Why accept a socialised military if you hate the reds so much?

One difference is that we can't expect military standards of discipline and honor from the DMV.

 

They are brought in from foreign country's, like we do NOW with privatized health care.

The Council on Physician and Nurse Supply estimates that in 10 years, the United States could have a shortage of 200,000 doctors. Already, one in four doctors working in this country is trained in a medical school overseas (though this includes some American doctors who attended medical school outside the United States).

- - - Updated - - -

Black Water & others seem to do well.

 

Not at all cap, when you aren't having a war, just lay them off. end of story.

 

And with no war.....kiss profit goodbye.

 

Yeah, I went there for an eye test and they didn't kill me, the line moved fast, I got no complaints.

 

The country with smartest kids, Finland, is far more socialist than the US. Does this mean we need more socialism ?
Every first world country in the world has universal healthcare yet pay much less than the US. Does this mean we need more socialism ?

I do not think that we need more socialism but we certainly need to get rid of the military as a form of welfare. The most expensive welfare system on the planet.

 

There's a HUGE difference between socialized which we could debatably add as a descriptor to just about ANYTHING and socialism......

Socialism is when the state owns the means of production and decides what's produced.......

Paying taxes for legitimate government services such as defense is NOT socialism.

 

Hahahahaha! If that assessment of who and what I am is what you gathered from my post then that explains so very, very many things about . . . the nature of YOUR postings. Nice!

 

It is a form of socialism as the government is enforcing partial control over the profits of production.

We can debate the meaning of socialism if you like but at the end of the day the military is the largest welfare program on the planet.

What I would also debate is whether the military, as it currently sits, is a legitimate government service.

 

National defense is a public good.

Public control of public goods isn't socialism, it's just common sense.

Socialism is when you put PRIVATE goods, like education and medicine, under public control.

 

Please point out the Successful motels, mun. I haven't seen any yet.

 

No.....the act of defending the country produces no profit......It's a service provided by the government that no private entity would do voluntary, just like a private entity wouldn't start producing roads.....

NO, it's a government SERVICE provided to it's citizens......There's no debate about it.

THAT might be debatable but as a pacifist, I'd have to recuse myself from the debate.

 

Who decides what is private and what is public? The Constitution? Our legislators? You?

 

Please tell me you are using Gen Wesley Clark as your claim of fact.

The US Military is not a Socialized system. The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees, it is self reliant.

 

I did not say that the act of defending the country did produce a profit ? Whenever the Government taxes something it is exerting control over some of the profits from the means of production. This is socialism. Any monies collected by the government from the people to be distributed at its will for the "collective good" - be it roads or military. Is socialism.

Welfare is a government service .. no debate about it. Collecting money through taxes and redistributing this money for the collective good is Socialism.

As a pacifist you should be throwing yourself into the debate rather than recusing yourself. Regardless, the current size of our military by far and away exceeds what is required for defense of the country.

Because a military of this size is unnecessary it therefore serves no purpose other than to provide a paycheque to citizens and military contractors which is equivalent to welfare.

Total military spending when Clinton left office was roughly 300 billion. (were we not well defended under Clinton ?)

Total military spending after 8 years of Bush was over 900 billion.

Did we need an extra 600 billion a year (a tripling of spending in 8 years) to keep the country safe ? If you believe this I have a bridge to sell you.

Much of that money goes to military contractors. Insider trading for congress is legal which means they can invest in a company that they know will be awarded a contract before the street knows.

Congress was not acting in your best interest but to line their own pockets when they tripled the size of the Military. That the Bush family is in bed with these interests is not a secret.

 

FALSE. Take an economics course and get back to me.

FALSE. It may be "social" but it's not socialism by any definition..... Take an economics course and get back to me.

I join the debate when I refuse to vote for which D or R the corporate media chooses for me and vote Libertarian. When you do the same you may attempt to present your moral argument.

 

Dude, it's an economic concept. You might as well ask "who decides what the equilibrium wage is?" or "who decides what opportunity costs are?" or "who decides what supply and demand are?"

Learn2economics.

 

So economists are the ones who determine what is private or public then? Which ones?

 

[TABLE="width: 80%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Excludable
[/TD]
[TD]Non-excludable[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rivalrous
[/TD]
[TD]Private goods
food, clothing, cars, personal electronics
[/TD]
[TD]Common goods
fish stocks, timber, coal
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Non-rivalrous
[/TD]
[TD]Club goods
cinemas, private parks, satellite television
[/TD]
[TD]Public goods
free-to-air television, air, national defense
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Here you go, it should help you understand. It's not something arbitrarily determined by economists, it's just how it is.

 

No, not economists. The definition of the term itself determines what is private or public. Didn't you read the wikipedia article to which I linked?

 

First off ... you are not university educated. That much is clear from your dialogue.
Second In general you learn about socialism in Political Science not Economics. And yes I have taken classes in both during my undergrad.

Despite not having attended University you can still learn about Socialism by using Google. Good luck in your studies.

 

So what you are saying is that the military is not a socialist institution... On the grounds of either "it's just how it is" or "the definition defines itself?"

That is either an ideologically-driven assumption or just you trying to dismiss the rather obvious point I am trying to make: these terms are highly contentious and not at all settled. What is considered public and what is considered private is constantly changing. Eighty years ago, the idea of water as a private resource would have been dismissed outright. Forty years ago, the idea of prisons being private would have been laughed off.

Clearly this issue isn't as obvious as claimed.

 

Of course it's socialist, if you go by a very meaningless definition of socialist.

 

How is the military socialist? They have different ranks ie classes. A truly socialist system (ala Karl Marx) strives to be classless. The entire structure of the military is based exclusively on different classes. Also, you can get kicked out for masturbating. I don't recall anyone being executed by Stalin for masturbating.

 

You seem to be convinced that complex political ideas are precisely defined. So what definition of socialist are you using? There are literally dozens to choose from, so be sure to pick the one that is most advantageous for your argument.