There's a lot of talk these days about substantially cutting the federal budget. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, State's Rights advocates, and Conservatives in general talk a lot about confining the federal government to its Constitutionally authorized functions - which would drastically reduce the federal budget. But when it comes to defense, many of them are reluctant to even touch the federal budget.
So in order for the defense budget to be in compliance with the Constitution, federal non-navy defense sponsorship must be reduced to zero. That would take a big chunk out of the deficit.
So what is the militia? Contrary to what you have likely been taught to believe, the militia is separate from the army. The term “militia” is simply a term to describe the armed populace. Among the few powers delegated to Washington by means of the Congress is the authority ”To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" and ”To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
When the militia needs to become involved in the defense of the United States as a whole, “The President shall be Commander in Chief … of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” The rest of the time, neither Congress nor the president has any say regarding the private defense force.
But what would a Constitutionally compliant defense look like in the modern age? Defense contractors would no longer be employed by the federal government, so the cost of artillery and military vehicles would be kept to reasonable levels by a competitive marketplace. The Bill of Rights guarantees that “arms” are readily available and in no way restricted. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Alarmists like to claim that ready availability of arms is dangerous. But strict liability for losses and damages for negligence and “collateral damage” would be maintained by a tort system that actually compensates victims and their estates. In addition to eliminating the tremendous costs associated with offensive military campaigns, such aggressors would need to pay all of the victims for damage to their person or property.
Article first appeared on Technorati: http://technorati.com/politics/article/private-defense-and-the-constitution/#ixzz1TguJcxeF
"in order for the defense budget to be in compliance with the Constitution, federal non-navy defense sponsorship must be reduced to zero"
ReplyDeleteThat's not correct. "No appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years" simply means that Congress must approve appropriations for military spending every two years, and money appropriated for military spending must be spent within two years.
If you think the Constitution was designed to cut off all military spending after two years then you are mistaken. The Revolutionary war lasted eight years. Do you really think the framers would limit Congress' ability to wage war to just two years?
"But what would a Constitutionally compliant defense look like in the modern age? Defense contractors would no longer be employed by the federal government."
The Constitution does not require private defence contractors in any way whatsoever.
Again, we are taught to mix "army" and "militia." Military spending by sovereign individuals is to be protected by the second amendment. The purpose was for the militia (free armed citizens) to greatly outweigh the strength of the federal army - in order to provide a check on the federal "government." A standing army was unthinkable - even in the context of the revolutionary war. A strong military does not require a federal military monopoly. In fact, as the founders were keenly aware, such a concentration of power inevitably produced tyrants and tyrannies.
ReplyDeleteA standing army may be a controversial subject in certain circles, but there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids it.
ReplyDeleteThere are not only standing armies or potential tyrants to worry about:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
Thomas Jefferson
If you can't get past the fundamentals, this discussion is a waste of time. Read the book.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, the paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted puts the topic into perspective:
"...England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of its government and the probity of its citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of its people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe."
"If you can't get past the fundamentals, this discussion is a waste of time."
ReplyDeleteYour opinions are not "fundamentals", whether you believe them to be or not.
Jefferson's description of the English government as "profligate" and lacking in virtue is not particularly relevant to his advice that we "take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
As I said, there are not only standing armies or potential government tyrants to worry about. Your "government evil" "free market good" mantra is too simplistic.
Institutionalized murder and institutionalized theft are the hallmarks of tyranny. In the civil world, thieves and murderers are swiftly reprimanded - without the bureaucracy.
ReplyDeleteTaxation isn't "institutionalised theft".
ReplyDeleteYou can write your own dictionary if you want to but there's no reason why others should have to use it, especially when it's wrong.
How would you define "theft," y?
ReplyDeleteTheft is unlawfully taking property from its owner.
ReplyDeleteMoney owed in tax lawfully belongs to the government.
A tax obligation represents a debt owed to the government.
The laws of nature supersede artificial laws (legislation) which, at best, seek to imitate real laws, and must be maintained via the threat or force of arms (by tyrants and - if lucky - politicians and bureaucrats with good intentions). The semantics you employ generate difficulties when one must decide which "government" is legitimate, and knowing when a "government" oversteps its bounds - which it will tend to do. Furthermore, by the time a tyranny is recognized as such, the surrender has already occurred, so the means of redress have been eliminated.
ReplyDelete"The laws of nature supersede artificial laws (legislation) which, at best, seek to imitate real laws, and must be maintained via the threat or force of arms".
ReplyDeleteYou mean, for example, private property laws (legislation), which must be maintained via the threat or force of arms?
Is that what you mean?
"The semantics you employ generate difficulties when one must decide which "government" is legitimate"
You mean the words I employ in accordance with the english language.
The legitimate form of government remains a controversial question. That's been my point from the beginning. For example you have one view, I have another.
"by the time a tyranny is recognized as such, the surrender has already occurred, so the means of redress have been eliminated"
The American Revolution. "No taxation without representation".
You make the common error of confusing criminal law with tort and contract law. The former originated with kings and currently utilizes vague and arbitrary concepts such as offences against "society." The latter deals with actual offenses against actual quantifiable victims. The former tends to be utilized by tyrants, the latter is a natural basis for civil society. Part B. "Property and Order" begins with a chapter outlining the "Nature of Property."
ReplyDeleteReal government is not controversial. It does not depend on one's point of view. It can not be written and revoked according to the whim of bureaucrats or majorities. It does not depend on language and consensus. It is spontaneous and automatic.
"You make the common error of confusing criminal law with tort and contract law."
ReplyDeleteNope.
"offences against "society."
Is that a word to be eliminated from the dictionary in your future utopia? Where the laws are made only by you and there is no debate to be had, ever?
"The former tends to be utilized by tyrants"
Nonsense.
"Part B. "Property and Order" begins with a chapter outlining the "Nature of Property"
Part B explains another facet of your political ideology.
"Real government is not controversial. It does not depend on one's point of view"
Translation: My beliefs are absolute, unquestionable, irrefutable, and necessarily true. There can be no disagreement, no debate. No alternative view is valid. In my utopia opposing views do not exist.
As the "Aquia" constitution says:
"We require [oblige] that every person within the freezone hold the following fundamental tenets to be the supreme law, inalterable, eternal, and sacred."
No discussion, no debate. The law can never be changed, ever, by anyone - no future generation can re-write the law even if they want to. All must treat it as "sacred" (imposition of religious belief).
"It is spontaneous and automatic"
If it is so "spontaneous" and "automatic", why doesn't it exist?
The purpose of this blog site is to discuss my book. You have not even read it. I don't care to debate your point of view, y. I am aware that there are many people like yourself who are stuck on politics. I have better ways to spend my time than dilly dallying about which political system is better or worse. I start from the presumption of private property and free markets - which not only "exist" but have been proven to be "valid" forms of government several orders of magnitude more civil than majoritarianism et al. If you do not recognize the most elementary market principles, y, then you certainly don't belong here. Come back when you are able to transcend politics.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution of Aquia, to which reference was made above, is a purely negative Constitution. That is, it abolishes the state and prohibits it from reemerging. It was designed for voluntary seasteading communities and Free Trade Zones of the future, and is based on the guiding principles of "Instead of Politics."
ReplyDeleteIt is very short in comparison with most Constitutions, but not short enough to cut and paste here - so here is the link:
http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Constitution_of_the_Autonomous_Freezone_of_Aquia