We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A Free Speech Bill for the United Kingdom Preston Byrne (of defending Americans against Ofcom fame) has been working on a free speech bill for the UK.
See also the thread on X.
The reason this legislative proposal exists, btw, is because Ofcom decided to go after four tiny American companies and I realized the UK didn’t have doctrinal tooling to stop the problem at its source
This Model Bill is, hopefully, a first step towards developing that new law.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Looks like a really well-researched article. I hope to get the time to read it but probably won’t.
There is the fundamental problem that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successors. One Parliament might well pass a Model Bill and another might just as well repeal it. He might have covered that but if he did, I didn’t spot it.
The slightly embarrassing truth is that Britain has a rather patchy record when it comes to free speech. From the 1920s, for example, I have come across any number of plays and films being banned. One film got banned because it was favourable to the rebels in the American War of Independence.
Sadly, tragically, the British Parliament would not pass this measure.
Although no NATO member has helped with the conflict with the “Death to America” Islamic Republic of Iran regime (indeed governments such as that of Britain and Spain are openly boasting that they are not helping), the official line is that NATO still matters because of “common values”.
But if they do not even support Freedom of Speech, at it is clear that the European governments hate-and-despise Freedom of Speech, what are these “common values”?
Now even Secretary of State Rubio, one of the strongest defenders of NATO, is openly expressing doubts.
How about legislation to protect dogs in the UK?
This Midwestern Indiana dog-loving American is stunned by what’s going on in the UK with respect to dogs. With respect to a lot of things, yes, but today it’s dogs. Please tell me that the news in this regard is inaccurate and/or exaggerated.
Sorry for going a little OT. But this really bothers me. I raise and train border collies and herd sheep competitively with them and I just can’t fathom why the ur-homeland of that breed would want to eradicate it. Or any other breed for that matter.
That was my thought. “We need strong rules that can be overturned by the next rule” doesn’t work well. You need something amendable only by supermajority – a written constitution, perhaps.
I repeat my point that United Kingdom Parliament would not approve this measure – they would scream “Hate Speech” “Racist” (and so on). Remember Parliament has approved a series of Acts, from 1965 to 2010, that directly attack Freedom of Speech.
As for a written Constitution – a modern one would be an abomination bobby b, it would protect no basic liberties at all – and, on the contrary, it would make the repealing of any statism (“positive rights”) impossible.
For a good Constitution there first has to be a pro liberty culture – and there is none here, not among the powerful.
As long ago as 1918 a major political party came out with a its own Constitution which in Clause Four (which was written on every membership card – it was in no way a secret) committed it to the control of “the means of production, distribution and exchange” – every farm, factory, shop, mine, and-so-on.
The people who supported this despotic tyranny (who had it proudly displayed on the membership cards) soon ended up in government – and the people who wrote it, Sydney and Beatrice Webb (and the rest of the Fabians – such as H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw) were considered the heart of the intellectual and cultural establishment in Britain – even BEFORE the First World War.
They (these Collectivist fanatics – these supporters of total despotism – the utter extermination of liberty) were, for example, responsible for the “Minority Report” on the Poor Law before (yes before) the First World War – and their proposals (like those of the “Great Society” “intellectuals” in America in the 1960s) were designed to, over time, massively increase the number of people dependent on the state. The “Majority Report”, written by people who spent their own money (and used their own hands) to help the poor, was, of course, ignored by the government – because it did NOT propose an expansion of statism (indeed it pointed out that statism was already doing harm).
They, the Fabians and others, also knew (they knew) that giving unions massive powers (placing them above the law – as was done by the 1906 Act – which built on the madness of the 1875 Act) would massively increase unemployment over time – and that is why they supported the 1906 Act – they supported it because they knew that, over time, it would undermine society and massively increase the number of people dependent on the state. They did not love unions – indeed under their socialism (total despotism – tyranny) independent unions would no longer exist, but they viewed them as a useful WEAPON to undermine “capitalist” society.
The establishment has not got better since this time – it has got worse. Although it is now more cunning in hiding its evil behind a mist of words (the modern Clause Four is not so openly worded as the 1917-1918 draft – but it also puts no limit at all on the size and scope of the state).
And they are the sort of people who would be writing a Constitution for the United Kingdom.
Oh, I agree. My hope here in the USA is that we make some small amendments to the Constitution, but that we not try it until a strong conservative bent has taken over the country and pushes our elections to Mondale-Reagan proportions for several cycles.
Which is probably never, but we still shouldn’t even talk about a Con convention until that happens.
bobby b
The United States has a fairly good Constitution – but, as you know, a couple of Progressive appointments to the Supreme Court would destroy the Bill of Rights – the First Amendment (and so on) would be “interpreted” so that “Hate Speech” (dissent) was no longer allowed.
The same process of destruction would be applied to the 2nd Amendment – and-so-on.
This is likely to happen after the 2028 election – you may well live to see the end of what is left of the Constitution of the United States (as you know – such things as the 10th Amendment were interpreted out of existence long ago).
For those who do not know…..
The 1875 Act did NOT “legalize trade unions” – they were already legal, and had been since the early 1820s when the wartime Combination Acts were repealed.
What the 1875 Act did was to legalize paramilitary tactics such as “picket lines” to obstruct the entrance to a place of business, and to make it very difficult to sue a union for actions of its members, carried out under its orders – the 1906 Act made it almost impossible to sue a union for such attacks.
Even if we make the (rather extreme) assumption that Disraeli and co did not know that the 1875 Act would lead, over time, to unemployment – the “liberals” of 1906 certainly knew that their Act of Parliament would, over time, lead to higher unemployment. This is why they set up “labour exchanges” in a pretense of “doing something” about the unemployment they were creating.
The cold blooded wickedness of this establishment activity is horribly clear.
No political rights are safe if expressed in law created by Parliament. Without a codified constitution that Parliament cannot change, i can only think of a treaty between the crown and people. Although Magna Carta hasn’t survived.
@Stuart Noyes
No political rights are safe if expressed in law created by Parliament. Without a codified constitution that Parliament cannot change
Which is great if YOU get to codify the constitution, but if the other guys get to codify the constitution it is really terrible. My guess? It’ll be the other guys.
@Fraser Orr
A distinct possibility. That’s why I suggest a treaty between the political sovereigns and the legal. A treaty that can only be amended by a change agreed between both parties that doesn’t involve parliament. A treaty that isn’t born out of parliamentary legislation.
Bobby:
“Mondale-Reagan proportions for several cycles” is a pipe-dream: the Dems would shape-shift, as they did in 1992.
(And i do not mean this as something inherently negative: for all his faults, Clinton brought some sanity into the Democratic Party. Although, in the longer term, that might have been for the worse.)
The SAVE Act looks to me like the best hope for the US of A, and West Civ in general.
@Snorri Godhi
The SAVE Act looks to me like the best hope for the US of A, and West Civ in general.
I don’t think so. I mean I think it is good, but I don’t actually think it would make a huge difference even were it enacted. A little perhaps, but it certainly isn’t going to transform America into a libertarian paradise.
BobbyB calls it correctly. The problem is not the electoral system it is the electorate. People in America (and even more so in most other western countries) want big mega government and don’t care at all about deficit spending. So, in a sense, that is what they are going to get. And to get it they are willing to allow American politicians to strut the world stage looking important while bombing the crap out of countries most Americans couldn’t find on a map. Americans don’t care about foreign policy, but they do care about their monthly government check. I think Americans do care about “Freedoms” more than most western countries, however, it is growing more and more difficult for us to agree what “freedom” means.
I think the Trump victory was a small step in the right direction, but TBH I think he has really blown it with his behavior. It all seems to have been going downhill fast since Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I’m not saying the two things are connected, but I did say at the time of his murder that is was vastly more significant and impactful than most people thought.
Although I am not a fan of our action in Iran, I am absolutely appalled by our “allies” attitude toward it. Apparently Austria just jumped on the bandwagon of banning US military planes overflying. Why? Do we really need Austrian airspace? Probably not much, so it is largely a symbolic gesture, a fuck you to America. For the past seventy years we have been carrying Europe’s defense while Europe has massively under funded their militaries and instead used the money to build up competitive industries to bite the very yankee doodle hand that feeds them. And this war, whatever, you think of it, has just made the whole asymmetry so clearly manifest. I understand that Austria might not want to participate, I understand that they might not want to send military hardware or troops (do they even have either?), but to ban American planes from heir airspace? It is shocking. And Italy too? I though Meloni was a close ally of Trump. And let’s not even talk about Britain.
And if American military planes do fly over Austria, what exactly is Austria going to do about it?
You know Iranian missiles cannot reach Washington or Los Angeles. But they can reach Rome and Berlin and probably Madrid and London. So I really have to ask what the hell are we still doing supporting these slackers? Why are we still in a NATO that seems primarily an organization for Europeans to live off the US taxpayer? I’m told that Trump is mad enough to start withdrawing from our Military bases in Europe. Good idea. America will be a better place when nobody knows the name Ramstein. Saudi and UAE and even, FFS Qatar have been much better allies that Europe.
But, for the future of the west and America I think it is important to recognize that what is going on now doesn’t really matter. In the next five to ten years the world’s economy is going to turn upside down with technology changes. Ironically, the thing I have been complaining about for thirty years, the federal debt, probably won’t matter all that much in this new world.
Agreed. Very unlikely.
Which means that I see no opportunity for a sane constitutional amendment process in our future. We need to avoid it like the plague. Our Constitution, in my lawyer mind, remains the best such document across the world, and we could mess ourselves up greatly while attempting to tweak some weak spots. Better to wait – forever, if need be,
@bobby b
Our Constitution, in my lawyer mind, remains the best such document across the world
This non lawyer agrees. But it should also be stated that constitutions rust over time. As they are “interpreted” words lose their meaning, whether “general welfare” or “regulate commerce… among the several states”, or “shall not be abridged”, or laterally “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Over time this constant assault rusts the constitution, weakening its structural integrity, and with it, the structural integrity of our rights, and destroying the concept of “limited” government.
Perhaps this one whose 28 words, apparently, mean nothing at all in modern jurisprudence, is the rustiest example of all.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Ah, yes, birthright citizenship.
My civil self says, birthright citizenship is nuts and ought to go away.
My legal self sighs and says, get over it.
One of the prime rules of black-letter-law interpretation – statutes and constitutional provisions, things that are written down in specific words as opposed to common-law court interpretations – is that the words matter.
If you look at written law, and the words lead you to a clear meaning, you can’t look any further.
Doesn’t matter what the legislature or drafters MEANT to say. Doesn’t matter if the history of the time shows they meant something that differs from what the actual words say.
The words always win. In this case, the argument is about the words in the 14th Amendment – you are a citizen if you are born here and are “subject to the jurisdiction” of our laws.
If you break a law and can be prosecuted, you are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. Exceptions are, kids of admitted foreign diplomats, and maybe kids of invading soldiers.
So, this fight isn’t going anywhere. If we don’t like it, we need to amend the C. And we DON’T want to amend the C.
Border control is the answer.
Personally couldn’t care that much if American forces left Europe. I wouldn’t mind if Britain went back to being an independent country without foreign bases in it, like a normal country. I’d like Britain to have a properly nuclear weapons force like France’s that is totally independent of anyone else, etc. However, this idea Europeans have been freeloaders or slackers is erroneous. Just looking at simply how many European countries have contributed to some previous large American led military interventions disproves it.
European countries who sent forces to Korean War: Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Turkey.
European countries who sent forces to Gulf War: Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey.
European countries who sent forces to Afghanistan: Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey. Notable as well the only time article 5 of NATO was invoked was after 9/11, so its lazy to characterise NATO as European freeloading.
European countries who sent forces to Iraq war: Albania, Armenia Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine.
You can certainly dispute the wisdom of at least some of these interventions. I think outside of Korea, I don’t think these are conflicts Britain should have necessarily been directly involved in. But that’s a different issue.
Should note as well that before the Iran conflict last summer, Israel had not sent forces to assist an American led military intervention.
Illegal immigrants should not be in the United States – it is in the word “illegal”, and the children of people who should not be in the United States are NOT citizens – no more than the children of invaders are citizens, because-they-are-invaders, they are not legally in the United States – so the can not have the benefits, such as their children becoming citizens, that go with being legal – because they are not legal, they are illegal.
@Martin
Should note as well that before the Iran conflict last summer, Israel had not sent forces to assist an American led military intervention.
I think you make some fair points, but it is certainly true that Europe’s contribution, for sure measured in dollars, is pathetic. Some, Britain, France and Poland for example, better than others. But as you say, we shouldn’t have engaged in most of these conflicts. And here is the problem: I am reminded of something Clinton’s sec of state said: “The problem with having a navy is that you use it.” Which is to say the fact that we have military all over the place just encourages us to use it. And from the European’s point of view, if America is going to pay for it, why should we bother?
As to Israel, I’m not going to advocate for their foreign policy either. For sure they serve themselves only, and perhaps, given its size and the threats it is constantly under, that is understandable, though I think they probably did goad Trump into this war. It is also worth saying that in Middle East conflicts, Israeli soldiers would probably have caused escalation. If I remember right during the Gulf Wars the alliance had to work very hard to convince Israel to stay out of the fight for this very reason.
The Democrats, not the ordinary voters – the leaders, are committed, totally committed, to evil – their support of such things as the sexual mutilation of children, making them infertile for life, shows this.
Whether it is evil in economic matters, or evil in social matters, or evil in cultural matters – the Democrats support it.
This is NOT the party of Hubert Humphrey – using mistaken methods to try and achieve good objectives.
Today the Democrats use methods that they know (they know) will lead to horrific results – because they want those horrific results.
There will be no mercy from the Marxist academics – or from the people they produce such as Hakeem Jeffries, soon to be Speaker of the House of Representatives?
No mercy at all will come from them – so defeat them or be destroyed by them.
There is no third alternative.
@bobby b
Border control is the answer.
Perhaps we should ban all pregnant ladies who aren’t citizens at the border? Channel them off to a special line where they can pee on a stick if they look a bit chunky?
That’d set the cat among the pigeons 😉
(Just to be equitable I should say, we could also ban all pregnant men too.)
Paul Marks, you are making a moral and logical argument here. And I quite agree with your argument.
But the only argument which is meaningful in the US right now is the technical legal one, the one based on the words written in our 14th Amendment. That is the basis upon which the USSC is going to address this fight.
“The law is a ass”, said Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist. But it was the law.
Almost 1,000 European soldiers died in Afghanistan. Denmark on a per capita basis suffered a higher fatality rate than the US.
I mentioned Israel as it is the highest recipient of American military aid since WWII.
NATO has participated in many fights, along with the USA, which seem to all occur very far away from me, and much closer to Europe.
The benefits of those fights inure to many many people, most of whom are not in the USA.
To speak of all of those fights as if they were done for MY benefit, for the USA’s benefit, and not for the overall benefit of the free world, seems inaccurate.
If you want to send troops to help us northern-USA people fight off the screaming hordes from Canada, that would be different. Then, you would be helping ME in MY fight. As it is, you are participating in a large societal struggle, which rightfully is as much yours as mine.
We in the USA can easily slip into an isolationist, fight-for-ourselves-only mode, but I think the entire western world suffers if we do.
@Martin
I mentioned Israel as it is the highest recipient of American military aid since WWII.
I doubt you have ever heard me advocate for this. I think the USA should be sending $0 military aid to any country. I certainly understand that Israel has a unique position, and there is a desire from Jewish people all over the world to secure the homeland. I think it is a great idea for those people to privately send money to support this cause if they think it is worthwhile. I’m not sure why they can force me to do it though on threat of prison if I don’t cooperate.
I think the US’s relationship with Israel is really screwed up, and I think Israel is a lot of the reason we are, once again, descending into a middle eastern quagmire.
FWIW, I think the Jewish culture is one of the most remarkable in the world. Their ability to succeed against all the odds, their passion for scholarship, their food and language and music and culture, their generosity and kindness? I’m an atheist, but I think their religion is one of the best. I also think Israel is an amazing place. It seems the only place in the middle east with no oil, and yet they have created the most beautiful civilization out of a burning hellhole of a resource-less desert. One need only consider Gaza before and after the Jews left to understand this. I am very pro Jewish people, I think though that Israel should stand on its own two feet, and be backed by people who volunteer to contribute to its success.
@bobby b
We in the USA can easily slip into an isolationist, fight-for-ourselves-only mode, but I think the entire western world suffers if we do.
Probably, but that is like saying your daughter suffers when you stop paying her rent and expect her to pay her own bills. Most of these European countries have GDPs close to or higher than the USA, so why the hell are we still paying their bills? The Marshall plan finished a long time ago.
These European countries love to crow about how great their social services are, and how terrible and backward America is. But that is because we pay a large part of their bill and they can consequently spend more tax money on other things. That isn’t the whole story but it is certainly a part of it. (For example, we pay a very large amount of the cost of their medical care through the screwed up incentive system that surrounds medical development.)
I will say that as the new future approaches Europe is going to be really screwed. All the wealth this new technology will bring will be generated almost entirely in the USA and China, and so Europe will be losing all the jobs and work that is taken over by technology and will be unable to tax the new technology to shore up their failing economies. It will not be pretty. No doubt the USA will bail their sorry asses out again, and they will be the usual ungrateful children they always are.
I’m spitting fire and rage and probably overstating what I really think. Because although I’m not a fan of this middle east war but I am really mad at the way Europe has reacted. It is a big fuck you to the people who are paying their bills. I’m not saying they need to send materiel, but really? Denying overflight or use of bases that America paid for. It is an outrage.
Martin – in 1948 Israel desperately needed American military aid and did NOT get it.
Only AFTER Israel won its war of survival did the United States “rush to the aid of the victors”.
By the way – the Israeli right (the real right) is not happy with the principle of American aid, because it comes with strings attached.
Never become dependent on American aid – because it can be cut off when you need it most.
For example, the cut off of arms supplies to the Republic of China (the stab in the back during the Chinese Civil War – long AFTER Chang had foolishly stopped the Manchurian offensive, which-was-succeeding. because pro Communists in certain American departments demanded that he stop it), the cut off of vital supplies to Batista in Cuba (yes it was Washington who put Castro in power), the cut off of basic supplies to the Republic of Vietnam and to Cambodia – leading to millions of murders by the Communist forces.
And the betrayal of the Shah of Iran in 1979.
Even if you have sincere friend in one American President – a new President may come, and they be someone like Jimmy Carter – who insists that you respect the “human rights” of your enemies (of your enemies – of those who wish to exterminate you) during a war for survival.
Either make weapons yourself, or pay cash-money for weapons, ammunition and so on.
And reduce spending on “public services” and benefits – in order to pay for your defense.
It depends what you mean by isolationism, but in my understanding America hasn’t been really isolationist since it went into imperialism with its war with Spain in 1898 and also annexing Hawaii that year. Yes, it is often said America was isolationist in the 1920s/30s but that is pretty overstated when you look at other military interventions the US did in that era along with considerable involvement in international diplomacy, finance and also growing ties with Chiang Kai-Shek’s Republic of China government.
In my lifetime several Presidential candidates said they sought to reduce US commitments abroad – Bush Jnr, Obama, Trump. None of them did. Arguably the ones claiming they wanted a less interventionist role have intervened more than the out and out interventionists. I think isolationist public sentiment is exploited for electoral gain but outside a few isolated figures here and there none of the American elite – whether Democrat or Republican – are isolationists. There are few if any lobbies for isolationism in America. There are LOADS for intervening, many that are powerful – everything connected with the military industrial complex, Wall Street, foreign policy think tanks, and diaspora lobbies like the Israeli, Cuban exiles, Iranian exiles, etc.
I think given your President is talking about a $1.5 trillion military budget, your rage should be more internally directed. I don’t think anyone in Europe has caused that.
I looked up the percentage of GDP America spends on government services like welfare, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc and compared to several Western European countries. Spain is about the same as the USA. Italy, Germany and UK slightly higher but not overwhelmingly so (and interestingly US government spending on healthcare might be a higher GDP % than the NHS is for UK). France is much higher than USA, but it is also the one least reliant on American defence commitments as it expelled US bases under De Gaulle and has a fully independent nuclear weapons capability. I would agree Europe should increase defence spending for its own sake and to become independent of the US anyway. However, I think a lot of the current raging is mostly just emotional venting. Which probably would be better directed internally.
@Martin
It depends what you mean by isolationism, but in my understanding America hasn’t been really isolationist since it went into imperialism with its war with Spain
I agree. The USA has very rarely been isolationist — Jefferson sent the Navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates after all. America is in a unique position with two gigantic oceans to protect it. The only actual existential threat the the country is ICBMs, and, strangely, with the gobs of money the military spends, they have done very little to protect against that threat beyond the MAD doctrine. So I’d be in favor of a MUCH more isolationist policy, but on the contrary, there is a good argument to be made that the USA has for at least 100 years been the MOST interventionist country in the world. Maybe some of those interventions were justified, but most certainly were not including the 5,000 places the US military is intervening around the world right now.
I think given your President is talking about a $1.5 trillion military budget, your rage should be more internally directed. I don’t think anyone in Europe has caused that.
Amen. I’ve been spitting fire both on here and to my “not this again Fraser” friends almost from the first day I heard that he planned this. It enrages me that a president elected on a promise to reduce the size of federal government would even have the brass neck to say something like that never mind do it. Trump will have DOUBLED the US military’s budget in 18 months. Instead he should have halved it. But I can be mad about two things at once 😉
I looked up the percentage of GDP America spends on government services like welfare, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc and compared to several Western European countries.
Your argument doesn’t make much sense to me. Just because the USA is utterly profligate with their social service spending doesn’t mean that Europe doesn’t get a free ride on our tax money.
Whether it’s justified or not, US NATO spending is clearly not stopping America from spending more on welfare or public services if it wanted. I asked Grok to estimate the proportion of the US defence budget applies to military presence in Europe and it thinks 3-6pc. Given the administration’s desire to massively ramp up military spending anyway, even if they left NATO I doubt a single penny would be saved, it would likely be just be used elsewhere.
Hegemon behaves like hegemon. This is why I don’t think America will willingly become isolationist, even if there is public sentiment for it. The elites of all stripes don’t want it, and as I said isolationist sentiment is exploited for electoral purposes and co-opted but that’s it only.
@Martin
Whether it’s justified or not, US NATO spending is clearly not stopping America from spending more on welfare or public services if it wanted. I asked Grok to estimate the proportion of the US defence budget applies to military presence in Europe and it thinks 3-6pc.
It’s not what the USA would save, it is what Europe would have to additionally spend. For one thing they’d have fifty years of lack of capital spending to catch up on. And especially so since remember the USA has no serious threats from abroad except ICBMs, Europe is constantly under threat. We don’t need a quarter of the military we had pre-trump to defend our homeland, Europeans probably need three or four times as much as they have.
Given the administration’s desire to massively ramp up military spending anyway, even if they left NATO I doubt a single penny would be saved, it would likely be just be used elsewhere.
FWIW, there is a precedent. After the collapse of the Soviet Union under Clinton and Gingrich the US military budget did go down and we had the first federal budgetary surplus in a hundred years. The peace dividend they called it. Of course George Bush fixed that pretty quickly. He was another President who campaigned on “no nation building” and then preceded to launch endless military actions for nation building.
Would that happen today? Not with the current president for sure. His military spending is offensive in both senses of the word. With a Vance presidency? Perhaps, I wait and hope for a better future.
There’s no going back to the 1990s, and they weren’t isolationist years anyway. Clinton was intervening all over the place and costs kept under control because the interventions scope were relatively controlled and against generally limited opponents like Haiti and Serbia. Potential quagmires like Somalia were wound up fast. US was fortunate as China relatively quiet as it built up it’s economy and Russia was being embarrassed by Boris Yeltsin’s disastrous government.
Apparently the last Republican president to cut military spending was Eisenhower after Korean War armistice.
@Martin
There’s no going back to the 1990s, and they weren’t isolationist years anyway.
Yes, America has never been isolationist, just at that time their biggest interventionist thing folded up and died, so it took them a bit of time where else to piss the money away. My point is that it IS actually possible to reduce military spending without the Ebolians invading Washington DC.
Apparently the last Republican president to cut military spending was Eisenhower after Korean War armistice.
Yeah, there is a shocking fact[*]. It is why I am a libertarian not a republican. But politics is always choosing between the really bad guy and the really really bad guy.
[*] In fairness, I think the “peace dividend” was more due to the Republican congress and Gingrich’s “Contract with America”.
American military spending has been falling, both as a share of the Federal budget and as a share of the American economy, for about 60 years.
Even in recent times the American military of 1993 (when George Bush senior left office) was weaker than it had been in 1989 (when he took office) – and the American military was made much weaker by both President Clinton and President Obama – and by the DEI madness of the “Biden Administration” (of which Mr Biden was NOT in charge).
All my life the American Welfare State, the benefits and services, have been growing in spending – it now utterly dwarfs the military.
As for ignoring forces who pledge (over and over again) “Death to America” (because their religion teaches them that all infidels, in the world, must be crushed) – well you can ignore them, but they will not ignore you.
This was explained to Americans as long ago as the time of President Jefferson – he asked why the Corsairs based in North Africa were attacking American ships, and the envoys explained to him that it was their religious duty to attack infidels.
Leaving aside Islam – the People’s Republic of China is not going to ignore the United States either, no matter what American policy is or is not.
The tyranny that is the PRC knows it must, to survive in the long term, destroy all non-tyrannies and subdue all other powers.
That is just the way it is – and being nice to the PRC does not change this.