Since the government is so horrible at running things, why not let private companies form their own coalition of militias? Sounds like a pretty conservative plan to me.
Should the military be privatized?
- Thread starter 2facedboonefan
- Start date
It's roughly as good an idea as leaving healthcare and education to the free market.
I meant it tongue in cheek. I'm trying to get people to admit there are some things good for society that government handles better than the private sector could on its own.
You think the government doesn't subcontract private military?
The good folks on Wall Street seem trustworthy and savvy as a private option, maybe they'd be interested?
They're as good as any to enact your plan to freely hand over the world's most advanced weaponry, soldiers and complete power over citizens.
Remember Blackwater? It went to something like Xe, now its called Academi - started by an extreme rightist named Erik Prince. They caused Bush/Cheney a lot of grief in Iraq and the name changes came about from bad publicity. During that time Bush signed done very questionable executive orders and they, with the association to Blackwater raised a lot of eyebrows. Had President Obama done that, and had the link to a company like Blackwater the right wing would've gone to war. Blackwater was also sent into New Orleans immediately after Katrina, raising more eyebrows.
That's just because things went bad. They are utilized frequently.
The "military advisors" you hear so much about are often times contractors.
There's quite a menu the government selects from.
http://www.privatemilitary.org/private_military_companies.html
Of, course private military pays much better also.
Private Military Company Pay
Private military companies are as hesitant about providing information about their payroll as they are about naming their clients. The individual contractors who worked for PMCs rarely speak of it because their clients include organizations such as the CIA, and their contracts require silence. Their pay, according to CNN, ranges between $500 per day and $750 per day or between $15,000 and $22,500 per month.
Army Pay
U.S. Army pay depends on an individual’s rank. The higher the rank, the greater the responsibility and the corresponding pay. A private, entering advanced individual training earns $1,468 per month. A sergeant with five years experience, possibly including combat, earns a base pay of $2,448 per month. A master sergeant with 20 years of experience may be only 38 years old and earns $4,189 per month in base pay. An infantry officer, after five years of service, probably has combat leadership experience and -- if a first lieutenant -- earns $4,349 per month. If that same officer holds the rank of captain, he earns $4,952 per month in base pay.
http://work.chron.com/private-military-company-pay-vs-army-pay-24574.html
Private Military Company Pay
Private military companies are as hesitant about providing information about their payroll as they are about naming their clients. The individual contractors who worked for PMCs rarely speak of it because their clients include organizations such as the CIA, and their contracts require silence. Their pay, according to CNN, ranges between $500 per day and $750 per day or between $15,000 and $22,500 per month.
Army Pay
U.S. Army pay depends on an individual’s rank. The higher the rank, the greater the responsibility and the corresponding pay. A private, entering advanced individual training earns $1,468 per month. A sergeant with five years experience, possibly including combat, earns a base pay of $2,448 per month. A master sergeant with 20 years of experience may be only 38 years old and earns $4,189 per month in base pay. An infantry officer, after five years of service, probably has combat leadership experience and -- if a first lieutenant -- earns $4,349 per month. If that same officer holds the rank of captain, he earns $4,952 per month in base pay.
http://work.chron.com/private-military-company-pay-vs-army-pay-24574.html
Things went very badly, but Erik Prince's strong Republican ties made them very questionable. Prince sold it a while ago.
"Provide for the common defense" is something the federal government is actually supposed to be doing.
We must keep GE from getting nukes. It's OK if we at Proctor Gamble have them. But if GE gets them it will just make them bolder and more likely to engage in corporate-sponsored terrorism. If they invade our market share, it will be war.
It pays better because we are willing to pay them.
But why are we willing to pay them?
Lots of reasons. Some are even reasonable - as when they offer a special skill set that we need so seldom it wouldn't make sense to pay to maintain it all the time. But that's probably pretty rare.
The main reasons for turning to private contractors, even though they cost more, are:
1) to provide kickbacks to political supporters,
2) to be able to claim we have fewer troops "over there" and especially fewer on the ground and fewer dead, and
3) defense budgets get very little scrutiny (unless they are for helping wounded soldiers or their survivors).
One of those things in the constitution that the founders thought was so important that they said it twice - first in the Preamble, as a primary goal for even having a nation; second as a Congressional power.
The other thing the founders mentioned twice, in exactly the same way, was promoting the general welfare.
I always find it interesting that those who are so adamant that the primary charge of the federal government is defense, are often those who deny that general welfare has equal status in the constitution. In fact, many want to claim it doesn't even count.
Knee-jerking at it's finest.
Has anyone here said that defense is not something the federal government is supposed to be doing?
The OP's question wasn't whether we should have a military, but whether to privatize it - or, perhaps more accurately, to delegate it to private powers.
The point of contingency here would be what "general welfare"'encompasses. Liberals seem to think it means everyone gets to live in luxury.
"General welfare" didn't mean what "welfare" means today. It meant fostering conditions that enable prosperity, not giving people money directly from the treasury.
No, it shouldn't be privatized. The Commander in Chief is the President of the United States, not the President of Warfare Amalgamated, LLC.
Let them both put miniaturized nuclear reactors in their appliances and we would cut down on using electricity.
I was thinking about that the other day. So many great sci-fi inventions that could be real if humans weren't such an untrustworthy, scumball species.
Home irradiation devices similar to microwaves but which use radiation to sterilize foods have been possible for years, if not decades.
Perfectly safe IF you can trust that people will recycle properly and if you didn't have to worry about ISIS (or the local street gang) using the guts to make dirty bombs.
You would trust industry to sell such products? What if such a device is defective and leaking radiation all over your kitchen?
Yep. I've pretty much given up.
Time for God to let some other species have a shot at being top dog. I vote for meerkats.
No. National defense is a constitutionally derived duty of the federal government.
Not quite.
