Privatise the Military (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Should the Government privatise the military?

If so, why? If not, why?

If so, how? How much?

Has it been done before?

Given the proliferation of market/freedom threads and voices on the forum I think this is an interesting question.

 

[Graney]

Privatize the legislature.

The member for British American Tobacco on a point of order. The member for Lion Nathan will resume his seat.

 

[Freedom_]

isnt "privatized military" an oxymoron?

If the military was privatized then only those who pay for the services would reap the benefits of protection; which would be no different from normal private security.

 

[loquasagacious]

isnt "privatized military" an oxymoron?

If the military was privatized then only those who pay for the services would reap the benefits of protection; which would be no different from normal private security.

A privatised military would contract with the Government to provide protection for the people. In this way it is almost more appropriate to talk about an outsourced military.

The Government maintains monopoly on the legal use of force but choses to outsource it's provision. In much the same way that the Government can and has outsourced other services.

 

[Uncle]

On the otherhand they can be rejected by a government and in which case when a nation itself needs fighting capabilities, PMC (Private Military Corps) are needed.
The government must privatise their military, there may be logistical, technological and tactical advantages present.
Finally someone made a good thread on this.

 

[Iron]

The market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favorable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have let to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive adgvantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social state

 

[SnowFox]

A privatised military would contract with the Government to provide protection for the people. In this way it is almost more appropriate to talk about an outsourced military.

The Government maintains monopoly on the legal use of force but choses to outsource it's provision. In much the same way that the Government can and has outsourced other services.

So...a loyal PMC?

 

[loquasagacious]

On the otherhand they can be rejected by a government and in which case when a nation itself needs fighting capabilities, PMC (Private Military Corps) are needed.
The government must privatise their military, there may be logistical, technological and tactical advantages present.
Finally someone made a good thread on this.

What advantages might privatisation present? In practical terms how would it work?

The market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favorable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have let to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive adgvantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social state

So privatisation would further erode the foundation of the state and thereby contribute to a worsened situation for the citizens?

So...a loyal PMC?

This really goes beyond PMCs. A PMC is technically non-combatant, engaged for short time frames and structurally suited for doing dirty/deniable work. We are talking about privatising the whole damn thing here. To my knowledge no PMC currently operates a modern air force or navy... Given the size of the assets involved I would daresay the contracts for service would long term.

 

[Iron]

So privatisation would further erode the foundation of the state and thereby contribute to a worsened situation for the citizens?


.

Privatisation does erode the social state and will continue to isolate and dehumanise the citizen into some morbid unit only valued to the extent that he contributes to profits. If more money, rather than humanity, is the ultimate end of the economy, mankind will inevitably be phased out and robots will inherit the earth.
Im righting an original screenplay based on the idea

Having said that, the future of the military is clearly in such robots and the recruits of today will heroically build and maintain those robots

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Privatize the legislature.

The member for British American Tobacco on a point of order. The member for Lion Nathan will resume his seat.

Perhaps we should privatise the police while we're at it? Not much point in the police helping out the poor if they can't afford their services.

 

[SylviaB]

Privatisation does erode the social state and will continue to isolate and dehumanise the citizen into some morbid unit only valued to the extent that he contributes to profits.

It' funny that you talk like this, and yet have no problem with these citizens being forced to join the army and fight the state's wars for it.

Because that's obviously not a violation of "fundamental human rights" :mad1: pssh

If more money, rather than humanity, is the ultimate end of the economy, mankind will inevitably be phased out and robots will inherit the earth.

The privatisation of things is not so much about money as it is about the fact that private companies are far more competent at running things than the government is.

And sure, you can talk about profits in that the companies are doing it only to make money. Sure it would be a great world where people cared about others ahead of profits yadda yadda yadda, but that's simply not the way it is and there's nothing you can do about it. But the thing is, this fervent desire to obtain wealth leads o a greater amount of productivity. I mean, there's a reason why private research facilities make far more discoveries, which tend to be more significant discoveries, than government research facilities.
You can bitch and moan about how greedy people are etc, but all you can really do is take advantage of this greed for the country's benefit.

Im righting an original screenplay based on the idea

LOL

Having said that, the future of the military is clearly in such robots and the recruits of today will heroically build and maintain those robots

One can only hope so.

 

[loquasagacious]

Privatisation does erode the social state and will continue to isolate and dehumanise the citizen into some morbid unit only valued to the extent that he contributes to profits. If more money, rather than humanity, is the ultimate end of the economy, mankind will inevitably be phased out and robots will inherit the earth.
Im righting an original screenplay based on the idea

Having said that, the future of the military is clearly in such robots and the recruits of today will heroically build and maintain those robots

Profits are a measure of efficiency. A more efficient delivery of service means the same service for less money, or more service for the same money. Greater efficiency means our dollar goes further. The further our dollar goes the happier we can be.

If defence cost less, we could pay less tax, the increased income could be spent by individuals in whatever way they saw fit. Assuming they are rational, as economists are wont to do, we can assume that they will spend it in the way which makes them happiest.

The constrast of course to 'eroding the social state' through 'ghoulish profit seeking' is what? Letting the social state become a bloated, lumbering, unresponsive monster which consumes prodigous sums of money and delivers little benefits to society?

 

[Iron]

It' funny that you talk like this, and yet have no problem with these citizens being forced to join the army and fight the state's wars for it.

Because that's obviously not a violation of "fundamental human rights" :mad1: pssh

Of course it isnt. We're a social being. We have ties to our place and the people in that place. Surely we wish the rest of the world well, but if the choice must be made, we would prefer that the interests of our own place and people triumph.

If you dont see the unique value of your own locality and the common connection between people within that locality, then you have already been claimed victim of the beast of relativism

And sure, you can talk about profits in that the companies are doing it only to make money. Sure it would be a great world where people cared about others ahead of profits yadda yadda yadda, but that's simply not the way it is and there's nothing you can do about it. But the thing is, this fervent desire to obtain wealth leads o a greater amount of productivity. I mean, there's a reason why private research facilities make far more discoveries, which tend to be more significant discoveries, than government research facilities.
You can bitch and moan about how greedy people are etc, but all you can really do is take advantage of this greed for the country's benefit.

Greed and exploitation thrive in such cynicism and despair. This world will always be imperfect, but that doesnt mean that we all dont have a duty to make it better and more just

LOL

Give me a break man

 

[Iron]

Profits are a measure of efficiency. A more efficient delivery of service means the same service for less money, or more service for the same money. Greater efficiency means our dollar goes further. The further our dollar goes the happier we can be.

You lose me on the last sentence

If defence cost less, we could pay less tax, the increased income could be spent by individuals in whatever way they saw fit. Assuming they are rational, as economists are wont to do, we can assume that they will spend it in the way which makes them happiest.

Yeah, you acknowlege sneakily that theyre not rational. We're emotional and erratic. Articulating and supporting the greater good is difficult - accepting more money in return for cuts in services you believe dont benifit you, but only your neighbour, is easy.

The constrast of course to 'eroding the social state' through 'ghoulish profit seeking' is what? Letting the social state become a bloated, lumbering, unresponsive monster which consumes prodigous sums of money and delivers little benefits to society?

I'm not attacking the very idea of money or profit, i'm merely saying that they should be a means to an end - not an end in itself. The assumption of privatisation is that society doesnt exist; only individuals and families do. But society does exist and the role of the social state of the 21st century is to facilitate the overarching peaceful interaction between peoples. You cant have a society which throws the poor to the dogs and treats the mega rich like gods; it will break down in violence and breed a hatred that will result in a regime of more horrors.

Furthertomore, the increased worker mobility that follows in the wake of privatisation is harmful to society in that it robs workers of job security, regular social commitments and the stability needed to settle down, get married and raise a family.
Oh the contours of a tragic age!

 

[Iron]

hahaha

 

[loquasagacious]

Yeah, you acknowlege sneakily that theyre not rational. We're emotional and erratic. Articulating and supporting the greater good is difficult - accepting more money in return for cuts in services you believe dont benifit you, but only your neighbour, is easy.

I think it is fair to say that people are rational. They make the best choices they can based on the information and experience that they have, people don't all make the same choice because we all have different contexts. Indeed some of these differences will be so large as to make it appear as though people's choices are irrational when they are not.

The fundamental problem with Government delivered services is the underlying premise that a distant bureaucrat is well placed to make decisions about what will make individuals happy. In contrast my position is that individuals are best placed to decide what will make them happy.

I'm not attacking the very idea of money or profit, i'm merely saying that they should be a means to an end - not an end in itself. The assumption of privatisation is that society doesnt exist; only individuals and families do. But society does exist and the role of the social state of the 21st century is to facilitate the overarching peaceful interaction between peoples. You cant have a society which throws the poor to the dogs and treats the mega rich like gods; it will break down in violence and breed a hatred that will result in a regime of more horrors.

I do not believe that profits are an ends in themselves. I don't believe that accumulating a pile of money (however large) is in and of itself a good thing which brings happiness. Money is only worth what it can be exchanged for. We exchange money for food, shelter, entertainment and a myriad of other needs and wants. Having more money means we can satisfy more of these, and on that basis alone money is something which we should seek.

And the libertarians would probably insert a rant about fiat money somewhere in there

Furthertomore, the increased worker mobility that follows in the wake of privatisation is harmful to society in that it robs workers of job security, regular social commitments and the stability needed to settle down, get married and raise a family.
Oh the contours of a tragic age!

So we ignore that worker mobility means greater flexibility for individuals to tailor their working lives to better suit their circumstances - and thereby be happier?

 

[Iron]

I dont think that governments will ever make people happy. We come together on this. But I do think that it is at least a safety-net of stability against an ocean of chaos and latent anarchical destructive impulses. It's about making sure that no one gets left behind in the building of a peaceful, just and loving community.

-
To be more specific, materialism is not an end in itself. I have said this elsewhere and ill say it again: man cannot live by bread alone.

-
What circumstances? Able-bodied men should go to work 9-5, have a beer in the pub every afternoon to digest the day and nothing should be open on the weekend - especially sunday. This forces us to come together in other pursuits, like family bonding, chasing girls in more creative and genuine ways, reflecting on our humanity and keeping fit through sport. The universality of it merely increases the chances of greater social cohesion and greater networks of friends. This is real life meaning! Keep your wretched iphone to yourself!
Oh what a wonderful world I would build!

 

[loquasagacious]

I dont think that governments will ever make people happy. We come together on this. But I do think that it is at least a safety-net of stability against an ocean of chaos and latent anarchical destructive impulses. It's about making sure that no one gets left behind in the building of a peaceful, just and loving community.

And should we not provide this safety net in the most cost-effective manner possible?

To be more specific, materialism is not an end in itself. I have said this elsewhere and ill say it again: man cannot live by bread alone.

But on the words of the Lord they will be sustained? I do however agree that material needs will not fully satisfy people, as our Government has been fond of reminding us people need to feel 'socially included'. Homo Sapeiens are a social species and need to socialise.

What circumstances? Able-bodied men should go to work 9-5, have a beer in the pub every afternoon to digest the day and nothing should be open on the weekend - especially sunday. This forces us to come together in other pursuits, like family bonding, chasing girls in more creative and genuine ways, reflecting on our humanity and keeping fit through sport. The universality of it merely increases the chances of greater social cohesion and greater networks of friends. This is real life meaning! Keep your wretched iphone to yourself!
Oh what a wonderful world I would build!

Does the sabbath allow for the chasing of girls now?

If we take the concept that a day of rest and recreation is a good thing - should it be mandated?

 

[Iron]

We shouldnt dismantle the saftey net in the quest of increased attractiveness to global investors.

-
And the governemnt can do much to facilitate this social harmony. Obviously, they cant force us to love, but they can ease the barriers of feirce competition for work, personal disability, 24hr economy which leaves little time for anything else etc. Just open that window, that's all I ask guv

-
Haha. It must be man-dated (just like u btw)

 

[Iron]

I think there's a problem with welfare statists like Iron (someone who, to me is a neoconservative posing as a neoliberal but talks more like a socialist).

If we assume that he's come kind of a liberal, he seems to think that the absence of governmental coercion amounts to a "society that throws the poor to the dogs and treats the mega rich like gods". Implicit in the assumption is that it is the proper role of government to act as a moderating influence in providing just outcomes. But what is justice? Justice is a moral concept. To describe a state of affairs as unjus is to say that someone is responsible for bringing something about. It follows that where there is no responsibility there is no injustice. The consequences of material interactions for the material circumstances of particular people are not intended by the market participants, nor under their individual control. Since obviously a governmental system characterized by an absence of coercion (except to mitigate harm - as in life liberty, property), can not be held responsible for such consequences, the resulting market position of citizens can not be described as just or unjust.

It is simply a brute fact without moral relevance. Therefore, the idea that social justice exists is a mirage.

Iron's welfare state is necessarily paternalistic, fails to respect individuals as thinking and choosing agents, and rests upon the use of illegitimate coercion whereby resources are stolen from those entitled to keep them and persons are prevented from realizing their own values in their own way. Quite independent from its practical failings, Iron (and his ridiculous vision for Australia) is morally bankrupt. (not to mention his obnoxious god bothering)

I will cop these well crafted criticisms on the chin. But the state is just organised robbery without justice - St Augustine said that! Justice does exist and ultimately only finds real foundation in belief in God, the moral law carved on our hearts etc, I admit. Do unto others and all thet. Your cynical view of power is only relevant to the militant non-believer. The reality is that Christians have government and politics well infiltrated and often govern in good conscience