kward

Exactly.

Over-simplification.

National defense is fine, as long as it's not allowed to fester into some kind of world police, and we're not wasting money on hardware we don't need. A humble foreign policy is best.

How would it lead to that?

Elusive? I'm not elusive at all, but this imaginary thing called "security". That's elusive. It's all in your head. A small, minimal government can have a military, just not a wasteful one. And again, there are other ways to enhance defense, diplomacy, friendship, trade...these are a big help.

I carpool, and let someone else incur the costs of upkeep.

There is no magic number. What equipment, how many soldiers? Good questions...keep asking them...point those questions at the idea of buying jets and we'll be on the same page. How many jets? What kind? To what end? Now you're getting it...there is no magical solution out there, and no number solves the problem. One thing's for sure. We don't need to waste billions of dollars. And one way we avoid wasting money is to ask those questions, before we jump to knee-jerk solutions and get all wrapped up in gear porn.

Over-simplification.

Yes, nuking the Canadian natural resources is just what I've said. And yes, of course it's 65 jets for now. FOR NOW...

Your point?

You don't understand alliances. You've described befriending a nation for the benefit of both. A friendship is fine. You can cut that off when it no longer benefits you. An alliance comes with obligations be it military or others. They are to be avoided unless you want to allow another nation to have a say over your own affairs.

More like it takes time to go through and reply to it all. Patience.

Policing is not a "thing" only when the government does it. Do you understand that? Policing is not just the current top-down expensive bureaucratic machine we have now. Policing is defined many different ways. Yes, citizens can form their own police forces. And yes, it might be better than the current system. But again, for the umpteenth time...I advocate a small government free market capitalist society...one where the government should play a role in policing of some kind. How many times do I have to say this/explain this before you understand? Do you understand that "citizens" forming "their own police forces" is not the same thing as "removing all policing"? But don't get confused and jump to the conclusion that my preferred system would include citizens forming their own private gangs. That is not ever what I have proposed. You have to remember too, that a government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people...that is NOT what we have now. In a free market capitalist society the government would be by, for, and of the people. The government would be the people, and vise versa...law enforcement would be an extension of that...and that is not anarchy, and that is not the current system. Have you got this figured out yet? Because you say so? How about understanding what I'm actually saying instead of constantly trying to put false labels on what I'm saying? Mercenaries? Give me a break. Anarchy. Anarchy. Anarchy. Eliminating the power of government? No. Limiting? Yes. See the difference? You probably do, but you won't admit it. Not sure why. Anarchy. Anarchy. Because you say so? Great, I say that's ridiculous. And? Good one. Again based on nothing but your say-so. There's no logic or reason in this scenario you've laid out. Why would a free market capitalist society lead to anarchy? Good thing I don't support the idea of hiring mercenaries. a.k.a. nothing...a guy owning guns to protect his property is not a militia. It's a guy owning guns to protect his property. Jumping to conclusions seems to be a hobby of yours. What are you talking about? A couple thousand soldiers? Where are you getting this from? I've never mentioned 2000 soldiers. But keeping a standing army, or some kind of defense...yes, that might be useful. Does that mean I advocate throwing money away wastefully on toys? No. There has to be limits - lest we go broke trying to protect ourselves. Then there's nothing left to protect. I haven't said you did. But you're not the only person who wants jets in this thread. And these jets...they're bloody expensive. And there's no end in sight to purchasing them. You buy a bunch, they get old, you have to buy more, and so on and so on. Not to mention fuel costs, infrastructure, personnel...it just goes on and on. You can have a military without wasting untold billions of dollars in the process. A solution exists somewhere...my suggestion is we don't waste money buying toys. If there's a cheaper alternative, I'm all ears. But in the mean time, embracing diplomacy and trade is a big help, and a form of defense just like any other. This is the point...it's never enough. So, you put a limit on it. "Safety" is arbitrary...the definition means different things to different people. One person says one fighter jet is enough to feel safe, another says 10, another says 5000. The point is, safety is an idea...it's not ever something you can achieve. It's all in your head. So, it makes no sense to spend billions on fighter jets. Some drones? Maybe. Some nukes. Maybe. Soldiers? Probably. Other toys...who knows? The point is not to go bankrupt trying to achieve some kind of "feeling" that really doesn't mean anything. Anarchy. Anarchy. Anarchy.

All good things come to those who wait. I reply in order. Eventually I get to them all...I hope.

Over-simplifying economics, business, and geopolitics seems to be your stock-in-trade.