NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, this is not my personal view. This is my response to those opposed to universal healthcare. I'm going to use their points to talk about the military, and ask why anyone against universal healthcare would not also agree with the following. (I'm going to also point out all of the similarities)

So...

You know, socialism is really, really evil. That's why America is so great. Because we pay for healthcare, unlike those other commies. (though as Americans, we ignore the libraries, schools, fire departments, police departments, and the military that are all socially funded. But that's not hypocrisy, that's.....I'll get back to you on that).

So I say the military should be private. Do you really want your lives in the hands of the government? The government can't do anything right anyway. When hasn't something been better off in the hands of the free market?

Besides, you have to pay more tax dollars to keep a government controlled military. And look at how bad for the economy war is. If we're going to fight wars, we may as well have people making a profit, rather than the government spending more of our money.

Also, think about the soldiers. Do you really think they want low government wages? They'd probably prefer a private system, so people in the military can make more money.

And the people who want the military can pay for it themselves. Why should people who don't want a universal system still pay taxes that fund it? What if I don't want to pay for the military, what if I'd rather take care of myself.

A government funded military will only lead to socialism. We must privatize everything.

So...lemme get this straight. If I don't pay my military insurance every month, the military won't fight for me? And somehow the enemy knows whose houses are militarily insured?

Yes, I know you don't agree with this. That doesn't mean I can't further point out the absurdity of a privatized military.

Health care and military are suddenly comparable? And there are already privatized military contractors -- Blackwater for example.

We must privatize everything.

The government itself, too? CEO Bush from Government Co. will rule the country. I don´t even know what to call that. Anarcho-capitalism? :p
Being from one of those socialist countries I can say that it´s not too bad living in one.

The government itself, too? CEO Bush from Government Co. will rule the country. I don´t even know what to call that. Anarcho-capitalism? :p
Being from one of those socialist countries I can say that it´s not too bad living in one.

How exactly do you privatize a government? Even if it's ruled by a CEO it's still a government, isn't it? It just doesn't have authority over anyone outside its sphere of influence.

How exactly do you privatize a government? Even if it's ruled by a CEO it's still a government, isn't it? It just doesn't have authority over anyone outside its sphere of influence.

Oh, there is probably some way. Humanity always find some weird way to do things.
Paying for voting, maybe. :)

Health care and military are suddenly comparable? And there are already privatized military contractors -- Blackwater for example.

I think his point is to show that the arguments against public, universal health care are ridiculous, which they are.

Oh, there is probably some way. Humanity always find some weird way to do things.
Paying for voting, maybe. :)

I already do pay for my ability to vote, it's called taxes. Heavy, burdensome, and sometimes downright superfluous taxes.

Oh, and when a Republican is voted into office, then we ALL pay dearly for our ability to vote. :)

I already do pay for my ability to vote, it's called taxes. Heavy, burdensome, and sometimes downright superfluous taxes.

Oh, and when a Republican is voted into office, then we ALL pay dearly for our ability to vote. :)

Heavy taxes? You realize that our taxes are 40-50%, right? You have nothing to complain about. :p

We've tried this. During large sections of European history, mercenary armies were either an important aspect, a minor aspect, or the norm.

The wars of the Italian city-states, for instance, were often decided at the negotiation table, with cities bidding for the services of outstanding condottieri (Military Contractors).

The problem is, the mercenary is fighting as his living. He has no true loyalty to his contractor, only professionalism; and he most certainly has no interest in fighting to the end. There's no profit in death.

With the rise of the mass levy just prior to the rise of Napoleon, the mercenary army swiftly was eclipsed by the resurgent national armies, and for good reason.

A state has certain responsibilities to it's citizens; among these is a common defence. A return to major mercenary use would be a retrograde step.

Heavy taxes? You realize that our taxes are 40-50%, right? You have nothing to complain about. :p

okay, you win ;)

How exactly do you privatize a government? Even if it's ruled by a CEO it's still a government, isn't it? It just doesn't have authority over anyone outside its sphere of influence.

Well, I'm not sure how you do it, but try reading Jennifer Government for a good idea of what such a society may look like. (Well, and read it because it's a damn good book)

We've tried this. During large sections of European history, mercenary armies were either an important aspect, a minor aspect, or the norm.

The wars of the Italian city-states, for instance, were often decided at the negotiation table, with cities bidding for the services of outstanding condottieri (Military Contractors).

The problem is, the mercenary is fighting as his living. He has no true loyalty to his contractor, only professionalism; and he most certainly has no interest in fighting to the end. There's no profit in death.

With the rise of the mass levy just prior to the rise of Napoleon, the mercenary army swiftly was eclipsed by the resurgent national armies, and for good reason.

A state has certain responsibilities to it's citizens; among these is a common defence. A return to major mercenary use would be a retrograde step.



that's exactly the point, the government has a responsibility to its citizens to take care of them, especially the United States Government. The Constitution of the United States clearly enumerates that the government is a government "Of the people, by the people, and FOR the people."

...The whole point behind the military is that it needs to be loyal to the country, unlike a healthcare system.

that's exactly the point, the government has a responsibility to its citizens to take care of them, especially the United States Government. The Constitution of the United States clearly enumerates that the government is a government "Of the people, by the people, and FOR the people."

That's actually from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. What you're probably thinking of is the Preamble of the Consitution, which doesn't say that directly, but does state that the government's job is to, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

"Provide for the common defence," is where I see the government having a responsibility for controlling the military.

...The whole point behind the military is that it needs to be loyal to the country, unlike a healthcare system.

Who should the healthcare system be loyal to?


It seems to me that the military should be loyal to the country so that it can better and properly protect its citizens. Same thing with healthcare, it should be loyal to the people it serves, not to its shareholders or the "bottom-line," in order to properly protect the citizens of which it has been charged to insure.

That's actually from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. What you're probably thinking of is the Preamble of the Consitution, which doesn't say that directly, but does state that the government's job is to, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

"Provide for the common defence," is where I see the government having a responsibility for controlling the military.

yeah, you're right, I wasn't thinking too clearly when I posted that, LOL.

Thanks for correcting me!

We've tried this. During large sections of European history, mercenary armies were either an important aspect, a minor aspect, or the norm.

The wars of the Italian city-states, for instance, were often decided at the negotiation table, with cities bidding for the services of outstanding condottieri (Military Contractors).

The problem is, the mercenary is fighting as his living. He has no true loyalty to his contractor, only professionalism; and he most certainly has no interest in fighting to the end. There's no profit in death.

With the rise of the mass levy just prior to the rise of Napoleon, the mercenary army swiftly was eclipsed by the resurgent national armies, and for good reason.

A state has certain responsibilities to it's citizens; among these is a common defence. A return to major mercenary use would be a retrograde step.
Exactly his point. He's trying to point out the flaws in the argument against universal health care, not actually argue against national armies.

How exactly do you privatize a government? Even if it's ruled by a CEO it's still a government, isn't it? It just doesn't have authority over anyone outside its sphere of influence.

Simple. Privatize all the functions of the government, and then run the government itself like a business. Government essentially becomes a for-profit enterprise with several departments, and if a department doesn't make money, it might end up being cut. Imagine the fire department being axed because it loses money or because the government thinks it can make more money elsewhere.

I had an idea for a story like that, but I don't want to make it too similar to Jennifer Government.

Private Military Firms (PMFs) are very common and are involved in many armed conflicts all over the world. They are very successful and competent - many nations rely on them for decisive victories.

I fully believe that countries should largely disband their military and use a combination of police forces and PMFs. The military is more often a threat to stability rather than ensuring security in most developing nations, so getting rid of it makes a lot of sense. Garrison troops simply occupy a territory and tend to either suppress political dissent or extort resources from the population - they are not needed. Their duties are far better fulfilled by civilian police forces.

When there is need for intensive military action, PMFs can be used to great effect. They bring highly experienced soldiers with the best equipment - they are professionals and can afford the training and equipment as it will be used often. Garrison troops rarely have need of combat ready equipment and very expensive training, so they tend to be poorly trained and under equipped.

PMFs bring the right troops with the right equipment to get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible for minimal long-run cost (the benefits of the market). They have little incentive to prolong conflicts (unlike local military leaders who use it as an excuse to power-grab) and want to minimize damage as much as possible (do not reduce the ability of your client to pay) and rely on their international reputation to secure other jobs. No lack of conflict in the world ensures that there is always work available if you have a reasonable reputation. Even the bottom feeding PMFs who only work for disreputable tyrants because of a brutal reputation of human rights violations are likely to be better than the tyrant's cronies in the military.

So I say yes - privatizing the military is a good idea (besides - not having a large and bored army on hand reduces the temptation to use it).

We must privatize everything.

Yes, we must.

I'm not joking.

First of all, this is not my personal view. This is my response to those opposed to universal healthcare. I'm going to use their points to talk about the military, and ask why anyone against universal healthcare would not also agree with the following. (I'm going to also point out all of the similarities)

So...

You know, socialism is really, really evil. That's why America is so great. Because we pay for healthcare, unlike those other commies. (though as Americans, we ignore the libraries, schools, fire departments, police departments, and the military that are all socially funded. But that's not hypocrisy, that's.....I'll get back to you on that).

So I say the military should be private. Do you really want your lives in the hands of the government? The government can't do anything right anyway. When hasn't something been better off in the hands of the free market?

Besides, you have to pay more tax dollars to keep a government controlled military. And look at how bad for the economy war is. If we're going to fight wars, we may as well have people making a profit, rather than the government spending more of our money.

Also, think about the soldiers. Do you really think they want low government wages? They'd probably prefer a private system, so people in the military can make more money.

And the people who want the military can pay for it themselves. Why should people who don't want a universal system still pay taxes that fund it? What if I don't want to pay for the military, what if I'd rather take care of myself.

A government funded military will only lead to socialism. We must privatize everything.

I love you.

the absurdity of a privatized military.

That's the point.