Why a Standing Army and a Welfare State?

[rangerrebew]

Why a Standing Army and a Welfare State?

By: Jacob Hornberger|Published on: Jul 8, 2021|Categories: Founding Principles

One of the major distinguishing characteristics, philosophically speaking, between our American ancestors and today’s Americans is with respect to the national-security establishment. Our ancestors fiercely opposed that type of governmental structure. Today’s Americans vociferously support it.

That was why our ancestors chose to bring into existence a limited-government republic, one that only had a basic, relatively small military. If they had been told that the Constitution was going to bring into existence the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial complex, an empire of domestic and foreign military bases, the CIA, and the NSA, there is no doubt that they never would have approved the deal. That would have meant that the United States would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, a type of governmental structure whose powers were so few and limited that the federal government didn’t even have the power to tax.

That was the way our ancestors wanted it. Unlike today’s Americans, they didn’t want a powerful federal government. They wanted a weak federal government, one without a powerful military-intelligence force.

Why did our ancestors oppose so fiercely what they called a “standing army”? Because their view of government was totally different from the way that today’s Americans view government. 

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/08/why-a-standing-army-and-a-welfare-state/

[Smokin Joe]

That opposition was not complete. It was thought there should be a standing army sufficient to respond to external threats with the help of the State's armies, and that it should be large enough to step in and shut down martial conflict between the armies ("militias") of any two states.

It was, indeed, necessary to the security of a Free State. It had to remain, ultimately, under control of the Civil Authorities. and thus, remain "well regulated" (controlled). The rest of that is that the ultimate control over the possibility of that Standing army being used to impose tyranny on the citizenry was in the overwhelming numbers of The People, who by the force of their individual arms could resist and quell such usurpation, even in the absence of martial training.

Thus, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. enshrined the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as sacrosanct.

At that time there were no limitations on the tools of war which could be possessed by the individual, save those of simple economics. If you could buy one, you wanted to buy one, you could.

There is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes the expenditure of monies from the Federal coffers for the purposes of charity.