For my Libertarian friends

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Atavachron wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:    You brought PBS into the discussion, and .0001% would be too much money. The amount doesn't make it any better really. well then you need to change the whole allotment system, including that of any other important publicly funded thing like the military; in other words, the money is there and is set aside automatically for a given service, and therefore must be used for said service--  but I know you realize that,  just wanted to point it out The military is intrinsically different because it serves everybody and supposedly cannot be provided on the free market. I don't support any form of taxation though so there would be no money to set aside in my government. This is a point where I disagree.  If the military indeed serves everybody, then everybody should pay for it.  I have no problem paying a few bucks a year to finance the fine men and women who protect this country from hideous foes. Of course, I think they should be financed through a consumption tax rather than an income tax, but I've spoken on that before.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Atavachron wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:    You brought PBS into the discussion, and .0001% would be too much money. The amount doesn't make it any better really. well then you need to change the whole allotment system, including that of any other important publicly funded thing like the military; in other words, the money is there and is set aside automatically for a given service, and therefore must be used for said service--  but I know you realize that,  just wanted to point it out The military is intrinsically different because it serves everybody and supposedly cannot be provided on the free market. I don't support any form of taxation though so there would be no money to set aside in my government. This is a point where I disagree.  If the military indeed serves everybody, then everybody should pay for it.  I have no problem paying a few bucks a year to finance the fine men and women who protect this country from hideous foes. Of course, I think they should be financed through a consumption tax rather than an income tax, but I've spoken on that before. Yes everyone should pay for it. Most people would, they have a very strong incentive to do so. However, it should still be done so voluntarily. Taxes, no matter how noble the cause, are still theft. Plus I kind of like the idea of abjectly poor people spending their money on other things and not having to worry about donating to their defense. Plus, this provides a very natural and powerful check on governmental misuse of military might. Hard to fund an unpopular war when its done so via donations.

Pat, I regard you as an intelligent human being, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.

A military funded by donations providing a check on governmental misuse of military might? 

First off, most people know diddly about foreign affairs, much less military tactics.  Most folks are at home watching American Idol or Wheel of Fortune.  They are in no position to judge what is and what isn't a "misuse of military might."  And frankly, a lot of liberals would just as soon have us bombed to death thinking that "love is all you need."

Second, how many people do you think would donate to our defense?  Not many, I bet you that.  Without proper funding, a military can't stand up to the other world powers of the country.  Technology is moving too fast and we have to stay on top of it.  Yes, I'm sure you will say, "Well it's their fault for not donating and that's why the commies took over their house."  Not quite.  If everyone doesn't pitch in in this regard, then a select few will be forced to foot the bill or have to suffer the consequences of a poorer military- along with everybody who didn't contribute.

Third, I believe military service is a noble cause.  No one forced them into it and they sacrifice time with their families and in some cases their lives.  Why?  So we can sleep at night.  I do not might paying a crumb of the pie for that.  They deserve it.  It isn't theft.  It's paying for a necessary service- we would be robbed if we didn't pay it.

If there's anything I do support a government-run anything of, it's our military.  Do you honestly think we'd be where we are right now with generals sitting outside of shopping malls on Christmas ringing a bell beside a big red can?

Epignosis wrote:   Pat, I regard you as an intelligent human being, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. A military funded by donations providing a check on governmental misuse of military might?  First off, most people know diddly about foreign affairs, much less military tactics.  Most folks are at home watching American Idol or Wheel of Fortune.  They are in no position to judge what is and what isn't a "misuse of military might."  And frankly, a lot of liberals would just as soon have us bombed to death thinking that "love is all you need." Second, how many people do you think would donate to our defense?  Not many, I bet you that.  Without proper funding, a military can't stand up to the other world powers of the country.  Technology is moving too fast and we have to stay on top of it.  Yes, I'm sure you will say, "Well it's their fault for not donating and that's why the commies took over their house."  Not quite.  If everyone doesn't pitch in in this regard, then a select few will be forced to foot the bill or have to suffer the consequences of a poorer military- along with everybody who didn't contribute. Third, I believe military service is a noble cause.  No one forced them into it and they sacrifice time with their families and in some cases their lives.  Why?  So we can sleep at night.  I do not might paying a crumb of the pie for that.  They deserve it.  It isn't theft.  It's paying for a necessary service- we would be robbed if we didn't pay it. If there's anything I do support a government-run anything of, it's our military.  Do you honestly think we'd be where we are right now with generals sitting outside of shopping malls on Christmas ringing a bell beside a big red can?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Pat, I regard you as an intelligent human being, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. A military funded by donations providing a check on governmental misuse of military might?  First off, most people know diddly about foreign affairs, much less military tactics.  Most folks are at home watching American Idol or Wheel of Fortune.  They are in no position to judge what is and what isn't a "misuse of military might."  And frankly, a lot of liberals would just as soon have us bombed to death thinking that "love is all you need." Second, how many people do you think would donate to our defense?  Not many, I bet you that.  Without proper funding, a military can't stand up to the other world powers of the country.  Technology is moving too fast and we have to stay on top of it.  Yes, I'm sure you will say, "Well it's their fault for not donating and that's why the commies took over their house."  Not quite.  If everyone doesn't pitch in in this regard, then a select few will be forced to foot the bill or have to suffer the consequences of a poorer military- along with everybody who didn't contribute. Third, I believe military service is a noble cause.  No one forced them into it and they sacrifice time with their families and in some cases their lives.  Why?  So we can sleep at night.  I do not might paying a crumb of the pie for that.  They deserve it.  It isn't theft.  It's paying for a necessary service- we would be robbed if we didn't pay it. If there's anything I do support a government-run anything of, it's our military.  Do you honestly think we'd be where we are right now with generals sitting outside of shopping malls on Christmas ringing a bell beside a big red can? This isn't a discussion about who should decide military tactics, just a simple question of when war should be waged and upon whom. Are you really going to argue people aren't equipped to make this decision? What sort of skewed elitist view are you espousing? The military's only legitimate function is one of self-defense. People are certainly capable enough of judging when they have been aggressed upon. If the individual cannot determine when military might is appropriate why are the elites any more capable? This is absurd. Also, liberals have always been the ones to lead America into wars. The bloodiest wars in world history were fought under liberal presidents and the banner of progressivism. How do you justify forcibly taking someone's property? If nobody donates to the military then perhaps people don't desire one. If nobody is willing to pay for a service perhaps they are not entitled to it. You're assuming people have a right to a military; they do not. They have a right to self-defense. The erection of a military is an expression of this right, but you cannot fault those who do not wish to contribute for not doing so. No more so can you blame one for not feeding you or for not providing your health care. By the same argument do we require a military draft? I mean how many people would just willingly sign up for the military. What about all the freeloaders who won't serve, but still reap the benefits? The argument falls apart for conscription; why must it extend to funding then? You think they deserve it. You would willingly give money. That is not theft. I do not support the current "wars" for example. I would not willingly provide money. Money is taken from me. That is theft. I don't benefit from our current wars, but even if I did that is irrelevant. When the mob extorts a business for protection money, that business does indeed get protection. Does this justify the mob's actions? Of course it does not. Benefiting from a service does not oblige you to enter into contract.  I find military service to be a morally neutral cause. The circumstances dictate the morality.  Yes I do. Actually I think we would be in a much better place with fewer enemies and less debt, fewer lives lost, fewer atrocities committed.

Yes, I'm familiar with your extreme libertarian talking points.  No need to spout them off again at me.

Let me help you:

1) If some people donate to a military and some don't and yet we are a united country, then our military will be too feeble to deal with any meaningful threats.  And those of us who did support the military will suffer because others were a) stingy b) misguided or c) felt they knew better.  Either way, we wouldn't have the resources to fend off any real threats.

This is what bugs me about you Pat.  Look carefully at your rhetoric here:

How do you justify forcibly taking someone's property? If nobody donates to the military then perhaps people don't desire one. If nobody is willing to pay for a service perhaps they are not entitled to it.

See this?  If nobody (black or white).  You speak as though everybody wants the same thing...like a collectivist.  Interesting.  That's all fine when it comes to medical care or education- let people pay for what they want- but with a military, the old cliche isn't far from the truth: United we stand, divided we fall.  Gray areas don't exactly work here.  We either stay on top of advancing our military or other nations who may be a threat to us build up before we do.  That's very dangerous and undesireable.

2) I'm assuming people have a right to a military?  I think people deserve it?

Come on Pat.  I don't assume we have a right to a military nor do I think people deserve anything.  You are forcing words upon me.  Please pay attention:  I am saying we are stronger and better with a unified and well-funded military than without one.  I never brought up rights.  Why must you consider one thing a right or not a right? 

But taking it further, since "rights" is the only manner in which you know how to speak, we presumably have the right to life and liberty, yes?  An up-to-date military helps to ensure that is protected from outside forces.  Plain and simple.

Your analogies of feedings and health care are poor.  Those two things affect individuals.  A bad military affects all of us, even those of us who invested what we could into it.

3) Conscription vs. Volunteers.  Have we ever had a real problem in this country when we've had a 100% volunteer military?  No.  Why?  Because we provide incentives for being a solider.

You can be idealistic all you want, but one of two things has to happen with respect to the military to keep a country independent.  Either a military has to be well-funded and well-governed OR a military has to be full of volunteers and well-governed.  Is there a precedent that you know of where civilians donated money (whatever they wanted) to pay for a standing army?  If so, how did it go?  Somebody has to decide what moves the units make.  Everybody can't decide.  That's why corporations that adopt a democratic process aren't nearly as successful as those that rely upon strict leadership.  The military is even a bigger deal because people's lives and liberties are at stake.

4) You don't agree with our current war.  Okay.  I have had the benefit of sitting down with the garrison commander at Fort Bragg (a wonderfully intelligent and kind man), as well has his family, as well as countless people who have gone to the Middle East and come back to tell me what is going on over there.  We're there for a reason.

That said, your disagreeing with a war has nothing to do with funding in theory.  At all.  Even if we say "no foreign wars!" and just have men here to defend us, you are benefiting from that every day, and therefore, you should pay for it.

Just finished my paper on the Dodd-Frank Bill.
aka the Wall Street Reform bill
aka OBAMUNIST! lol

But really, he was quite the flaming liberal in Congress, he has been quite moderate, (considering) since he became President.

Epignosis wrote: Yes, I'm familiar with your extreme libertarian talking points.  No need to spout them off again at me. Let me help you: 1) If some people donate to a military and some don't and yet we are a united country, then our military will be too feeble to deal with any meaningful threats.  And those of us who did support the military will suffer because others were a) stingy b) misguided or c) felt they knew better.  Either way, we wouldn't have the resources to fend off any real threats. This is what bugs me about you Pat.  Look carefully at your rhetoric here: How do you justify forcibly taking someone's property? If nobody donates to the military then perhaps people don't desire one. If nobody is willing to pay for a service perhaps they are not entitled to it. See this?  If nobody (black or white).  You speak as though everybody wants the same thing...like a collectivist.  Interesting.  That's all fine when it comes to medical care or education- let people pay for what they want- but with a military, the old cliche isn't far from the truth: United we stand, divided we fall.  Gray areas don't exactly work here.  We either stay on top of advancing our military or other nations who may be a threat to us build up before we do.  That's very dangerous and undesireable. 2) I'm assuming people have a right to a military?  I think people deserve it? Come on Pat.  I don't assume we have a right to a military nor do I think people deserve anything.  You are forcing words upon me.  Please pay attention:  I am saying we are stronger and better with a unified and well-funded military than without one.  I never brought up rights.  Why must you consider one thing a right or not a right?  But taking it further, since "rights" is the only manner in which you know how to speak, we presumably have the right to life and liberty, yes?  An up-to-date military helps to ensure that is protected from outside forces.  Plain and simple. Your analogies of feedings and health care are poor.  Those two things affect individuals.  A bad military affects all of us, even those of us who invested what we could into it. 3) Conscription vs. Volunteers.  Have we ever had a real problem in this country when we've had a 100% volunteer military?  No.  Why?  Because we provide incentives for being a solider. You can be idealistic all you want, but one of two things has to happen with respect to the military to keep a country independent.  Either a military has to be well-funded and well-governed OR a military has to be full of volunteers and well-governed.  Is there a precedent that you know of where civilians donated money (whatever they wanted) to pay for a standing army?  If so, how did it go?  Somebody has to decide what moves the units make.  Everybody can't decide.  That's why corporations that adopt a democratic process aren't nearly as successful as those that rely upon strict leadership.  The military is even a bigger deal because people's lives and liberties are at stake. 4) You don't agree with our current war.  Okay.  I have had the benefit of sitting down with the garrison commander at Fort Bragg (a wonderfully intelligent and kind man), as well has his family, as well as countless people who have gone to the Middle East and come back to tell me what is going on over there.  We're there for a reason. That said, your disagreeing with a war has nothing to do with funding in theory.  At all.  Even if we say "no foreign wars!" and just have men here to defend us, you are benefiting from that every day, and therefore, you should pay for it.

Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Post Office does a decent job most of the time, but I still would like to see the whole thing privatized. f**k that, they cost us over $100 last year by destroying a large collection of items we were selling.  On this topic, a private company would be subject to a grievance or even a lawsuit if this happens. You know what the US Postal Service does?  "Would you like to buy insurance?" What the hell?  I am paying you to perform a service.  If you fail to perform that #service, I should at least get my damn money back- you should pay for the items that were placed in your car for transport. So if a valet goes to park my car, right...do I have to buy valet insurance in case the young man wraps my vehicle around a lamppost?  No.  People should either do things satisfactorily or pay for any damage they cause. The Post Office (and many other government fixtures) get a free pass simply because they are the government.  Private businesses will be scrutinized to a greater extent and held responsible.

That does suck, but I don't think that's endemic to a public sector but rather more attributable to the clash of an insurance culture and a poorly scrutinised public sector.

(for instance, the Royal Mail, though I think it's now been partly privatised, seems to have a pretty reasonable compensation policy - though I've no idea how you can provide 'proof of non-delivery' in exceptional circumstances).

I'm fairly sure that here the public sector is scrutinised far more than the private sector here because it's taxpayer-funded.

Slartibartfast wrote: 1) I believe we should have a strong military, but only a defensive one.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are no longer defensive if they ever even were. 2) People in the military have to believe in the wars they're fighting.  It's not optional. 3) Military spending in this country has turned into a slush fund for the wealthy.  They don't have to go out and die for this country.  All they have to do is sit back and get rich off all the wasteful spending while our soldiers don't get treated too well in the field or when they come back alive, wounded, or even dead (Arlington).

I agree with all this assuming I'm taking your (2) correctly.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Yes, I'm familiar with your extreme libertarian talking points.  No need to spout them off again at me. Let me help you: 1) If some people donate to a military and some don't and yet we are a united country, then our military will be too feeble to deal with any meaningful threats.  And those of us who did support the military will suffer because others were a) stingy b) misguided or c) felt they knew better.  Either way, we wouldn't have the resources to fend off any real threats. This is what bugs me about you Pat.  Look carefully at your rhetoric here: How do you justify forcibly taking someone's property? If nobody donates to the military then perhaps people don't desire one. If nobody is willing to pay for a service perhaps they are not entitled to it. See this?  If nobody (black or white).  You speak as though everybody wants the same thing...like a collectivist.  Interesting.  That's all fine when it comes to medical care or education- let people pay for what they want- but with a military, the old cliche isn't far from the truth: United we stand, divided we fall.  Gray areas don't exactly work here.  We either stay on top of advancing our military or other nations who may be a threat to us build up before we do.  That's very dangerous and undesireable. 2) I'm assuming people have a right to a military?  I think people deserve it? Come on Pat.  I don't assume we have a right to a military nor do I think people deserve anything.  You are forcing words upon me.  Please pay attention:  I am saying we are stronger and better with a unified and well-funded military than without one.  I never brought up rights.  Why must you consider one thing a right or not a right?  But taking it further, since "rights" is the only manner in which you know how to speak, we presumably have the right to life and liberty, yes?  An up-to-date military helps to ensure that is protected from outside forces.  Plain and simple. Your analogies of feedings and health care are poor.  Those two things affect individuals.  A bad military affects all of us, even those of us who invested what we could into it. 3) Conscription vs. Volunteers.  Have we ever had a real problem in this country when we've had a 100% volunteer military?  No.  Why?  Because we provide incentives for being a solider. You can be idealistic all you want, but one of two things has to happen with respect to the military to keep a country independent.  Either a military has to be well-funded and well-governed OR a military has to be full of volunteers and well-governed.  Is there a precedent that you know of where civilians donated money (whatever they wanted) to pay for a standing army?  If so, how did it go?  Somebody has to decide what moves the units make.  Everybody can't decide.  That's why corporations that adopt a democratic process aren't nearly as successful as those that rely upon strict leadership.  The military is even a bigger deal because people's lives and liberties are at stake. 4) You don't agree with our current war.  Okay.  I have had the benefit of sitting down with the garrison commander at Fort Bragg (a wonderfully intelligent and kind man), as well has his family, as well as countless people who have gone to the Middle East and come back to tell me what is going on over there.  We're there for a reason. That said, your disagreeing with a war has nothing to do with funding in theory.  At all.  Even if we say "no foreign wars!" and just have men here to defend us, you are benefiting from that every day, and therefore, you should pay for it. 1) Your argument makes no sense. You're assuming that you're entitled to a powerful military. People in Luxemborg could make the same argument that their military isn't powerful enough to fend off any attacks because there's not enough people in the country to bolster its size. That in no way would justify them from grabbing people from around the world and making them serve. If not enough people (aka nobody, don't be so literal with it) donate and the military is too weak then that is unfortunate, but you in no way can justify stealing someone's money just to make yourself feel safer. 2) I find my analogies apt. Anyway, yes we are stronger large unified military. We would be stronger the larger the military is. So what? That can't be used to justify something that is immoral. We would all enjoy higher standards of living with slaves, but we can't throw people into chains. 3) How do you go from funded by donations to an unorganized military without the same pyramid structure it has now? I never said that.  People have a strong incentive to donate to the military. Is that not obvious from your argument. With the way people unconditionally support increase after increase in military spending it shouldn't be much of a stretch to say they'd donate. 4) Of course we're there for a reason, it just happens to be a bad one.  In the abstract this has a lot to do with funding. Although making me fund any activity against my will can't be justified, it becomes even more deplorable when I'm forced to fund something I stand philosophically against.  I agree that with no wars we need men to defend us. However, as I explained before, just because I benefit from something doesn't mean you can take my money to put towards it. You're not really explaining to me why that can be done. You're right I should pay for it. I would pay for it. Mostly everyone would pay for it. That's the idea we should pay for this, but we can't be forced to.

You have most certainly not explained how just because you benefit from something doesn't mean I (me personally?) can take money of yours to put toward it.  You haven't shown that at all.  And just because you call it theft doesn't mean it is.

Of course, you've completely ignored what I said about replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.  Then the government is not taking anything from you at all.

If you think we can maintain a feasible military by donations, then you are naive at best.  You've effectively ignored my point about the burden of funding a military being shifted to a certain number of people.  Yes everyone would have an incentive to donate, but many people would feel that way at all.  With the entitlement mindset that plagues this country, lots of people would give nothing or very little.  This means that they benefit from something the rest of us have to pay for.

Or worse, those of us who pay get taken over along with those who didn't.  This is the part of my argument you've conveniently ignored: Our enemies won't go door-to-door and ask us "Did you donate $100 or more for the US military last year?  You did?  Okay, thank you for your time."  Our enemies won't attack only those who didn't pay.  They will attack all of us without regard for who did or who did not donate.  That means those of us who donated are in the same bucket with those that didn't.

This isn't government-charity like a lot of programs are, which benefit some but not everyone.

You can whine and call it immoral that you are forced to pay for something that benefits you and everyone here 24 / 7 / 365, but I call it immoral to allow our country to fall to potential threats.

Epignosis wrote: You have most certainly not explained how just because you benefit from something doesn't mean I (me personally?) can take money of yours to put toward it.  You haven't shown that at all.  And just because you call it theft doesn't mean it is. Of course, you've completely ignored what I said about replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.  Then the government is not taking anything from you at all. If you think we can maintain a feasible military by donations, then you are naive at best.  You've effectively ignored my point about the burden of funding a military being shifted to a certain number of people.  Yes everyone would have an incentive to donate, but many people would feel that way at all.  With the entitlement mindset that plagues this country, lots of people would give nothing or very little.  This means that they benefit from something the rest of us have to pay for. Or worse, those of us who pay get taken over along with those who didn't.  This is the part of my argument you've conveniently ignored: Our enemies won't go door-to-door and ask us "Did you donate $100 or more for the US military last year?  You did?  Okay, thank you for your time."  Our enemies won't attack only those who didn't pay.  They will attack all of us without regard for who did or who did not donate.  That means those of us who donated are in the same bucket with those that didn't. This isn't government-charity like a lot of programs are, which benefit some but not everyone. You can whine and call it immoral that you are forced to pay for something that benefits you and everyone here 24 / 7 / 365, but I call it immoral to allow our country to fall to potential threats.

Respond to my mob hypothetical then. I see the situation as completely parallel really. I can offer plenty of examples of things that would be good for you to do, but would be deplorable for government to force you to do. Isn't that the entire idea of fighting against a nanny state?

Of course I ignored replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. It's still a tax. How is it exactly that the government is not taking anything from you?

What do you define as feasible? Can we maintain the military we have now by donations? Absolutely not. We can't maintain the military we have now by taxation either which is why we're forced to print the money and accrue crippling debt. I don't see that as a bad thing. The military budget can at least be cut by 30% without compromising our security.

I'm not ignoring your points so much as I don't care about them. I'm not in the business of forcing to people to hand over money for a service they have not asked to receive.

Talking about a entitlement mindset is also pointless. For one that's foreign to what we're talking about. It'd be better to look at how much people donate charity in this country, or even our average tip rate which is well above the rest of the world's. Clearly though, government funding via donations, is the last in a long step of government changes. I'm not talking about imposing this on the country as it is now. Many things will have to change first.

Again I'm not ignoring your point. I'm saying that you are assuming that you should have some level of military protection. You're saying if we don't force people to do this, I won't get the protection I want. That could be true. Enough people may not donate and then our overall security is compromised. I don't think that will happen, but it's a possibility. That doesn't mean you can force them to just because you would benefit from it. We would all benefit with our insurance costs from eating less red meat and more salad, but I'm not about to tell people how to live so that my life is improved.

It's immoral to allow the country to fall to an outside threat? So how far do you take that? 100% military conscription? 100% wage collection? Complete government control? Even more mild controls like we had in WWI?

Also let's be clear I'm not whining anymore than you are. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean my viewpoint is worth less. If I'm whining then so are you.