Welcome to an epically new saga to WordPress that is all about contrasting the US Libertarian Party with America’s libertarian Independents. This is the very first chapter of the LP v LI saga. I am registered to vote as a Libertarian Party but mentally I am a libertarian Independent, which is why I am doing this.
The Libertarian Party wants the military budget cut down to 40% or less of its current amount, asserting that the military should only be funded enough to be able to defend America within American borders. They think the Switzerland model of defense is at least as compatible with America as it is with this model’s homeland.
Independents who happen to be ideologically libertarian, however, swing 23 points toward opposing military spending cuts; 60% oppose, 37% favor. The current military spending on America’s yearly budget is $600 billion, which is plenty of money for the military to limits is functions to just what it is allowed by the Constitution to do. Speaking of which…
Yes, libertarian Independents also believe in strict and literalist interpretation of the US Constitution, in this case of Article One Section Eight. We cite Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 and the Preamble of the Constitution as evidence of America having a right to defend American citizens both in homeland and offshore, using what it’s got. This means:
- Libertarian Independents support use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal
- Libertarian Independents support the maintaining of a large army and navy
- Libertarian Independents support military intervention overseas if it is to directly defend American citizens or true friends of America that truly love the U.S.
- Libertarian Independents favor a coherent entry and exit strategies and wish to keep American casualties less than or equal to and never greater than enemy casualties.
Long story short, Libertarian Independents favor a U.S. military spending plan and role-in-the-world plan that is within Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 11 – 14 of the U.S. Constitution.
All the while, the Libertarian Party wants the military to only defend the homeland with limited resources and limited warfare, and nothing wiser than that.
Outcomes of Swiss Defense without Swiss Geography
As one can learn from human history and from geopolitics, and I will exclude America from all of these examples, there is quite a list of negative outcomes of following the Swiss model of defense without having tall mountains on every side of your nation like Switzerland has or like the Medieval Indian kingdom of the Rajputs had. The first three points on this list are actually negative outcomes, the fourth point is an input about strategy and tactics.
- Coastal regions will leave a capitalist democracy who lacks Swiss geography, yet uses the Swiss model defense, vulnerable to attack by authoritarian regimes’ navies. The exploitation of this weakness is part of Naval Warfare. Examples are William the Conquerer’s Armada against England, the Viking raids across central Europe, the Umayyad Empire’s Siege of Constantinople, among others.
- Cutting military spending down to radically small sizes for the sake of Swiss model of defense will make any nation who does it, but is not Switzerland, weaker and more vulnerable to War of Aggression. For example, Nazi Germany had a very easy time folding France, Norway, Belgium, Netherland, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Kaliningrad into itself because the only neighbor Nazi Germany wanted to take over that the Swiss model of defense worked out for… was the Swiss nation.
- Keeping a Small Military and relying puritanically on militias to defend the nation has no basis in reality, as reality is full of history of nations with small militaries being annexations waiting to happen, and National Independences waiting to be revoked. Ivan the Terrible, if he were alive today, would tell us all about the ease of his expanding of Russia into the European 35% of what it is today.
- The only way for a small military to win against conquest by a big one is through deceptive tactics as solicited by Sun Tzu‘s The Art of War. Every battle Sun Tzu fought as a general saw him winning against armies that outnumber him 7 to 1 by using the most deceitful tactics possible.
I hope this will be a fascinating series to many people. I should let people know though that this series will only be about geopolitics, foreign policy, and military defense. Thanks to all you readers,