Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: National Defence
Message-ID: <786@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 16:09:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.786
Posted: Thu Oct 10 16:09:16 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 05:36:42 EDT
References: <3780@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 58
Summary: 

In article <3780@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>
>In article <145@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>>I think that the state is necessary. I think that the state should be
>>responsible for only one thing -- the defence of the rights of citizens.
>
>There are two interpretations of the phrase, "national defense".  One
>is, defense OF the nation; the other, defense AGAINST nations.  The one
>with which we need be concerned is surely the latter?  Why must there
>be nations in the first place?  All that is obviously necessary is that
>there be legitimate organizations of sufficient scope and capability
>to handle any probable threats to rights and liberty.
>
	The issue here is not really *national* defence, but right's
defence, which includes, but is not limited to, "national" defence.
The defence of rights at the personal level and the defence at the
extended group level are similar in nature, differing mainly in
*scope*. The problem with "private" protection agencies is essentially
one of conflict of interest. The loyalty of such organizations is to
those who pay, thus giving the people with the most money almost
absolute power. Furthermore, protection for profit is unreliable since
the protectors may decide the "other" side can pay better and sell
out. This is why these activities at least *must* be paid for by
*public* funds, and be attached to the public for thier source of
authority. No-one has ever come up with a better way of limiting how
partizan these organizations become.
>
>If you must have a State, there are several non-coercive models to
>choose from.  Take Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" model, where service
>is voluntary (but you must have served to vote).  Or one where the 
>gov't gets its budget by inflating--$10 billion a year, fixed in 
>absolute dollar amount forever.  In times of present danger that
>was clear to the people and not just the politicians, voluntary
>contributions and service enrollments would rise.  Or how about
>gov'ts that were organizationally similar to present ones, but
>non-geographic, so that you could change your "citizenship" by
>calling a toll-free number?  I'd subscribe to New Hampshire for sure.
>
	Well, if you extended the franchise to anyone who went into
government service not just the military I *might* be willing to try
the Heinlein model. Restricting the vote to military veterans is a
sure-fire way of producing an aggressive, militaristic empire!
Everyone with a vote would think that the military approach to problem
solving was the best! The problem with non-geopgraphical systems is
one of jurisdiction. If A steals all my belongings, but belongs to a
different "nation", who has jurisdiction? What if his "nation" decides
to only provide protection for its citizens and refuses to take action
on the matter, and that if *my* nation takes action they will have to
move to protect thier citizen. We already have this problem to some
degree, but at least the geopraphical approach to jurisdiction means
that whil A is in my nations area, my nation has the jurisdiction to
take action against him.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa