<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1522" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Nope. You move to private militaries and then you can use
technologies like nuclear weapons in self-defense. Your neighbors might
have a huge army, but that will be a huge burden on them -- as militaries tend
to be -- while your nuclear device keeps them from invading. You might
want to check out _The Myth of National Defense_, edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
on privatizing security.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for the immune defense analogy, the differences are two-fold. One
is that a military is a threat and a heavy cost to the citizens. For a
nation state like the US, this should be readily apparent since its citizens are
forced to pay for military adventures that have almost nothing to do with
security and much more to do with politics in its elite. Two is that if
the cost is privatized, those who feel most threatened will pay for the
cost. Under the current system, since militaries are tax funded -- i.e.,
security is treated as a public good, when it's really a private good -- the
cost and quality have no relation to reality. Does the farmer in Wisconsin
really have to pay for the defense of some far-flung outpost of empire? Is
it really in his interest to have troops stationed here and there?
No. He pays for it because he's forced to. (You disagree, then
advocate abolishing the taxes for these things. See who will pay for, say,
bases in Okinawa or to have the Sixth Fleet moving around Italy. I bet
most of these affairs would go away and go away quickly and the only ones who'd
be the worse for it would be arms manufacturers, government contractors, and
meddling politicos.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dan</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Mike15007@aol.com
href="mailto:Mike15007@aol.com">Mike15007@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org
href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:29
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [extropy-chat] my country,
right or wrong</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:11:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, <A
href="mailto:neptune@superlink.net">neptune@superlink.net</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And a better way to lessen wars would be to slash
government military budgets (down to zero if possible), lower the size of
the government military (again, down to zero), abandon many foreign
commitments, and foster, as much as possible, free trade through
unilaterally opening markets. Privatizing military forces would
probably be best too. If each person had to pay the direct cost of all
the military she or he wanted, I think most people would opt for purely
defensive forces and there would be a marked drop in foreign adventures --
save for those few who felt some kind crusading spirit. Those few
would be very few indeed and their leaving on such adventures would likely
be no great loss and even a welcome respite from their bleeding heart
asinine harangues.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> As neat as this sounds, a state that did this
would likely lose to any neighbors that maintained a large, well-funded,
tightly centrally controlled military. This option (slashing military budgets
and the size of the government military down to zero, or as low as possible)
is only a viable strategy - or a safe one at least - if everyone else one
knows about is doing the same.</DIV>
<DIV> And then, like in many similar games where the
perceived benefits of "defection" are huge, all it takes is one "defector" to
upset the whole order, and it's only a matter of time before one comes along.
Doing away with, or minimizing, the military and military budgets, is still a
little too close to doing the same with one's immune system. Ditto for
intelligence agencies (which let you know when someone else is spying on you
and planning to do something to you that you wouldn't like).</DIV>
<DIV> As long as there are "germs," there'll be need of
"immune systems." And "germs" are a good deal tougher to eliminate completely
than sophants of any kind.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dan</FONT></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>My first post,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike</DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>