0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep \ parent \ on: Milei Wants More Government Spending—For the Military, of Course econ
You really didn't and it's wild that you see it that way. Libertarians do not have to support state funding for anything. If you think they do, then you fundamentally don't know what you're talking about.
You often warn about the path America is headed down. I'll return the favor. Libertarianism plus an expansive military is how you end up where we are. A big socialized military will trickle out into everything else.
You really didn't and it's wild that you see it that way.
Because that's how it is, let me clarify further below:
Libertarians do not have to support state funding for anything.
I agree, yet you are deriving into the straw-man fallacy here, blaming me for something I didn't questioned. I pointed that between the very few things libertarianism supports funding for, this is one, as you saw for the case of all major referents above.
A big socialized military will trickle out into everything else.
And I never questioned that, hence the reason I accept the argument of the referents I mentioned in how to keep funding in a non-socialized way. Yet, until we get there, this is the starting point. Could Milei cut fundings freely he could have banned taxes the first day.
reply
you are deriving into the straw-man fallacy here
I apologize if I didn't pick up what you were putting down, but you definitely made a false claim when you implied that increasing military spending is unambiguously libertarian.
I never questioned that (vis a vis big socialized military)
You did, when you said I was wrong to say that "Increasing military spending is certainly not unambiguously libertarian". If you didn't understand what I meant, that's fine, but disagreeing with that statement means you're asserting that the only libertarian position is that military spending has to be increased.
Libertarians can only support increased military funding if it is required for the protection of life, liberty, or property. The author of the article contends that none of those criteria are met.
I also didn't really get into your citations, but most of those are not from libertarians. Classical liberals may be our predecessors, but they weren't operating from the same philosophical premises. Even the two libertarians (Hayek and Friedman, who are borderline cases) are supporting military spending from a practical, rather than principled position. My contention is that they got duped by the Neocons on this matter, as did many otherwise great American thinkers.
reply
but you definitely made a false claim when you implied that increasing military spending is unambiguously libertarian.
I definitely did not, as you yourself perfectly stated: "Libertarians can only support increased military funding if it is required for the protection of life, liberty, or property." That's unambiguously libertarian. You just said it yourself.
You did
No I strictly didn't. I didn't defended, at all, the socialization of funding as the one and only way from now on and forever. I defended Milei's policy, as I stated, right now, in this specific frame of time, given the specific current conditions and context. And I stated, twice, that I agreed with the view of the major libertarian referents that the source of funding must not be socialized and other scheme must be developed.
the only libertarian position is that military spending has to be increased
I said exactly what you just said right after this: "Libertarians can only support increased military funding if it is required for the protection of life, liberty, or property." I did not thought it was necessary to clarify that it was under those principles, given that it's clear the frame in which libertarianism supports that, as you stated.
The author of the article contends that none of those criteria are met.
That's the one thing we should have been debating. Of course I disagree because I know our situation first-hand. First, you do not need for a country to declare war on you as the one and sole mean of having a conflict, we have enough with warlord drug dealers that govern entire provinces and a full blow insurgence in the south of leftist that invaded and claimed swats of territory. The armed forces where necessary to pacify all of those fronts. Second, the new equipment is needed to replace vietnam-era equipment. You can't replace A4 Skyhawks with new ones, that's why the next thing at hand are F16s. Yo do not need the speed to engage, you need it to to get where the problem is. We have been menaced already by terrorists solely for not bowing to their whims. We have been attacked already and lost a lot of life in the AMIA bomb attack, without having taken any stand on anything, just because the terrorists where offended at us for refusing to support their schemes. So the menaces are very, very real. It can only be from the heights of entitled idiocy that this keyboard-libertarians can so comfortably and lightly make such claims but, what do they know, it's the reason they have limited themselves to the complete intranscendence in the real world besides collecting fancy empty titles.
are supporting military spending from a practical, rather than principled position.
That's all that's needed.
reply
You're being disingenuous (knowingly or unknowingly), so I'm done talking to you about this.
reply
You're being disingenuous
I would have preferred a more gentlemanly idiom but I accept your out of arguments.
reply
And I would have preferred you acted honestly.
reply