Shyster wrote:the only purpose of an army for a minarchist state would be self-defense, as the government would adhere to the nonaggression principle. For self-defense, I prefer a heavily armed populate.
Shyster wrote:And why would that plane be dropping bombs in the first place? A noninterventionist minarchist state wouldn't be butting into other countries' business in the first place, and that is often what invites or triggers war.
I go back and forth on this. I wonder if the need for a strong military with global reach isn't a result of economics. After all, it seems that, for at least the past 100 years, most of our foreign policy -- backed by the military -- has been for the purpose of securing, protecting, and guaranteeing resources and (more importantly) overseas markets for our goods. The goal is global hegemony, but of an economic sort, rather than a military one.
So maybe isolationism -- or call it noninterventionism if you like -- would be bad for the economy. I don't think the Swiss model is at all helpful since they're deep in the heart of an economic infrastructure that goes back thousands of years. Plus their economy is no where near the size of ours. We need a lot more stuff from a lot more places for a lot more people.
A more interesting comparison might be China. They have truly global economic reach and, though they have a large and powerful military, it's not really projected globally -- at least not yet. But then China has a lot of economic advantages -- like slave labor and an enslaved market (us) -- that we don't have.
Do you think that we need to reduce our global economic interdependence? Because, if not, we may not be able to let up on the global military presence.
Just some thoughts on an interesting question.