[geeks] Taxes

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Fri, 23 May 2008, Rick Hamell wrote:

>> We don't even know when the last attempt was, and the reason we're
>> given is "national security".  Conveniently enough, we don't even
>> need military enemies anymore; the government can just dangle the
>> T-word and say we're at threat level tangerine/carrot and how we need
>> to be worried about the next "credible hint" from an "unidentified
>> source" about a "nonspecific target" of the next "probable attack".
>
> Unless you're talking about some conspiracy theory that I'm not aware of 
> (9/11?) the last Military attacks on US soil are fairly well documented.

Yes, they are.  What I'm talking about is the last actual attempt that our
government thwarted, not all this cloak-and-dagger nonsense of late.
When's the last time some government aimed missiles at us and was
dangerously close to hitting the red button?  When was the last time
some organized military prepared troops to land here, or planes to fly
at us, only to have our government jump to our rescue and save us?

Outside of a couple communications screw-ups during the Cold War
(exercises that very-nearly became reality), I don't know that we've
been given a straight answer to that question "due to national security
concerns".

My point is that if we've gone for sixty years without anyone seriously
attempting to attack us, maybe we wouldn't need such a large standing
army if our government didn't maintain its policy of irritating others
for its sole benefit.

On the other hand, if stopping threats against the people who live in
this country is the daily business of the Department of Defense, and the
world really is as scary a place as we're led to believe, all this
spending might be completely justified.  However, with only the
government's propaganda speaking that line, I have a difficult time
seeing it as an unbiased source of information.

> This would be a good idea as long as we also kept up spending on
> High-Tech R&D solutions that were manned by professional who worked
> hand in hand with the Volunteer Militia to come up with doctrines and
> tactics.

Absolutely.  My idea is not that we need to abandon defense entirely,
but that we need to decentralize it and yank control of those defense
forces away from the concentration of power that would use it to do ill
all over the place.  I'd have a lot of fun working in some local
militia's R&D department working on hardened microcontrollers used in
recon or offensive technology.  I'd be able to take pride in knowing
that my work might save -my town- or -my county-, and I wouldn't
directly have the fear lingering over my head that some politician would
use it to disrupt some other government only to open up more
economically-favorable relations to benefit some "campaign contributor"
in industry.

As a side benefit, if you had a very small organization working on
national defense from the big-picture point of view, you wouldn't have
to worry too much about bad people slipping into the militias and
compromising the defense of the nation.  At the worst, they'd be able to
take out some local infrastructure, but an aggressor would likely start
off with that as a prelude to an invasion, anyhow.

-- 
Jonathan Patschke | "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
Elgin, TX         |                                   --Mahatma Gandhi
USA               |