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

quite a thinker you are

military along with courts are 2 major good reasons for government

rest can honestly disappear and economy and life would improve, esp when you limit lawyers are replace them with software

any more questions bright guy?

 

infrastructure is also socialised - I bet you enjoy using that though commie

 

You are aware that all governments, even non-socialist ones, are based on forcefully taking from others, known in that context as taxation? Are you an anarchist, or are you confused about the philosophy regarding the justification of the state?

 

FORCEFULLY taking from others in order to fill the obligation of government is ONE thing.

FORCEFULLY taking from others who earned and handing to one who didn't is theft.

The federal government, via the constitution, was NEVER granted the right to steal from one citizen and hand to another.

So in that RESPECT, I'm neither confused or an anarchist.

 

Your justification goes no longer than a piece of paper? really? Have you no underlying philosphy other than the veneration of paper?

 

That piece of paper clearly spells out the enumerated powers of the federal government, wealth redistribution not being one of them because our founding fathers weren't thieves.

Is there a MORAL foundation for my argument? Sure. Taking from one who earned by force because you "think" you're more deserving than the person who earned it is armed robbery in any other circumstance.

 

oh but they were. They took the belonging of people, in order to fund the government didn't they? Theft is theft even is a piece of paper says otherwise, isn't? theft is theft even if it's used for good isn't?

What about the justification the constitution uses then? To steal, to do good? You buy that one I guess, so how about taxing, and giving it to people who'd otherwise starve, a clearly good thing?

 

What I BUY is the fact, the constitution like any other social contract, specifically limits government to providing services we're incapable of providing ourselves as individuals AKA national defense, infrastructure.......

There is no such thing as a benevolent action by an immoral act. Government's very essence is FORCE, which is why it SHOULD be limited as much as possible. Not some all powerful entity eclipsing individual freedom and liberty with every turn.

 

But infrastructure can be provided by private means. "bah" you say, "it wouldn't be as efficient as if it was government-run", and I agree. But you know what's interesting? Taking care of the weak of society is also something which can be provided by private means, but it, like private infrastucture, typically fails miserably. So why then is infrastructure a legitimate role of government but not basic welfare?

But that's the justification for government. We must do evil, so that good may come: we must tax, so that there be order.

Extending government beyond the powers given by the US constitutions doesn't mean it's "eclipsing freedom and liberty".. How is giving food to starving people depriving them of their liberty?

 

"it wouldn't be as efficient as if it was government-run"


There is nothing on this earth less efficient than a gov't run enterprise, whatever it is.

 

Nothing the government does is "efficient" compared to private enterprise....... The premise is there's no profit for a private entity to build a road or partake in national defense.

I hardly think spending trillions on welfare and seeing little to no change in poverty is what I would consider "successful".

Because infrastructure benefits EVERYONE. Protection of the bill of rights benefits EVERYONE.

Social welfare, or entitlement rights, are TAKEN FORCEFULLY from one which causes HARM to WHO they are taken from and handed to another who the state deems more worthy. It could be argued that also causes harm to the recipient as it relieves their responsibility to support themselves AKA dependence upon the state.

You don't mind if I allow everyone in the world to clean out your bank account and all your belongings because they have less than you right?

FALSE. UTTER COMPLETE TRASH ARGUMENT...... Voluntarily agreeing to a social contract like the constitution is NOT EVIL in any way shape of form. It's a trade off of a piece of individual freedom and liberty for services the government can provide that we can't on our own DUH.

Because EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT HANDS OUT IS FORCEFULLY TAKEN FROM ANOTHER CITIZEN DUHHHHHHHHH....... WHY DO PROGRESSIVES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE PREMISE?

 

nah, they were just terrorists instead. Fine with that though, aren't you........

 

Ok, so you accept a privatised military and police force then.

Probably the only one on this thread so far. Kudos to you.

Don't tell me, the military is 'excluded' here................roll eyes

- - - Updated - - -

Glad to see that you also, have finally come round to the sensible conclusion, that the military must be privatised.

Or would you prefer an 'inefficient' govt. run one?

And of course a private military can make profit, just look at Iraq for example.

Private roads can charge high toll fees.

So, Fail again.

 

Fine with your ridiculous opinion on the matter? Not really.

 

Why would we ever privatize one of the few LEGITMATE powers of the federal government?

 

And do you really think your taxes would decrease if welfare were cut back, doubt it somehow - the money would just go somewhere else, most likely to the comrades in the military, that bastion of socialism thriving in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

To destroy the lingering remnants of communism in the US.

 

Of course it would. There's no difference between democrat and republican in terms of the size of government, debt or deficit.

- - - Updated - - -

You should read through the thread as I already trashed that ridiculous premise.....

The government providing a service that no private enterprise would do because of a lack of profit margin, is a legitimate function of government, NOT communism.....

I'm cool with you privatizing it as long as we pay ZERO taxes for it. Let's see private enterprises protect us with zero profit to gain..... /chuckle

 

I already mentioned Iraq and all the oil that was nicely skimmed off, pretty sure Haliburton had a field day there.

And hey, plenty of other places a private military could go and plunder - I hear there's a lucratrive drug trade in Mexico to be controlled.

Yes sir, the privatised military could make stacks of money.

So, Fail again Mr STR8 - it's a red army still, unless you can come up with something better.

 

" There is nothing on this earth less efficient than a gov't run enterprise, whatever it is. "

Ok, so you accept a privatised military and police force then.

Probably the only one on this thread so far. Kudos to you.

Don't tell me, the military is 'excluded' here................roll eyes


The military services would be far more efficient if the Congress didn't politicize their spending and if they were allowed to conduct military operations without interference from the pols. BUT - like every other gov't run organization, they will spend every last dollar they get on stuff they might not really need so their next budget doesn't get cut. Although that may change somewhat if the cuts to the defense budget keep getting bigger and bigger. They ain't that efficient when it comes to money, but when it comes to prosecuting a war there's nobody even close.

And BTW, we are already privatizing or automating a lot of functions in the DoD in the support functions. Have been doing that since the late 80s, there are a lot of jobs that used to be done by an active duty person that are now contracted out or done by a civil service employee.

 

Classical Socialism, of the negative kind.

But why do all the Cons so love the military - the irony is amusing, and it's clear to see why I've got so much flame on this thread.

ya see - Socialism works, and the right wingers cannot under any circumstances accept this.

The military is a Socialist entity as it currently stands.

 

True in most cases, but when it comes to the military and infrastructure, we're better off having the government run it rather than have it privatised.

But there is. Haven't you heard of toll roads? Infrastructure can be privatised, and they can make a profit out of it. The reason it's mostly done by the government isn't because it's impossible to privatise is, but because doing so would just be very inefficient and bad in general. i.e. the same justification government has for providing welfare.

No they don't. Not everyone uses all infrastructure they pay for, and not everyone exercise their rights fully. You pay for infrastructure because society overall is better off for it, and it's the same with welfare.

You've already shown how you don't care about "causing harm" because you see taxation as justified for doing what you believe to be good -i.e. the basic functions of a government. Thus, you should already understand that it's about weighing the good and the bad, and doing that which gives the most net good. Just as taxation is necessary to provide for police and military, it's necessary to use taxes to provide welfare, because they all serve the purpose of making life better for people. Yes, people are "harmed" by taxation, but they'd be harmed even more if they didn't have police or military, or if they didn't get helped out of poverty. You're just being inconsistent imo. government is all about doing a little evil in order to do more good, and welfare isn't any different from a moral perspective. and yes, too much welfare in poorly designed systems can leave people dependent on it, but that's not what I want. I'm talking about a safety net which is supposed to catch people when they inevitably fail, and help them get back up on the ladder.

This perhaps unserious remark reveals how you don't understand the opposition. It's not about evening out the wealth between people just because, it's about making sure everyone gets up to a certain standard of living.

no, Social contracts are bull(*)(*)(*)(*). all parties need to consent for a contract to be valid, and I haven't been asked of my consent. I was born into this, or it was my parents who consented on my behalf. Which is just bs double standards that are allowed to stand because people seem to have this desire to view government as being founded on some fully moral basis. But it's all coercion don't you know? Coercion for the greater good, and I support that, but I don't pretend it's voluntary.

OMG CAPSLOCK WARRIOR, CHILL OUT. Seriously, writing in caplock does wonders to kill off any sense of credibility.

So you're back to making an appeal to authority, a piece of paper specifically. There are other piece of paper, like the communist manifesto, which lays out another set of legitimate powers for the government you know. Be consistent in your veneration of papers please.

Socialism is great yeah, but a military isn't a socialist institution except by very meaningless definitions of socialism.

 

Why do you think private roads that have to bend to the will of congestion instead of developers will be less efficient? Private road builders built more roads in china this last decade then we have built in 50 years.

How is society better off with welfare? Hard data please.

 

I'm not talking about private builders. Infrastructure, like roads, is something which is best carried out by an authority that can back it up with force. Just imagine if we had many roads competing for the same route, and just imagine the tolls everywhere. it'd be chaos, and a good waste of resources. Better to just had the government do it. The free market is wonderful, but it doesn't work everywhere.

 

Why is it worse to have many options on travel? Would the roads be more or less congested?

Tolls are inefficient. Most private road models would pay them a share of gas taxes after car count sampling, or pay by license features. We have the tech to make it simple. If it is proven to be cheaper and more efficient when private industry does it, why leave it to government?

 

If the options are superflous, it's a waste of resources. Roads take up space, and cost to build you know.

If they'd be funded by taxes it wouldn't be fully privatised. Arguments can be made for some combination like this, but I was thinking of a fully privatised system.

But, let's discuss welfare. How would the weak be cared for without welfare? By charity?