Can there be a case for conscription? – Get Rich Bang Babes
I am not encouraging conscription. I think, if there is anything not libertarian, it is that. It’s the worst of the worse violation of individual freedom.
I don’t like using force or fraud. Forcing me to kill someone else will be a ground for I don’t know, personal terrorism? He he he….
I am saying they have a case if people can vote. People that can vote gets something out of their right. I think they should contribute something too. For most people, the only thing they can contribute, is conscription, a light one at least.
Think about it.
Say you have a nation state.
That nation state is like a corporation right. A bunch of people come together and say, let’s defend our self together. This is a very natural arrangement. Group of people collectively defend themselves is far more cost effective than to each his own. If anything, defense is probably one of those things that should be done collectively than individually.
Defense pacts are big like nato. Businesses, however, are often done by initiative of individuals.
Who votes in corporation? Stockholders. Okay. Cool. Who votes in nation states? Well, citizens are sort of like stockholders of nation states co.
You live merrily and then the huns/mongols/russian/chinese/iranian/north korean/western colonialists/your favorite fearsome hordes appear bringing spears/nukes/guns/composite bows and stuffs.
Then another horde of people come to your city, saying they want to be citizens.
Okay, well, you and your buddies, decide that yea we could use more men to defend our cities.
So you basically tell those citizen wannabe a very basic version of civil 101. Our state is “owned” by the citizens. Once you own the state, you can decide how it’s run. It’s a process called voting.
“It’s like buying stocks,” you said.
Instead of contributing capitals, we need men to fight the evil hordes.
Basically we got conscription.
Makes sense right?
Those that decide the fate of an organization are owners of the organization. People become owners of an organization by contributing something. That contribution, in ancient time, is conscription.
Reasonable?
Sound like yes to me.
Imagine if the state cannot conscript anyone. Those hordes of “good guys” get partial ownership of your state for absolutely nothing. We have cradle to graves welfare parasites. We have hordes of refugees causing problems in western europe. All those problems come from people, being able to vote, without contributing anything.
But why conscription? Why not just pay soldiers. Well, paid soldiers are mercenaries. They are like employee. They don’t have “a stake” in the success of the state. They’re fine. But, quite often, it’s hard to guarantee loyalty of tons and tons of outsiders. Having people that have “a stake” is the easiest way to ensure loyalty. There is a reason that most soldiers in most nation states must be citizens.
Of course, in ancient time, only men can vote.
That leads to another important issue.
Decision makers are often stake holders. When humans organize themselves, they tend to make stake holders make decisions. It’s the efficient way.
A business, for example, is governed by the stake holders, not the employee. Imagine if a business is governed by the employee? Then the employee will simply vote to have infinite raise. Imagine if customers can vote? The customers will demand 0 price. In fact, that is what libertarian-ism is all about. Libertarians want all benefits of having government, mainly security and freedom, with 0 tax and no “non consensual obligation” like conscription.
What happens if you demand an ice cream shops that charge 0 for ice creams? You got no such shops. And for that reason, we have a serious under supplies of libertarian countries. There is no fully libertarian country in the world, nor can that be. As long as there is cost in running a good government, those that enjoy the benefit of such governments will have to contribute something.
There are many cheap icecream shops but there is none that distribute for free. The same way there are many countries that’s close enough to libertarian ideal, but none is in that “extreme” ideal. And may be that’s the way it’s supposed to be. It’s what a market “god” would decree, if anything.
In most business, the success and failure of the business will benefit stakeholders. If anything, that’s how we define stake holders besides “ownership”. A business is successful if and only if the stake holders are profited. The exception is when some guy buy huge buy option. He’s a stake holders but he doesn’t own and don’t vote. However, let’s ignore the complexity for a whole.
That’s why stake holders vote. The interests of employees and customers are protected mainly by other check and balance mechanism. That is, those are protected by fierce competition among businesses. The same way, interests of minorities groups and productive individuals, all over the world, are mainly protected by competition among states. Nation states embrace Westphalian sovereignty and effectively compete with each other to get the best capital, best people, smartest scientists, and so on and so on.
Imagine if an ancient nation state lose war? The nation state will have all the males castrated and slaughtered or enslaved. The females? Well, they can just pick the winner. If the states are winning, the males are the one getting more hot chicks and wealth and slaves.
The women? Women, in general, do not get “happier” the richer they are. To be happy means to be “sexy”. Women are sexy when they’re young and pretty. That’s irrelevant of the states’ success. That’s another reason why most states did not allow women to vote.
That’s why in ancient time, only males could vote. And that’s probably the origin of the idea that soldiers are “honorable” bla bla. That’s probably why many feminazis want women to be soldiers too. I think they are very anachronistic. But yea all those being soldiers is “honorable” while being a prostitute is “dishonorable” may comes from those political circumstances.
If anything, as a man, I would very much prefer being prostitute than a soldier. It’s kind of funny to me how some movements that supposedly promote “females’ interests” would prohibit prostitution and work hard so women can become soldiers. I bet they’re ugly. But we’re moving out of topic too much.
Is this a good idea to practice now? I don’t think so. Though I like to see things tried on smaller scale.
Next, I would explain why only land holders should vote. Or I would say, there is a strong case why it may be a good idea. Again, it’s been tried before. And there is a good reason why in ancient time, only males, or only land holders can vote.
I think if we want to start from scratch, and can do something “experimental”, we can consider things like that when setting up a new experimental nation states.
Conscription?
No no…..
I am not promoting conscription. I am promoting common sense behind ancient conscription. I think a new state should, like businesses, have certain things that may slightly violate libertarian principles.
1. A state must have owners (some investors, founders, and protectors would be a good stake holders. Those who do not have power or money can be “conscripted”)
2. A state must have income.
3. People that want to get benefits of living in those states should contribute something (so there will be some tax, perhaps visiting visa)
4. A state should have freedom to do what’s the owners think is necessary to max out the interest of the states (some libertarian things may be illegal, or heavily taxed, like drugs)
Let’s take a look at an almost libertarian state. The Minerva Reefs - Wikipedia
It almost works.
If only enough people are willing to defend the state it would work. If before starting the state some powerful country like UK, or PRC wants to be protector and got a stake, it would work too.
A closer to libertarian state is almost working in Minerva Reefs.
However, the libertarian there is too “purist” it fails after attack by a weak country called Tonga.
Libertarians should try again. This time, be a bit moderate.
I am not encouraging conscription. I think, if there is anything not libertarian, it is that. It’s the worst of the worse violation of individual freedom.
I don’t like using force or fraud. Forcing me to kill someone else will be a ground for I don’t know, personal terrorism? He he he….
I am saying they have a case if people can vote. People that can vote gets something out of their right. I think they should contribute something too. For most people, the only thing they can contribute, is conscription, a light one at least.
Think about it.
Say you have a nation state.
That nation state is like a corporation right. A bunch of people come together and say, let’s defend our self together. This is a very natural arrangement. Group of people collectively defend themselves is far more cost effective than to each his own. If anything, defense is probably one of those things that should be done collectively than individually.
Defense pacts are big like nato. Businesses, however, are often done by initiative of individuals.
Who votes in corporation? Stockholders. Okay. Cool. Who votes in nation states? Well, citizens are sort of like stockholders of nation states co.
You live merrily and then the huns/mongols/russian/chinese/iranian/north korean/western colonialists/your favorite fearsome hordes appear bringing spears/nukes/guns/composite bows and stuffs.
Then another horde of people come to your city, saying they want to be citizens.
Okay, well, you and your buddies, decide that yea we could use more men to defend our cities.
So you basically tell those citizen wannabe a very basic version of civil 101. Our state is “owned” by the citizens. Once you own the state, you can decide how it’s run. It’s a process called voting.
“It’s like buying stocks,” you said.
Instead of contributing capitals, we need men to fight the evil hordes.
Basically we got conscription.
Makes sense right?
Those that decide the fate of an organization are owners of the organization. People become owners of an organization by contributing something. That contribution, in ancient time, is conscription.
Reasonable?
Sound like yes to me.
Imagine if the state cannot conscript anyone. Those hordes of “good guys” get partial ownership of your state for absolutely nothing. We have cradle to graves welfare parasites. We have hordes of refugees causing problems in western europe. All those problems come from people, being able to vote, without contributing anything.
But why conscription? Why not just pay soldiers. Well, paid soldiers are mercenaries. They are like employee. They don’t have “a stake” in the success of the state. They’re fine. But, quite often, it’s hard to guarantee loyalty of tons and tons of outsiders. Having people that have “a stake” is the easiest way to ensure loyalty. There is a reason that most soldiers in most nation states must be citizens.
Of course, in ancient time, only men can vote.
That leads to another important issue.
Decision makers are often stake holders. When humans organize themselves, they tend to make stake holders make decisions. It’s the efficient way.
A business, for example, is governed by the stake holders, not the employee. Imagine if a business is governed by the employee? Then the employee will simply vote to have infinite raise. Imagine if customers can vote? The customers will demand 0 price. In fact, that is what libertarian-ism is all about. Libertarians want all benefits of having government, mainly security and freedom, with 0 tax and no “non consensual obligation” like conscription.
What happens if you demand an ice cream shops that charge 0 for ice creams? You got no such shops. And for that reason, we have a serious under supplies of libertarian countries. There is no fully libertarian country in the world, nor can that be. As long as there is cost in running a good government, those that enjoy the benefit of such governments will have to contribute something.
There are many cheap icecream shops but there is none that distribute for free. The same way there are many countries that’s close enough to libertarian ideal, but none is in that “extreme” ideal. And may be that’s the way it’s supposed to be. It’s what a market “god” would decree, if anything.
In most business, the success and failure of the business will benefit stakeholders. If anything, that’s how we define stake holders besides “ownership”. A business is successful if and only if the stake holders are profited. The exception is when some guy buy huge buy option. He’s a stake holders but he doesn’t own and don’t vote. However, let’s ignore the complexity for a whole.
That’s why stake holders vote. The interests of employees and customers are protected mainly by other check and balance mechanism. That is, those are protected by fierce competition among businesses. The same way, interests of minorities groups and productive individuals, all over the world, are mainly protected by competition among states. Nation states embrace Westphalian sovereignty and effectively compete with each other to get the best capital, best people, smartest scientists, and so on and so on.
Imagine if an ancient nation state lose war? The nation state will have all the males castrated and slaughtered or enslaved. The females? Well, they can just pick the winner. If the states are winning, the males are the one getting more hot chicks and wealth and slaves.
The women? Women, in general, do not get “happier” the richer they are. To be happy means to be “sexy”. Women are sexy when they’re young and pretty. That’s irrelevant of the states’ success. That’s another reason why most states did not allow women to vote.
That’s why in ancient time, only males could vote. And that’s probably the origin of the idea that soldiers are “honorable” bla bla. That’s probably why many feminazis want women to be soldiers too. I think they are very anachronistic. But yea all those being soldiers is “honorable” while being a prostitute is “dishonorable” may comes from those political circumstances.
If anything, as a man, I would very much prefer being prostitute than a soldier. It’s kind of funny to me how some movements that supposedly promote “females’ interests” would prohibit prostitution and work hard so women can become soldiers. I bet they’re ugly. But we’re moving out of topic too much.
Is this a good idea to practice now? I don’t think so. Though I like to see things tried on smaller scale.
Next, I would explain why only land holders should vote. Or I would say, there is a strong case why it may be a good idea. Again, it’s been tried before. And there is a good reason why in ancient time, only males, or only land holders can vote.
I think if we want to start from scratch, and can do something “experimental”, we can consider things like that when setting up a new experimental nation states.
Conscription?
No no…..
I am not promoting conscription. I am promoting common sense behind ancient conscription. I think a new state should, like businesses, have certain things that may slightly violate libertarian principles.
1. A state must have owners (some investors, founders, and protectors would be a good stake holders. Those who do not have power or money can be “conscripted”)
2. A state must have income.
3. People that want to get benefits of living in those states should contribute something (so there will be some tax, perhaps visiting visa)
4. A state should have freedom to do what’s the owners think is necessary to max out the interest of the states (some libertarian things may be illegal, or heavily taxed, like drugs)
Let’s take a look at an almost libertarian state. The Minerva Reefs - Wikipedia
It almost works.
If only enough people are willing to defend the state it would work. If before starting the state some powerful country like UK, or PRC wants to be protector and got a stake, it would work too.
A closer to libertarian state is almost working in Minerva Reefs.
However, the libertarian there is too “purist” it fails after attack by a weak country called Tonga.
Libertarians should try again. This time, be a bit moderate.
