For my Libertarian friends

No sh*t Rob. When did I say an unpaid military benefits people? How did the discussion change to that. A free market punishes those who act irrationally. If a businessman is racist and refuses to higher blacks, his company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Oh dear, calm down.  No, if a businessman is racist and refuses to hire blacks, he might be at an advantage in the South.  And vice-versa (ever been a white person and go into a black barbershop?)  The free market does not punish those who act irrationally.  It often benefits them.  That's why "CRAZY KOO-KOO" ideas sometimes hit the jackpot.  But I didn't bring this up.  You did.  Your first red sentences on this post, actually.  What I am saying is this: A free market economy is good, but a donation-funded military is horrible.  My views about the former don't suffer because I reject your views on the latter.


Political opinion is different than rationality. I assume people are rational on the whole. Yes I'm well aware of how they are not, but overall I think you can say man is a rational creature. Why are people unwilling to ever cut the defense budget? They like a good defense.

Are we going to beat this into the ground? You and I disagree on this. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind. I'm being honest there. My mind will either be changed by a much more eloquent argument than you're going to post on this forum, or via some internal change in my value system. I doubt I'm going to change your mind. I love arguing, and I'm too stubborn to stop if you continue. However, we haven't touched any new ground in at least the last 2 posts, nor here.  That's a shame, Pat.  You're a guy who just likes to hear himself talk.  Do you have fun laying down insults Rob? I like arguing. As do you. For every post I make you have responded, so I think you equally like to hear yourself talk. I've thought long and hard about this issue. After pouring hours upon hours of intensive thought into this do you expect me to be swayed by the meager arguments you are offering here? That's not to insult your arguments. I think you make cogent ones for the medium, but seriously 2 sentence rebuttals are hardly the things to have you even reconsider fundamental beliefs.
Do you feel insulted?  If you like to argue but don't care about other people's opinions (as you've admitted more than once), then you are a guy who just likes to hear himself talk.  If you take it as an insult, then perhaps you should change yourself.  The difference between you and me is that I care what you have to say and would want you to retain respect for me after the debating is over.  You, however, could give a sh*t either way.  Am I right?  As for 2 sentence rebuttals, I have changed my mind over those before (my opinion on school vouchers was changed from 2 sentences).  Why do I have to write a novel when I can say what I want to say in ten words?  Don't you appreciate economy? 

I asked a question; I didn't tell you to back down. You ask many questions and make many statements.  I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

2) What else does?  If I really have to answer that, then I pity you.  I know you won't care about that. Yes you do. Sorry let me rephrase actually, What matters besides the safety of you and the ones you love?  I care about the safety and prosperity of this nation.  I mourn when children who aren't even born are snuffed out.  I know you can't fathom caring about anyone outside of your circle, but there you are. I seem to care about others, thus my primary arguments against a large military budget. Tying this back to the main point then, if those people are safe why does it matter about the freeloaders? (In case you forgot that was why I asked that question i the first place)  Because people won't be safe and their rights will be usurped by an external force.  You can imagine they will be okay all you like, but you have no evidence to show that they will.  You have your own guess based on zero data (and a poor understanding of American psychology, I might add). How does that statement in anyway relate to freeloaders? Also, won't American psychology be significantly different than it currently is in a free scoiety? YOu seem to be perpetually ignoring that.  My argument here is that if enough freeloaders exist, our military will be poor, and all of us will suffer the consequences.  You ask "Won't American psychology be significantly different than it currently is in a free society?"  My answer to that is "I don't know."  We've never had such a thing, so unless you can show that it will be different, you are at a loss in this discussion.  Burden of proof is still on you, dude.

Of course you won't give a bum a large sum of money, but that's totally different. Suppose the parking meter was $1000 dollars. You still get your use independently of the guy coming after you and using the surplus. This isn't a wealth transfer, you still get your service.  If the parking meter was $1000, I wouldn't park there.  Oh yes I guess not. My question is answered.

Okay, so I'll assume that for whatever reason not enough people donate to keep our military competitive. Is it right that the payers are slaughtered by a foreign army? Well obviously, no it is not. Does the moral responsibility rest on those who did not donate? No it does not. It rests on the invaders. People are not obliged to put up for your defense, nor their own. And this talk of moral responsibility keeps us all alive how? Is that what moral responsibility is supposed to do?  No.  That's what a military is supposed to do.  Which is what we were talking about in the first place.Yes it is what its supposed to do. Don't see what that has to do with anything.  My point was you talk about moral responsibility like it matters in this scenario.  Immoral forces who would visit evil upon us don't care about that- they shall take and destroy.  If we don't make a reasonable attempt to defend ourselves as a country, we may as well be at fault for our own demise.  Please note the collective pronouns here.We can make a reasonable attempt to defend ourselves. That would be defending. My point is you can't justify immoral actions just because you imagine its the only way to provide for your own security.  Keep throwing around the "immoral" word if you like.  It shows you aren't paying attention.  I don't consider taking money from people who expect certain rights in the course of protecting those rights as theft.  You do.  Furthermore, you can try to make this personal if you want, but it isn't just my own security.  It's everyone's.

Am I cool with that? What does that mean? I'm cool with the logic of it, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it happening. Your implication that if something could possibly fail then it useless to try is ridiculous and you know it.   Wow...this coming from someone who made a remark about my possible eloquence...um...Would you build a house out of bananas?  Why not?  By golly, you should try it!  Yes Rob that is the sense in which I meant it.

I don't reject something because it could possibly fail.  I reject your idea of a donation-funded military because I am sure it will fail.  You've given absolutely no reason why it would work other than "Well, it's in people's best interest, so they'll do it."

Why does the free market work? Jesus Christ you act like people acting in their best interest isn't the foundation of our system here.  Lots of people don't act in their own best interest.  That's why we have a plethora of addictions.  If these people were in a "vacuum," no big deal right?  But if you have people depending on these addicts, what happens?  In your system of military funding, everyone is depending on everyone else's "goodwill."  How is that any different from collectivism except for providing a bigger possibility that we get our asses kicked eventually? In your system you depend on other's "goodwill" by hoping enough people will serve in the military for it to be large enough to protect you. Our entire economic system depends on others "goodwill" through division of labour and assumed willingness to trade. That has nothing to do with collectivism. Your proposition that people must give money to provide for defense is collectivist.  Ah!  But this is where free market principles come into play.  We provide enough incentives to make being a soldier attractive to those with an inclination to do it.  It's what we already do, quite frankly.  Look at how many people want to join the military!  My brother tried to join last year and was put on a waiting list!  No draft necessary.  Yes- people must give money and that is collectivistic.  I never said it wasn't.  The label doesn't bother me on this subject one bit.  I told you some time ago that collectvism is only justified when a group's survival is at stake.  But the label does bother you.  Try again since you missed what I said: Our positions are almost the same.  We need a military and we need it funded.  The difference is my position allows for little chance of takeover from foreign powers, and yours has a larger possibility for foreign powers to wreak havoc.  Both depend on money from citizens.

Yes, but the method of collection is very different and that is important. The same free market principles are at work in donation. You're acting as if there's no benefit to supporting a military. Why did people donate and fund Tartar Lamb II? Because people were already fans of Toby Driver and wanted music.  Music.  Entertainment.  A non-essential for life and liberty.  Did I not say people would buy a Playstation 4?  Pat, if you can't read, I won't argue with you any further.

Here is my quote, from the beginning of this post and in blue:

Epignosis wrote: Yes I agree that if we had a military run by donations, it is in people's best interest to donate.  No one is arguing that.

We are discussing something that is crucial for everyone, and that if everyone doesn't pay for it, then no one gets it.  That simple.





You keep forgetting this: When it comes to national security, everyone has to care.  When lots of people don't (and trust me, lots of people won't when it comes to the military), we're f**ked. Sorry don't take arguments on your trust. I disagree, and I don't understand from where your position derives. I'm not forgetting that (though the literal statement is not true). I understand it. You seem unconcerned about the issue of theft because you don't see it as such. This is really the locus of our disagreement. So I'm supposed to take your argument based on your trust?  You keep assuring me people will donate to a military because it's in their best interest.  You've not proven it.  Why should anyone believe you? I wasn't so rash as to say trust me though. I don't expect people to believe me from the arguments I put forth here, that would be stupid. I would think it might provide an impetus to think about the issue themselves though. Do I have to prove that donating to the military is in one's best interest? You clearly believe that already and a proof is not needed. So what is it that I have to prove, that people act in their self-interest? For that I point to the success of capitalism. If people don't, my system would have collapsed long before it got to the point where it would make sense to introduce donation style taxation.

Again, you don't read.  Here's my quote again:

Epignosis wrote: Yes I agree that if we had a military run by donations, it is in people's best interest to donate.  No one is arguing that.

You have to prove that people would act within their best interests with respect to the military.  Of course people want to make money.  People want to buy nice things.  But you are forgetting something.  Capitalism works especially well because we are loaded with suckers.  People who get addicted to products, yes?  People with no sense nor self-control.  That's how casinos operate, yes?  So here is what you must prove in plain speak: Prove that most (70% or more, to be generous) people will consistently contribute  money to our military year after year.  Then we can talk.

And logic doesn't stop bullets. Fear doesn't change logic either. Oh yes it does.  That's why we are where we are now.