@Scott Crumpler, The reviewer favors Free Trade as well as a national defense force which protects the arteries of commerce. This is where the reviewer differes from Paul in that he believes that in order to have a Free Market one has to be able to protect that market with force.
@nobody special, The reviewer is Heinleinian and so uses the pedantry of his position. I don’t know much about the nuances of Libertarianism but I do know that those who are trying to argue the merits of their points will have to use the language which makes their point clear. He must use the word “nation” as he believes in nationality and probably views the absence of this concept in any governmental structure to be one of those structures flaws. It appears that “Rothbardians” think the opposite.
“The idea of “national security” is the idea of protecting a group called government from ideas that endanger their power over the lives of others. It serves you only by ensuring the current criminal structure is sustainable. How this can be considered security? Slavery may be secure, but it is not in the best interest of any free person.”
— I’m curious then, why does the Constitution entrust the defense of the nation to the President? I think “defense of the nation” is an elongated expression of “national defense”. This defense is not against ideas so much as defense against actions which harm the physical wellbeing of the nation, its people, or which alter any Constitutional form by means outside those ratified forms.
— You may find any form of coercion to be criminal and that is your right. The fact is that this government was formed with the expressed understanding that individual liberty, individual responsibility and collective will will have to figure out how to express themselves without talking over one another. It sounds to me that any collective, as far as you are concerned, is a figment of our imagination. It is equally valid to argue that the individual is a figment of the imagination. Personally, I think each exists only through the existence of the other.
