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.

Anarchy is a the result of free market capitalism? Based on what? Your say-so? It's not utopia, nothing's perfect, but it's a lot better than the current corporatist state. The level playing field doesn't exist because the majority of the citizenry is too brainwashed or distracted to understand they're getting hosed.

What? What are you talking about? A gang-infested neighbourhood? What does that have to do with anything?

No central power = anarchy. I propose a small government, minimal in size, limited. It's not "no central power", it is a small amount of central power...do you understand the difference between something existing and something not existing? You haven't shown that yet.

You're arguing against anarchy, not what I advocate. In a free market banks can "regulate" all they like. If they don't provide value to consumers, they'll go out of business. I'm not the one who doesn't understand the difference. You're arguing either because you really cannot see the difference between small government free-market capitalism, and anarchism - or you're pretending not to see the difference so you can keep arguing against something I haven't said, and I don't advocate. Why you would do that? My only guess is because you have nothing to refute small government free market capitalism's validity as a viable alternative. I agree. Of course, your definition of police, military, and contract enforcement differs from mine. Somehow you've confused my proposing a different kind of policing, military, and enforcement than what we have now as being advocating none of it and supporting anarchy. Maybe eventually you'll get it. Property rights, laws, contract enforcement, law enforcement, courts, military. Not top-down bureaucratic iterations of those - as you like to defend, but variations, scaled down, a public sector restricted in size. That's despotism...we're closer to that now than we would be with far less government intervention in the economy. Not to us, no. But we're not everyone. To the Nazis it was very ethical. The world extends beyond your front doorstep. What funds? I agree, you've described anarchy. Good job. What this has to do with what I propose is beyond me. My "anarchy solution"? Have you even read my replies? Let me know when you have an argument against small government free market capitalism. You're a walking contradiction. Re-read what you just wrote there. You're going to pull off a coup d'etat? Good luck with that. Let me know when you want to talk about free market capitalism. Still arguing against anarchy...not what I propose. You're wasting your own time here. You're doing a great job arguing against positions I do not hold. Eventually you will clue in? Maybe? Then you don't know what anarchy is. Anarchy is zero government. That is NOT what I advocate. That should be clear enough for you to understand. Define: success. How many years was it before the many great inventions that benefited society came into being? There are more great inventions to come. They aren't held back by years of unsuccessful attempts. Eventually its figured out and done right, and we all benefit. Anarchy. Anarchy. See above. Nothing ever exists...until it does. And "someone always comes on top and no one is there to stop him" is a concern in an anarchic society. Not a free market capitalist society.

Still waiting for what? I replied, it takes a while, yes. I'm replying in order. Eventually I'll reply to them all (I hope).

Your point? "Stereotypical small-town Albertan libertarian"...pick that up from a road sign on the Hanlon? Or maybe some political screed on a flyer you found in front of Trappers? Libertarian? Absolutely. Naive? Just the opposite. Charming? Sure.

Anarchy = no government. What I propose = minimal government.

Define: security. And how far into debt are you willing to go to somehow reach it?

That's just it...we spend billions and then they get old, then we have to spend billions again...and then again...and then again...it never ends. There are cheaper alternatives out there. Diplomacy, trade...they may not be the panacea, but they're a great start, and cheaper than endless amounts of toys.

Absolutely, 100% agree with Friedman here. Not sure what your point is. Like him, I don't see the need to waste money on military hardware forever and ever amen. Spend some yes. Ideally none at all...but I agree with him...there's no ideal solution for that, at least not yet. As I've said, we need some kind of minimal government that includes some form of defense. But not spending to the tune of billions just because.