List of countries us military should get out of

My list is easy & non prejudicial.

1. All of them.

We don't need to occupy any countries. There is no mandate in our constitution that allows or compels the president to send troops or military intimidation to every or any area on earth. We can have allies. We can dock our ships in friendly ports, & pal around with our buddies there. We can send some troops on joint training exercises with other allies.. but we don't need the expense or have the constitutional justification to allow any administration to send the US military, which is funded by the taxpayers & is subject to the laws & constitution of the US, to conflicts where the congress has not declared war.

We are a free people. We promote freedom & liberty. We encourage & cheer for other people who yearn for freedom. But we cannot go to war with every 'bad guy' that comes into power. We can be civil with the leaders in the diplomatic arena, & if any become hostile or posture aggression toward us, we can return the favor. But few bad guys would want to mess with us, if we were civil & open to mutually beneficial trade. Our foreign policy is filled with aggression on our part, funding tyrants, defending business interests, oppressing the people of another country. How can we blame them if they see us as the tyrant? We have been partners in their oppression.

Gold and the dollar

I don't know if it would even be possible to return to a gold standard.. no other country has it, & most of them don't have very solid currency, either. The dollar, with all it's problems, & deficits is still preferred. Are we in the us about to pull the rug out from under the whole world?

What would happen if the dollar bubble burst? If china and rich investors stopped buying tbills, & went to something else.. Interest rates would start to go up, trying to encourage continued investment, but there could also be a panic.. a world wide dumping of tbills. The treasury could print a bunch more money, & let the fed lend it out, keeping interest rates down, but if confidence in the dollar starts to wane, i don't see any govt action helping. They could not stop the housing bubble from bursting, how will they stop the dollar? If they squeezed the money supply & drove interest rates up, that might offset some inflation, but higher rates would kill the typical us household, and another rash of bankruptcies & foreclosures could plunge us deeper into recession.

I don't think we're out of the woods.. & even if the gold standard is not the solution, the massive debt is still a major problem & seems to be pushing us to economic collapse.. or at least currency collapse.

Some people don't seem to think the debt is a problem. We can just print more money & borrow it, & the dollar will remain solid & life will go on. If this is the case, why not give everyone in the us a million dollars, & let them live high on the hog? Let all of us go on the dole, & make it enough to live like kings. The rest of the world won't care, & they will continue to invest their assest in dollars, right? Nations that have lived beyond their means have to pay the piper at some time, just like individuals do. They can use inflation to plunder their citizens, but eventually the world money people won't lend them any more money. Once the international big money investors lose confidence, the dollar will crash. Unless we get some austerity in our budget, it seems to be unavoidable.

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters.
Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Labeling while rome burns..

If you remove the labels from the conservative & liberal people, we'd find they aren't that much different in the central, important issues of governance. Many 'conservatives' definitely lean toward statist control. Some 'liberals' have more libertarian views. It is the non-essential issues in government that is used to divide & plunder the people. The moneyed ruling elite keep us scattered in our views so we do not focus on their corruption. Lobbyists, super pacs, big unions, corporate donations, & other big money involvement in politics are not what the majority of the people want. Do the politicians care? No, they want us to bicker about gays or the environment.. while they continue to exploit & plunder the treasury.

Statism and Freedom

Freedom is never a 'one and done' type of thing. It must be watched over, cherished, & defended. The gradual movement away from personal liberty toward statism has not happened in a vacuum, but right under the noses of the citizens. I think the ruling elite have convinced us there is nothing we can do.. it is out of our control, & money is power. If we are not part of the moneyed elite, we do not have any political power. We have let them convince us there are many interest groups, with major differences in agenda & ideology. We have let them split us into ethnic & racial groups.. & convinced us that we should be loyal to our own kind. They have convinced us that our individual freedom is not the most important thing.. it is now social justice, or world leadership, or military dominance.

But i say that we the people do not have to submit. We can take away the power of the statists. We can regain & protect our personal liberties. We can remove the moneyed & political elite & get those in power who will speak for the people.

Yes we can.


If people really understood the consequences of statism, they would not want it. But we don't. We let the ruling elite convince us they have divine right as kings, or they can bring peace & prosperity to the people, or social justice. No one stands up & says, 'I want to be oppressed by a totalitarian state!' But throughout history, we have been, & continue to be.

We the people need to see that we can rule ourselves, with a representative republic. But we are like the israelites of old, who after escaping slavery in egypt, want a king to rule over them.

This is in 1 Samuel 8.
11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

Just from an historical perspective, this illustrates the way we are. We are not really happy with freedom, but want a king.. a ruler ordained by God... a messiah or anointed one. We want someone who gives us a thrill up our leg when he speaks.

It is hard for us to see that we can do it without the ruling elite. We don't need divinely inspired ordination for our kings. We can do it ourselves, with honest representatives who will speak for us. If they don't, we need to fire them asap & find someone who will. Grassroots works.

Occupy wall street's declaration of independence..

Here is the source:
http://occupiedmedia.us/2012/02/a-new-declaration/


They sure have a lot of self evident truths, here. I'll take a look at them..

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That the real, physical world is the source of our own lives, and the lives of others. A weakened planet is less capable of supporting life, human or otherwise.

I'll go along with this premise. The earth is our home. If it fails, we are dead.

Quote:

Thus the health of the real world is primary, more important than any social or economic system, because all social or economic systems are dependent upon a living planet.

I'll go along with this logical conclusion of the above premise.

Quote:

It is self-evident that to value a social system that harms the planet’s capacity to support life over life itself is to be out of touch with physical reality.

I suppose this would be true.. If you can show there exists such a system. IF iran or n. korea, for example, wanted to nuke the whole world & kill everyone & everything on the planet, that would be a bad thing. But i'm not sure they've defined 'social system' adequately to describe what they really mean.. we actually do know what they mean, but they don't want to say it directly.

Quote:

That any way of life based on the use of nonrenewable resources is by definition not sustainable.

I disagree with this premise. Iron, for example, is non-renewable, yet many things we have are made with it. I don't know if you could say our way of life is based on it, but what would that be? Oil? I'm sure this is where they are going, but our way of life is not based on it.. it certainly is an important energy source, but no more than iron or aluminum is an important manufacturing source. Oil is not important if we don't have iron.

Quote:

That any way of life based on the hyper-exploitation of renewable resources is by definition not sustainable: if, for example, fewer salmon return every year, eventually there will be none. This means that for a way of life to be sustainable, it must not harm native communities: native prairies, native forests, native fisheries, and so on.

Ok, now we're finally getting to the point. I don't agree with this premise or conclusion, because it has not been established that we are 'hyper-exploiting' anything. That is just assumed. Certainly care must be given to the wildlife & ecosystems. But it is possible for us to live in harmony with nature, as we have done for millions* of years. What is 'native'? Humans are native to the earth, so if humans occupy an area, they are native to it. I think humans have more responsibility to manage & protect the planet, since we are so dominant, & presumably have intelligence.

(*not all agree with this, but most arguing for this article would, i will assume)

Quote:

That the real world is interdependent, such that harm done to rivers harms those humans and nonhumans whose lives depend on these rivers, harms forests and prairies and wetlands surrounding these rivers, harms the oceans into which these rivers flow. Harm done to mountains harms the rivers flowing through them. Harm done to oceans harms everyone directly or indirectly connected to them.

There seems to be a lot of usage of 'harm' in this. I don't think this has been established, but is assumed. Certainly i am in favor of responsible management of our environment, & regulating industry so it does not pollute. Is that all that you want? Regulations to reduce pollution?

Quote:

That you cannot argue with physics. If you burn carbon-based fuels, this carbon will go into the air, and have effects in the real world.

People argue with physics & about physics all the time, even in the real world. If you boil water, it vaporizes & also goes in the air. Yes there can be extremes & excesses, but not all carbon is bad. Plants need co2 to live & grow.

Quote:

That creating and releasing poisons into the world will poison humans and nonhumans.

Poisons? Are you suggesting carbon is poison? Or have we moved on, since the carbon issue is settled?

Quote:

That no one, no matter how rich or powerful, should be allowed to create poisons for which there is no antidote.

I thought we were in the real world. You think regulations can be passed to prevent a 'rich & powerful' person to create poisons? I'm fine with the concept, but only a world totalitarian government, with total control over all manufacturing, research, & money could prevent such a thing from happening. But perhaps this is where you're going with this list?

Quote:

That no one, no matter how rich or powerful, should be allowed to create messes that cannot be cleaned up.

Well, this assumes messes can be made that cannot be cleaned up. Perhaps world wide nuclear destruction would be tough to clean up, but even it could be in time. But we clean up after tsunamis, hurricanes, oil spills, terrorist attacks (twin towers), urban riots, and of course, war. So are those ok? I'd be for good, reasonable regulations that minimize accidents, & provides for cleanup after them.

Quote:

That no one, no matter how rich or powerful, should be allowed to destroy places humans or nonhumans need to survive.

Away from the real world, again. We can 'not allow' all we want, but unless we have totalitarian world rule, some dictator somewhere will destroy places & kill people & bunnies. We could also kill all humans, which would end that threat. Otherwise, we are not in the real world, but in a fantasy world, telling world tyrants they are not allowed to destroy places.

Quote:

That no one, no matter how rich or powerful, should be allowed to drive human cultures or nonhuman species extinct.

You mean like genocide? Ok, i'll go along with the idealistic fantasy.. no one like hitler should be allowed to come to power. Why, that was easy! Now the world is safe! Again, the only way to enforce this would be to give someone total authority over the entire world, with tight controls to prevent us from harming & driving living things extinct.

Quote:

That reality trumps all belief systems: what you believe is not nearly so important as what is real.

Of course this is true! If only the writer could see the irony!

Quote:

That on a finite planet you cannot have an economy based on or requiring growth. At least you cannot have one and expect to either have a planet or a future.

This is a non-sequiter, imo. What does a growing economy have to do with a finite planet? No correlations have been made. Would a declining economy be ok? How about an up and down economy?

Quote:

That the current way of life is not sustainable, and will collapse. The only real questions are what will be left of the world after that collapse, and how bad things will be for the humans and nonhumans who come after. We hold it as self-evident that we should do all that we can to make sure that as much of the real, physical world remains intact until the collapse of the current system, and that humans and nonhumans should be as prepared as possible for this collapse.

Ok, collapse is inevitable. So we should become apocalyptic survivalists, learning how to purify water & build a cache of arms & seeds. Seems like you guys better get out of the city. How will the nonhumans prepare?

Quote:

That the health of local economies are more important than the health of a global economy.

It seems to me that in our modern world, we are already codependent. How can you have isolationism in a totalitarian world dictatorship?

Quote:

That a global economy should not be allowed to harm local economies or land bases.

You talk to global economies, now? You're going to tell them who they can harm or not harm? We are for sure not in the real world, now.

Quote:

That corporations are not living beings. They are certainly not human beings.

Ok.. so you come up with a timeless truth that just happens to be a commentary on a fleeting current event? But i'll go for this one. Fine. Corporations are not people.

Quote:

That corporations do not in any real sense exist. They are legal fictions. Limited liability corporations are institutions created explicitly to separate humans from the effects of their actions—making them, by definition, inhuman and inhumane. To the degree that we desire to live in a human and humane world—and, really, to the degree that we wish to survive—limited liability corporations need to be eliminated.

Man you really have it in for corporations. They have been around for hundreds of years.. some have been good, some bad.. just like people! What's the obsession with corporations? Aren't they just 'groups' of people, in a raw sense? And you label all as inhuman.. isn't that kind of judgmental? You want to end the right of people to incorporate.. either in a business, family, or any endeavor. But unions incorporate. So do political parties. What's wrong with letting people band together in a common purpose? How do you propose for people to group together in common ideals, like saving the whales, or stopping war, or electing some retard to office? Clubs? Nations? I don't get the hostility to all corporations. Sure, we need regulations, but banning all of them? This is another baby & bathwater proposal.

Quote:

That the health of human and nonhuman communities is more important than the profits of corporations.

More corporation bashing. Of course people & the environment are more important than profits. You think ending corporations will solve that?

Quote:

We hold it as self-evident, as the Declaration of Independence states, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. . . .” Further, we hold it as self-evident that it would be more precise to say that it is not the Right of the People, nor even their responsibility, but instead something more like breathing—something that if we fail to do we die.

Since you're plagiarizing Jefferson, too bad you didn't succeed in brevity. Too many muddled premises & befuddled conclusions.. not simple like,

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

See? That's how you write a declaration of independence.. concise, to the point, simple, timeless. That's what you should have copied, rather than muddled rants about corporations, the economy, & the environment.

Quote:

If we as a People fail to rid our communities of destructive institutions, those institutions will destroy our communities. And if we in our communities cannot provide meaningful and nondestructive ways for people to gain food, clothing, and shelter then we must recognize it’s not just specific destructive institutions but the entire economic system that is pushing the natural world past breaking points. Capitalism is killing the planet. Industrial civilization is killing the planet.

Oh, so now it's 'we as a People'. I thought we needed a dominating world government, not personal liberty. Institutions? You mean corporations? Or national governments? You somehow think people would be peaceful & loving if they did not have a corporation to join? How can people get food in non destructive ways? eat soybeans? Neither capitalism nor industrialism is killing anything. The logic here is killing me.

Quote:

Once we’ve recognized the destructiveness of capitalism and industrial civilization—both of which are based on systematically converting a living planet into dead commodities—we’ve no choice, unless we wish to sign our own and our children’s death warrants, but to fight for all we’re worth and in every way we can to overturn it.

So you're prepared to fight & kill the evil corporationists, who only want the planet's destruction. Oh, and capitalists are also included. What, no socialists? Don't they eat meat, live in inefficient houses, burn electricity made with unapproved raw materials, & fly around in jets burning non renewable fossil fuels? The commies do, too. And so do the libertarians! What about the totalitarians? Didn't Kim Jong-il also pollute & eat meat? He killed a lot of people.. why does he get a pass, but capitalists & corporations have to bear the blame for all the ills of the world?

I don't see how any thinking person could buy this crap. This strikes a chord with you? You really see logic & wisdom in this stuff? You think there are real answers to the world's problems in this movement? With declarations like this?

Sorry.. i hate to be dismissive or ridicule another's heart felt world view, but this is so absurd i keep thinking someone will jump up & say, 'Gotcha! Ha ha ha! We were just kidding!'

Either that or i am completely misunderstanding what is being said here.. maybe there have been a lot of word changes & mistranslations.. so if i have missed the point, please explain.

Statism

Statism vs Individual Freedom

I think the basic differences we have in our political discourse is a fundamental difference in the kind of government that we want.  There are extremes.. some want full state control, others want full individual liberty.  Most of us want something in the middle.  But finding that middle ground is the hard part, or so it seems, because anyone who debates any particular point of the size & scope of government is automatically assigned to one of the extremes.. They are either an authoritarian statist, or a libertarian anarchist.

I definitely lean toward the individual freedom side.. most of my opposition to government is because of too much of it.  The more the state expands & controls things, the more it takes our freedoms & responsibilities.

How do we determine if a particular issue is a good thing for our individual freedom, or is giving the state more control?  For me, a simple way is to ask if this issue protects my freedom & individuality, or does it take it & give it to the state or someone else?

Some things are a compromise.. we pay taxes to support schools, police, & firemen.  We give away some of our liberties with our money to get a service that is beneficial to all.  We expect it to be well managed, though.. we can't just give them blank checks.  But these are local services, provide by local government.  What do we expect from the federal government?  What are its basic duties?  I'll go back as i often do to the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is the basic function of our government to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We don't really need it to do something else, & that was the point of the founders of america.  Get a simple, fair, modest government that does not try to exploit us & oppress us, but protects & defends us.  Monarchies do not do this.  Marxism & socialism do not extoll the liberties of the individual.  Dictatorships & any other totalitarian states see the state as being supreme, & the individual as serving it.  That is the basic difference between statism & individualism.  If our government is promoting state centered programs, they are pursuing statism & not individual freedom.

Here's my list of modest government duties:

1. Protect & defend our lives & liberties from enemies.
2. Secure the border & manage immigration.
3. Manage interstate commerce & regulations.
4. Manage international commerce & negotiate treaties.
5. Manage & provide a sound currency.


Now let's look at some of our current problems:

1. Military involvement all over the world.
Are any of our involvements militarily because of a direct threat to our people?  No.  We should end our military meddling in the world & bring our troops home.
2. Illegal immigration.  12 million people are here illegally?  Has the government done one of it's primary funtions to secure the border & manage immigration?  No.  We need to enforce what is already in the law like all the other countries of the world do.
3. Welfare state.  It is not the function of government to be involved in charity.  Our welfare state has not decreased poverty, only institutionalized it.  It is a racist, wasteful attempt to bring equality by wealth redistribution.
4. Public debt.  If we had a modest government that protected our basic rights, & was not trying to micromanage every aspect of our lives, our government could be fiscally sound & solvent.  But government agencies are legion.  They are wasteful, inefficient, unnecessary, and do not promote the individual's freedom or responsibility.
5. Unstable currency & banking bailouts.  We have high inflation on the necessities of life, but low interest on savings.  Our government has bailed out corrupt & mismanaged financial institutions, and left us with the bill.  The dollar is staggering as gold prices indicate the dollar falling.  It is at over $1700 at this writing.  It was $35 when i was in high school.

All of these problems, and many more, are the result of the move toward statism.  The US government was more individually based for most of our history, but in the last century, we began to let the state run itself.  Every administration has increased the size & scope of government.  It has not been the problem of freedom, the constitution, or american individualism that has caused this, it has been the statists, be they socialist or capitalist, who have moved us to this point.

I don't think we need to scrap the system, i think we need to throw out the statists who have been pushing us to ruin & corrupting our system of individual liberty & freedom.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..

It is not too late.  We can try to find honest representatives, who will promote small government, & that will preserve the individual's liberties.  We have tried 'more'.  It is time to try 'less'.


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. ~Thomas Jefferson


"Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State." ~Winston Churchill


The State acquires power... and because of its insatiable lust for power it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates. ~Frank Chodorov


And here we encounter the seeds of government disaster and collapse -- the kind that wrecked ancient Rome and every other civilization that allowed a sociopolitical monster called the welfare state to exist. ~Barry Goldwater


"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Federal vs local programs

My dogmatism seems to ebb & flow like the tides, but more randomly. Occasionally, my dogma gets run over by someone's karma.

Govt programs are a luxury for an affluent society. The more affluent we are, the more we can afford. But the more poor we become, the more we need to cut back. It is pretty simple.

I believe it was the founders intention for the states to handle most of the day to day burden of governance.. like, well.. a sovereign state. Our federal govt is different than most.. it is a summary of the whole.. a consensus of the united states. It handles foreign affairs, interstate commerce, & preempts individual state's laws in some matters. It was never intended to be a single entity to make state govt obsolete, like it is becoming. And with a nation this size, it is almost impossible to govern fairly from a monolithic central system. The USSR couldn't do it, & they had totalitarian control, though their 'union' was mostly symbolic.. like ours is becoming. China has had to make many concessions, & their economic civil war is still looming. What will happen there when the communist controlled capitalism meets real socialism in the form of labor unions?

Individual states can handle much of the safety net, law enforcement, firefighting, education & other local issues better than the federal govt. The local citizens generally feel more responsibility & get involved more for things that affect them directly. We really only need the federal govt to manage things like air traffic, interstate highways, trade, national defense, border security.. things like that. I think they have overstepped their role & usurped the states' responsibilities. Plus they have gotten involved in too many 'police actions' throughout the world.. something else that is not constitutional. They seem to think they can pick & choose what parts of the constitution they want to follow.  It easier for a county or city borough to manage whatever govt programs the people want. When the federal govt does it, it becomes a pork barrel project, giving taxpayer money to whatever representative has the juice to get it for his district. Take those away, & there will be less corruption, fewer lobbyists, & less taxpayer money wasted. The result of that will eventually be no debt & lower taxes for all.

There was plenty of interstate commerce in the early years of the union. Tobacco & cotton farmers mostly exported their wares. We were a pipeline for cheap goods to europe, somewhat like china is now. The yankees built ships & arms.. much like today, for world wide war efforts. Granted, as you got to the interior, it became mostly subsistence farms, with the pioneers struggling to build a simple life. But even in those smaller states, there was a desire for self determination. No one wanted some central govt to tell them what to do, & how much of their money they could keep. People built schools, fire depts, militias, roads, & they engaged themselves in local decision making. Modern, centralized govt takes that away. It removes the people from the process, & puts it into the hands of 'professionals', whether they be politicians or lobbyists.


I don't think modern life has changed or made obsolete a good system of govt. Our federal govt has become more expansive, taking on much more than it's constitutional mandate provides for.  Returning much of that responsibility to the states would make for a more efficient & productive federal government.  We need to elect representatives who will shrink the federal govt & return more responsibility to the states, & follow their constitutional mandates.. no more, no less.