Wouldn't they have won since the defense would've been decentralized?
Couldn't a cheaper weapon, say an RPG, have taken out Lincoln's tanks? I personally believe that's why a standing army is not only dangerous to liberty, but also to security--an armed population of civilians defeats a much larger centralized army with a hierarchy and pay based upon rank, which is decided arbitrarily and somewhat subjectively. It makes the soldiers compete against each other, rather than against the enemy, which isn't a good thing.
Wouldn't sherman have just been ambushed before he raped all of those women?
What i'm saying is that if the CSA had used Articles of Confederation as their Constitution, they would've been using guerilla warfare and decentralized militia and that it could've taken out the unnecessary brute force the Union had. Instead, the CSA tried to match it with unnecessary and centralized brute force on their part.
I fail to see how centralized brute force overcomes good, decentralized militia. Can someone give me an example of when guerilla warfare was not defeated by the brute force of a centralized invading army (I can't find any; however, I can think of many times in which guerilla warfare did defeat the brute force of a centralized army)?
How can anyone honestly believe that bigger is better no matter what?
Related reading (this reaffirmed my belief that when you give up liberty, you give up safety as well): Generalissimo Washington, by Murray Rothbard from "Conceived in Liberty":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html
Couldn't a cheaper weapon, say an RPG, have taken out Lincoln's tanks? I personally believe that's why a standing army is not only dangerous to liberty, but also to security--an armed population of civilians defeats a much larger centralized army with a hierarchy and pay based upon rank, which is decided arbitrarily and somewhat subjectively. It makes the soldiers compete against each other, rather than against the enemy, which isn't a good thing.
Wouldn't sherman have just been ambushed before he raped all of those women?
What i'm saying is that if the CSA had used Articles of Confederation as their Constitution, they would've been using guerilla warfare and decentralized militia and that it could've taken out the unnecessary brute force the Union had. Instead, the CSA tried to match it with unnecessary and centralized brute force on their part.
I fail to see how centralized brute force overcomes good, decentralized militia. Can someone give me an example of when guerilla warfare was not defeated by the brute force of a centralized invading army (I can't find any; however, I can think of many times in which guerilla warfare did defeat the brute force of a centralized army)?
How can anyone honestly believe that bigger is better no matter what?
Related reading (this reaffirmed my belief that when you give up liberty, you give up safety as well): Generalissimo Washington, by Murray Rothbard from "Conceived in Liberty":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html
Facebook
Twitter