From:	Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject:	Value and so on....
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:35:38 +1000

Lloyd Vance writes:
> >The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
> >individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the
> society as a
> >whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
> >That is why armies and police forces should not be politicised
> in any way,
> >shape, or form.
> >
>
> I'm not name-calling here, I actually am interested, but doesn't
> that sound
> a lot like fascism? To have one force in charge of both fronts is just
> asking for corruption.
> Also, I don't believe that such a non-political body could be formed. And
> even if it did, it wouldn't stay non-political for long. It is just too
> important for those involved in politics not to weasel their way in there.

Actually, non-political bodies are fairly common. The army in the States is
fairly non-political. Can you see the US Army launching a coup at any point
in the foreseeable future?

Oh, and I didn't say one force... I said "armies _and_ police forces" should
not be politicised. Different organisations, different missions, but neither
should be political.

Non-political in this sense implies that it has a grand mission, a sense of
idealism, and loyalty to an ideal that is greater than the current political
leaders. Troops personally loyal to the current political time-server can
not ensure freedom and security. Troops that are loyal to the concept of
freedom and security can.

That is why the US Army swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, first
and foremost, above even obeying the orders of their Commander-In-Chief. As
long as the body of the army doesn't become corrupted, the life and liberty
of the people of the States is fairly secure.

As for not staying non-political for long: the US Army has managed a couple
of hundred years okay. Not even the Civil War managed to make it political.

> That is a whole nother discussion, but yes. I do believe that as well.
> But I also think that there are many ways that such weaponry is accessable
> (not legally, of course), that if push came to shove, you would start out
> with small, organized guerrilla attacks, and wait for the heavy stuff to
> arrive (or capture it)

You're going to pay a huge price to obtain the stuff, then...

> >Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
> >with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you
> go, loot the
> >houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
> >groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens
> in reprisal
> >for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles
> can't really do
> >much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people
> gets crushed.
> >
>
> Ouch. Remind me never to be around when you are looking for some
> breathing
> room. Besides, didn't you watch Red Dawn? That stuff can work. :) (I
> swear, I'm kidding. Just bringing a little of the 80's back into action)
>
> But like I said before the rifles are holding the spot for later when you
> need the bigger equipment. Use them at first and then upgrade.
>
> I dunno. Maybe I'm just delusional, but to me it makes sense.

That is because you don't really think about what a truly oppressive
government will do. This is real life, not the movies. The bad guy doesn't
tell the hero his plans, laugh maniacally, then walk away to allow the hero
to escape from the convoluted and exotic death trap. An oppressive
government rules by fear.

Now, you can't rule by fear for too long... sooner or later, you get into
economic troubles, you weaken your grip, and everyone revolts. But an
oppressive government can ONLY rule by fear, and they don't do a half-arsed
job about it, either.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com