We are all aware of Washington’s comment that we should be strong so as to avoid war, and to deal with all but form binds with none. Clearly we have failed to follow his advise. This can be good or bad, depending on one’s viewpoint. There are, however, some important issues to be hashed out before we can stand cleanly and decide what exactly we want of us and the world.<\/p>\n
Political theory has for some time contended that kings rule for their own aggrandizement, and not that of the people. This is the heart of the whole concept that the king rules by divine provenance, when in point of fact he rules by his own ambition and grip on the reins of power. If we conclude this, then we can also come to the conclusion that kings are the source of war, almost exclusively. The corollary would then be that the people desire peace. Left to themselves they would seek out peace in order to promote their lives for their and their progeny’s sake.<\/p>\n
These philosophical concepts were very much understood, and implemented in the formation of our republic. The power to wage war was divided between the executive and the legislature. Neither side, then, can easily fall into intolerance as the British Parliament did in the 17th century. Furthermore, there was a real fear of a standing army, an armed group who could, at the direction of the government, force the citizenry to comply with whatever irrational or illegal order it wanted. Take a careful look at the police forces around the nation and tell me how they differ in force and action from the red coats the colonial governors turned loose on the colonists of yore.<\/p>\n
An argument can be made that in today’s world<\/em>, as opposed to the world of our framers, a strong standing military is necessary, simply for self protection. Perhaps, but you will have to convince me a good bit on that. Note that the framers did NOT have a problem with having a Navy, which was a means of projecting power and protecting our interests around the world. Even at our inception, when we were very weak relative to the European powers, we felt a need for naval protection. Reserve and National Guard units would be something I believe our framers would approve of; large regular units stationed around the world would not.<\/p>\n ?So why do we have them. I will leave that question to you and continue this discussion in a bit.<\/p>\n We are all aware of Washington’s comment that we should be strong so as to avoid war, and to deal with all but form binds with none. Clearly we have failed to follow his advise. This can be good or bad, depending on one’s viewpoint. There are, however, some important issues to be hashed out before we can stand cleanly and decide what exactly we want of us and the world.<\/p>\n Political theory has for some time contended that kings rule for their own aggrandizement, and not that of the people. This is the heart of the whole concept that the king rules by divine provenance, when in point of fact he rules by his own ambition and grip on the reins of power. If we conclude this, … Continue reading