Defense is being ready, against invasions and other hostilities that may disrupt our lives.
As the case is with my whole system, defense-readiness is also easy and natural and as individual-respecting as possible.
Defense is a life-time process. For your military contribution, you never have to leave the place where you live - unless to help needy others. No such thing as "going to army." You are most probably, at your most forceful, wherever you live all your life, with your intimate knowledge of the region you are living in.
A serious interest with the modern-and-developing war technologies, complements this. The war technologies are most profitable, especially, when they are tuned for your region, in its geology, weather, and with its human resources (i.e: to the extent they fit the abilities of the people who control those machinery).
A mastery of the high-tech machinery, for example fighter-jets, starts at home. You start playing/fighting with games, on your computer. Then, the more successful scorers may, if they like, start using physically-realistic simulator-rooms. Then, those who achieve higher, may ride the fighter-jets.
Obviously, this would be enjoyable/motivating for a lot of individuals. And at the same time, it is an optimal allocation of resources to those who could use the machinery most successfully.
Such a person may be a lawyer, a doctor, or a shoemaker in his/her daily life. What he/she does, at the weekends, or other preferred times, is to develop skills that are not only enjoyable, but also helpful for protecting his/her family, friends, the region he/she lives in and possibly the neighboring regions, too.
At this site, I tell about my (zElQarneyn's) world-vision. It respects the choices of the individuals. It is tax-free (but zekat'ful). When there is no such state-managed big-budget, the question is about "Who pays?" Most individuals are able to pay for their rifles, or such, but the issue of buying giant war machinery (like fighter-jets, etc.) may be mystifying. I answer it, here.
In other words, the question is: Will nobody pay for such? Or, will there be an exception to the free-choice (tax-free) system, and will we send forcibly-money-collectors to somebody's doors?
No. There are no exceptions. Everybody has his/her choice, and assumes the responsibility (accepts the results of his/her own preferences). But if you want a summary answer, the answer is: I do think, yes, some will probably pay, again as part of a natural process.
First, let's discuss what may happen when what is probable does not happen, and a region does not prepare for defense. Either not at all, or by not buying the more expensive machinery.
If some danger appears, some invasion approaches, and the people of the region are not ready, and cannot arrange for some external help (or hiring/buying/etc.) either, the invaders may invade. The people may still stay there, or may leave the place altogether.
In other words, that is a matter of choice. You choose what is more advantageous for yourself. Paying for defense, or letting the place be invaded - especially if the place has no significance other than seeing eachother within there.
A region need not be especially large or wealthy to be able to defend itself. Small regions can join forces, buy expensive machinery together, make war-time-support agreements, etc. Such networks may be as powerful as any. My suggestion is a world-wide network of such regions. The central issue is being-against-invasion, whether or not the regions otherwise may love each other.
Within each region, there are three very powerful motivators for some people to finance the more expensive machinery that are not affordable by [most] individuals. Those who own the money, may pay it, or not. These three motivators are to convince them for contributing their fair share.
There is yet another, the fourth motivator, if not the prime motivator, for muslims, as a result of the Islamic principles that highly value preparedness-for-war/defense (jihad) - not only within our spirits, every moment, against evil, but also getting ready, for combat, with arms, and raising horses (now, tanks, fighter jets), etc. - whether or not, then, these are ever needed in that person's lifetime. This is a certain aspect about readiness.
The first motivator: That who owns more wealth, has more to protect. Or, more to loose, if not protected - in case of an invasion. That may aid in convincing.
If we are telling here, of a town, city, or a wider region, and if the rich people, are making money, not by getting into (sometimes pre-arranged) government contracts, which is an impossibility, as a result of my system having excluded all such tax-and-state-spending, the wealthier people must be selling goods or services to the people of some region - even if that is not the region where they live themselves.
That merchant/investor who is unwilling to contribute to defense spendings may well be commercially-ex-communicated by the people of the region they are making the money.
Of course, in part, this also depends on how much the particular goods and/or services are in relative demand as compared with the alternatives. And this may really provide for an optimal defense-investment allocation.
In other words, if the goods and/or services are very much needed/wanted, then the merchant/investor may allocate less to defense-budget, and still be in favor. Whereas others may spend more to keep in favor. This sounds as free-market-dynamics as possible. Not usual of tax-based systems.
And one last point to relate to this particular subsection: The Public Records, Intelligence is relevant here. Not only people may track who has done what in favor of defense, per person, and/or per company, but also, in case of deserting-responsibilities, undoing committed work, those who cheat will be known globally, wherever they go, because that will be seen in their public/global records. A deterrent against abuses, I think.
As already stated, we do not carry a bizarre notion that holds soldiers and citizens apart. And then, what you call a war-machinery may really be something that helps me most, in times of peace.
In a system, where taxes are not collected away to defend us, I expect to see a lot of such innovations that may double as war-machinery in war-time. People, in their usual lives, will already be prepared both in the owning and the use of the machinery - except in some special modes, which they may exercise in their times of preference (e.g: weekends).
With such an extra motivation, the popularity may increase for such multi-purpose vehicles, and with concentrated production, these may cost less, and become even safer - with the wartime hardships in mind. UAVs (miniature planes), four-wheel drive (4x4) vehicles, etc.
The need-for-defense, sometimes may be hard to understand. Yet, a few observations could suffice to convince us for the need. Simply stated: Somebody may invent a reason, and may attack. Your not being able to defend may be sufficient for them. So often, it does not appear to be a matter of logical argumentation, at all. Like it or not.
Don't you sometimes feel the wars of our times is a bit less gentlemanly than we would like to believe it? Are civilians really left intact, or is it just the vice versa?
Even clearly-defined categories may not be so relevant. You may expect/choose very well to exclude a woman or elderly from miliitary capabilities, and do not harm them when you could, but there appears no guarantee that the soldiers of the enemy will also cherish your ideals.
A lot of civilians die in "modern war"s - maybe more than soldiers do. The "modern war classic" appears to be a heavy-bombing of the cities.
And worse: it is not only the crudeness of the devices (bombs at a distance). When the enemy enters the cities, a lot of civilians may be subjected to torture and/or rape as observed in some of the recent invasions. Just refresh your memories with the horrors in the last decade that hit the news and you know what I mean - not to mention the last century.
Learning to aim and shoot may not really be "so much more difficult" than letting yourself, and/or your family, and/or other people in your region be violently abused.
I suggest being prepared. Everyone. At your time of preference. And without any such "going to army," etc. Later subsections will make it even clearer why we should not leave this to any select (let alone, "pre-select") few. World realities.
I accept no such conception as a "soldier" if taken apart from "ordinary human"s. A soldier is also a human - whether good or evil. And vice versa: Almost any human may be a soldier, especially so with the advanced technology.
You cannot pre-select, decades before it, who may be best capable at what, when needed. Collecting teenagers to armed forces, for a life-time (or decades), as usual in some countries, does not appear optimal.
The issue of "ordinary people" versus "soldier"s is even more relevant in tyrannical regimes. Once there is such a split, and one side has the arms at hand, never mind if the people are paying for that, the "ordinary people" may get tyrannized against. This happens. Here and there. Where there is no established ethics/force against "the armed man passes his judgment" sort of mentality, a lot of bizarre 3rd-world-phenomena become realities.
And what is the limit to such uncheckability?
Examples of wrongdoings are abundant. How should we rate insistent-"mistake"s, power abuses against the people or against one's lower-ranks?
So often, the tyrants like using the word "traitor" against ordinary citizens who object to what they are doing. Whereas, actually, under such regimes, an ordinary citizen rarely, if ever, carries any capability more than a tourist visiting the country.
The actual power-givens are the dictators themselves, in hopes that they would defend the nation, in times of war. To begin with, this tells you who has the potential to be a traitor. And then, you may judge what to call them, especially given that so many of such dictators (systematically) abuse their position and powers in a variety of ways. News archives suffice to demonstrate.
To summarize the issue on traitorship: The ones who cheat the trust of their people are (almost) always the dictators. The objection-raising regular citizens may not even have a potential for it. The real cheating and as a result the real harm is done by those position-holders who behave in ways not-to-be-expected from the job they should be doing. The relevance to this page is that so often this involves some "above-thou" army mechanism.
I suggest that any weapons, must be controlled by the armazes of that region. An armaze, after all, defends the citizens' lives, and it is composed in a way to verify its responsibilities, in tiny units. i.e: An armaze, is the unit of responsibility, and it is the legitimate weapons-controller, for its area.
An arm manages the regional-defense resources, e.g: fighter-jets, or tanks, for combat. Who verifies their acts? In case of wrongdoings, who is reported to? The armazes in a region represent, possibly in many levels. If the arm-people are living somewhere else, a new armaze-formation is possibly needed. An alternative is to inform, and train the "rank-and-file" that, even a general, is at most an ex-general, after a wrongdoing. He/she must be reported to the nearest armaze, for an arrest. The valid arm-people, even the "rank-and-file" are entitled to arrest, or report him/her, to an armaze.
Any officer, if ever, even by joke, suggests firing even a single shot, [within the region,] without explicit direction of the armazes (or, the armaze, nearest to the spot), is automatically removed from that post, and tried at court, as a traitor. After all, the people do not organize those separately-standing arm units, to get shot themselves, with their own money. That who turns those weapons inside, instead of defending the national/regional borders, is to be declared a traitor, and executed - once the attempt is verified.
If a transport-within-region is needed, or in case of a terrorist attack to an arm-people, they are protected by the armaze, at any point within the region. That is, even for self-defense, within that region, heavy artillery, is not allowed - unless the armaze orders it.
Every single shot must have legitimacy. The legitimacy is with responsibility. Armaze of a firm-or-building, represents, and has the responsibility. That firm-or-building, as verifiable by the people of that region, is responsible for what its armaze does. This is the responsibility, and the legitimacy.
Every single shot, within that region, with any weapon, must abide with the armaze orders. e.g: Training with a rifle may need well-isolated rooms/areas, whereas major explosions may need remote areas. The armaze, nearest to the spot, decides it, possibly guided by the rules listed, and the priorities of the armazes, it is co-operating with.
And every single shot, in the name of that region, must also be abiding with the security/defense concepts. After all, if you shot at a neighbor region, or at a fleet, they may fire in return, and armaze is concerned with that result.
Why bother, in the first place, to first designate such a separate class as a "soldier" and then start yelling and screaming (or silently weeping) when they choose to abuse those capabilities you bought for them?
As I started giving examples in the introductory section of this page, there is an easy, natural, and honest way of setting up defense, with full-respect to individual choices.
Next, I go on to discuss the context for it.