Comment: Now, we are getting to the crux...

(See in situ)

Now, we are getting to the crux...

"Putting the troops on the border to me means that less foreign people grow up hating Americans, less illegal drugs, guns, and people come across the border, and more Americans are here to help other Americans during times of crises and defend the homeland under any attack. Troops on the border means that more of our nation's bravest, finest, and most loyal to the Constitution are here to face any federal aggression."

How would less foreigners grow up hating Americans with the US having militarized borders? There's the argument that at least we're not occupying there countries, but that notion didn't stop people in countries (such as the US) from looking down upon countries with militarized borders such as East Germany.

"Prohibition would be more effective" is hardly a libertarian argument. In reality, prohibition would still be an utter failure.

"Guns coming across the border" - Why is that a problem? Is it that these are "undocumented" guns - guns that the feds don't know about? That sounds like support for a central government database.

Preventing "people from crossing the border"? As long as no trespassing is taking place, how is that against libertarian principles? Suppose Pedro calls John Doe and arranges to buy some property somewhere in the country. Pedro makes good on the deal and transfers the payment to Doe's account thereby making him the rightful owner of the concerned property. Why should Pedro be forbidden from traveling to and living on his property?

"...more Americans are here to help other Americans during times of crises and defend the homeland under any attack." What realistic concerns do we face regarding an invasion or attack that would require a militarized border? I agree that if a standing military is to exist that it should be kept within the borders of the states but that has little to do with militarizing the borders. We're the most armed nation in the world. A ground invasion would be suicide for a foreign force, and it does no good to bombard a country with bombs if you can never set foot on its soil.

There's nothing wrong with a volunteer force, imo. A volunteer army is much more effective than an army of slaves. People fighting to preserve freedom will (presumably) fight much harder than a people fighting because they were forced to do so.

However, militarizing the borders is a completely different issue. A voluntary force can exist without a militarized border.

"Hey, look at America! They are the freest nation in the world! That's why their military must keep everyone out at the point of a gun! Oh, how we admire them!"