, given time.  But at what cost to the homeland/population in the process?

I guess that depends.  I am reminded of several cases however.  In recent history, consider Afghanistan versus the British, the United States versus the British, Vietnam (North and South) against the United States, Afghanistan against the Russians, Iraq against the US, and Afghanistan against the US.  I am sure this is just a small subset of the bigger picture, just one that comes easily to my mind.

And what does the "cost to the homeland/population" really matter when freedom, liberty, or autonomy is at stake?

[ZooT_aLLures]

rhodges,

Yeah you got a good grasp on what it's about.........................the only way to fight a modern military force is via guerilla tactics..................because it costs the modern military force millions of dollars a day just to operate......................

Heck...............we're gonna' get stomped in afganistan because they can do for pennies what it costs thousands or millions of dollars for the US military to do, and in reality, all they "need" to do is keep the US government spending big bucks on nothing...................moderns wars aren't won or lost on the battlefield, but instead they're won or lost at the loan office...................

[adambomb]

And what does the "cost to the homeland/population" really matter when freedom, liberty, or autonomy is at stake?

All the same, I'd like to go for none!  Well, that isn't possible, even with a minarchy a military would have to be funded.  So then I suppose your choices are either some form of taxation or else some "acceptable" level of destruction.  Now consider that every $1 of explosives can do thousands of dollars worth of damage.  Destruction can be dealt out with great efficiency.  I would consider paying to have a military around, if for nothing else but insurance, to be a pretty good bargain.

I'm not quite up to par on my history, but what was wrong with the early American system?  As I see it, one of the main drives of our current expeditionary heavy-handed state is the military industrial complex.  As Ron Paul pointed out in his book "The Case for Gold" the government would not have the required unlimited supply of "money  " for these exploits if sound money were present.  Give congress a real, limited budget, and they won't be able to go showboating around anymore!

I know my view is biased, but as I see it a military is to a free nation what a gun is to an free man. 

[socalserf]

I'm not quite up to par on my history, but what was wrong with the early American system?  As I see it, one of the main drives of our current expeditionary heavy-handed state is the military industrial complex.

That's about the way I see it.
The reason for the National Guard was that the Feds didn't have enough control of the state militias. They would start a war and when it wasn't popular not everyone would attend.
(You can just imagine their embarrassment!)
Ultimately the early system was locally autonomous, and this is poison to the power mad control freaks who want to rule us.

[kylben]

I don't think the necessity of defending the "country" is disputed by anyone.  (I put "country" in scare quotes, because anarchy implies that the nature of that entity would be different in many respects).  The question is: how would that defense be implemented?  It's not necessary to jump to the conclusion that a geographically monopolized, over-arching government with the power to unilaterally tax and with its hands on the levers of power that allow it to expand is the only way to do that.  I'm of the mind that that is something that can be figured out later, once the mindset of self-governance has been adjusted to for a while.

Micheal Z Williamson is a good anarchist/milfic author, and his book "Freehold" examines in some detail both how an anarchist society could organize itself, and how it could militarily defend itself against a very large well-equipped and ruthless army.  There's some facts of their situation that could never apply to our problem, but some of the principles are good food for thought.  And, it is an excellent millitary sci-fi book on its own merits.

Somebody else pointed out that we're all about practical solutions here, and I'm all for that.  I like these abstract hypothetical philosophical arguments, but I'm here primarily for the can-do (and will-do) attitude.

[socalserf]

Micheal Z Williamson is a good anarchist/milfic author, and his book "Freehold" examines in some detail both how an anarchist society could organize itself, and how it could militarily defend itself against a very large well-equipped and ruthless army.  There's some facts of their situation that could never apply to our problem, but some of the principles are good food for thought.  And, it is an excellent millitary sci-fi book on its own merits.

Somebody else pointed out that we're all about practical solutions here, and I'm all for that.  I like these abstract hypothetical philosophical arguments, but I'm here primarily for the can-do (and will-do) attitude.

Freehold is very good reading!
We have talked about it here;
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=1854.0

[kylben]

socalserf,  yeah, I started a thread on it too, a couple of years ago.  It think it got rolled into the one you linked to.

Zoot, and others, this is a great blog on 5th generation warfare, among other closely related topics of interest to many here

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

Read deep into the archives, its more of a "big picture" kind of blog, any one or two articles only give a tiny slice of it. The blogger is a highly trained intelligence analyst (or so he claims, but he sounds credible).

[elk]

I know my view is biased, but as I see it a military is to a free nation what a gun is to an free man.

Actually a military is to a "free nation" what a sheriff is to a free man.  A free "nation" would be a guerilla nation.  Trained, and skilled and organized at the local level so that any incursion can be rapidly and decisively diverted and if necessary, put down like rabid dogs once the fuel runs down.

Think on it mate, your kids, "our" kids today haven't even got a grasp, nevermind a firm one, on chemistry or physics, and just forget even simple old ballistics (hell, they're starting to cancel dodgeball, the next generation won't even know how to throw rocks, if their parents are foolish enough to submit them to the public school indoctrination camps.)  Its the fact that parents are gullible, or just plain dumb or lazy, and their kids are raised by said parents, in union with the government... what exactly are you expecting EXCEPT the visible results?!

We can't fight an enemy army because our people are dumber than those rag heads in arabia that so many on the news just love to hate.  A well educated populace, with a firmly reasoned, not superstitious code of ethics or morals (call it what you want) ready to fight when necessary and ready to mix a few chemicals when a fight would result in defeat, would be FAR deadlier than a bunch of nukes manned by a bunch of guys who only know what their leaders have told them.

There is no such nation on the Earth today.  If I hear of one, I'll be sure to inform you folks... it will be part of my dear john as I depart these shores for that nation the moment I verify that it isn't just a hoax.

[ZooT_aLLures]

I'm not quite up to par on my history, but what was wrong with the early American system?

Ask yourself what Shay's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion were about, and then answer that question for yourself...........

The fact is the declaration of independance was written by folks intent on ruling themselves, and the constitution, which formed federal government was written by folks intent on ruling others..............
Now............do you see anything wrong with that?

[adambomb]

Elk--
Taking what you've said into consideration, I think you really pointed out the flaw in regards to a military being to a free nation what a gun is to a free man.  Naturally, a free man would have total control over his gun, whereas a free nation would not necessarily have total control over their military.  Clearly, if a nation is to be truly free, and have a military, they somehow must have total control over the military.  A military made of the people, a militia, I agree, would accomplish that.  At the same time, that militia must be capable of defending against attacks from other nations.  And as you've mentioned, with kids barely capable of throwing rocks, that's a big source of the problem.  Along those lines, I've always thought it would be really cool to have my own howitzer.  I imagine an old Soviet one could probably be acquired for the price of a nice SUV...  

There was a period of about 135 years where there was a national guard, but no army; the army being formed to meet the needs of the revolutionary war.  Perhaps an option?  I don't know, looks like we can really agree on the problem, and also that there isn't a clear cut winner of a solution...

Zoot--
Thanks for the reminder, that was really what I was looking for.  I need to study these things more in-depth...my specialties have always been more in the technical arts, I've only recently taken any interest in history.  Those examples really bring out the deficiencies in how the constitution was written.  Perhaps the next go-round we could get it "closer" to right?  At least it's refreshing to see that the bastards in charge today are no different than the bastards in charge back then. 

[Tornos]

Shay's Rebellion occurred before the Constitution was ratified, so I'm not sure it can be a very effective indictment against that particular document.  The Whiskey Rebellion... was the federal government's first enforcement of an unjust tax.  The fact that the Whiskey Tax only lasted a dozen years, and was largely unable to be collected, doesn't really matter to the principle of the thing.  You're right that it was a travesty and a precursor to the wide range of travesties we have today.  Hamilton was always an oligarch in his heart, and Washington should have known better.

This Freehold book sounds interesting.  I'll have to order a copy, if mainly for entertainment value.  It would be a major step in the right direction if our military were confined to state militias during peacetime... since states don't have the power to declare wars, we could avoid a lot of foreign entanglements.  The federal government would then need to sway the states before any major conflict could be waged.  Sounds much better than what we have now, and states are large enough to be capable of funding and training modern defensive forces that would be up to the task of repelling invaders.

We need to return to being a confederation of sovereign states, tied together by voluntary association in a loose federal alliance with very specific, enumerated and limited powers.

[Tornos]

Hello Tornos, I'd like to give you late but hardy welcome to the forum.

As you might have guessed I'm in SoCal, have you been to an Appleseed?
We have been to a couple of San B. locations and we have shoots at MIKE RAAHAUGE's near Corona every couple of months.
http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php

There might be no better preperation for Wyoming than to become a Rifleman.

Thanks for the welcome!

I hadn't heard of the Appleseeds, but after looking at the website, this does look like something I'd be interested in.  I'll make plans to attend one as soon as I can afford the ammunition and gear.  Will a mini-14 do the job?  I've got to admit I've never tried hitting anything at 500 yards with it.

[elk]

Actually the only reason the whiskey tax was dealt away with, is PRECISELY because it was hard to collect, and made men with guns and homes VERY uppity (remember, back then men actually had functional testicles, that produced that testosterone stuff that helps men remember that spines are for holding heads up and back straight.  That and neither men nor women of that era were mentally neutered... today that can be a wee bit of an issue.)

That aside, there have been recent cases, with my personal favorite being the CB radio one (what can I say I've become a big fan of CB, and might get into VHF sooner or later, if more people use it in other places other than just maritime applications.)  Nobody submitted info or payment for "registration" to use CB... response was still too low to give them any real power over CB'ers when the fee was dealt with, and eventually the magnanimous government, knowing that they had to pretend they had power, else power perceived might be no power at all.. they "did away" with the "unnecessary fees."  You have to go through old CB radio shops and chat with the owners to actually get stories about that, apparently they seem to remember it better than most.

[kylben]

Washington should have known better.

"If only Uncle Joe knew!"