Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pwning, May 10, 2009.

  1. thorizdin Administrator

    This same argument has been used to uphold the ideas of privatization of prisons and the use of contractors in roles that had been the domain of our military. In both of those use cases we can see that the private sector neither saved money nor provided better (frequently worse) service. The reality is that there are a number of things that are critical to the health of our society and way of life that simply aren't now (and may never be) viable for private enterprise to provide. That's not to say that we shouldn't ask the question whether a role or service can be moved from the exclusive domain of government. I firmly believe that government's role should be as limited as possible, but I also know the market is an evolutionary system which means that something that wasn't feasible for private enterprise in the past isn't likely to be without significant changes in technology and/or society.

    Let me provide a concrete (and personal) example of what I mean. When I was at Fort Gordon with the Army they were doing a pilot study in which chow hall military personnel were replaced by civilian contractors. (They were part of Delta Airlines food services division IIRC.) Up until then the cooking, planning, serving, and all other functions were done by soldiers dedicated to food service. The change to contractors didn't really save money, but it didn't cost more and it did provide (in most cases) a better service to the soldiers. The project was deemed a success and was made branch wide for CONUS stations 2 years later. This was clearly a place where the private sector taking a job from public sector employees made sense, though the public sector remained firmly in control since the civilian contractors all reported to the mess NCO (a food service professional) and officer.

    Lets contrast that to what has been attempted in Iraq with private "security" contractors taking jobs from soldiers protecting shipping and personnel in the field. The first question is always did we the people save money by using civilians instead of federal employees and in this case it appears we did not. Certainly from a raw salary perspective moving a security detail from being manned by soldiers (mostly privates) making less than $2000 per month(http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables.html) to contractors making 5-8k per month is a losing proposition. Having said that some of the disparity goes away when we look at long term costs of taking care of veterans, but given the casualty rate it doesn't appear to significantly move the numbers. The second question is whether or not the service was improved by moving to civilians given that we have had problems with soldiers and contractors this isn't as clear cut as I'd like, but given that contractors lack the unit esprit de corps and are in a very murky area from a legal standpoint (not protected nor governed by the Geneva Convention for example) makes it very unlikely that service could improve. Anecdotally I have been told by officers and NCO's that the contractors created many more problems than they solved, but I don't have any statistical evidence to back that up.

    The biggest issue I see of hand is that when there is abuse, and there will be just as there is police abuse today, that a corporation is much less likely to have good ethical enforcement since it does nothing (in fact hurts) the bottom line. Our law enforcement and military services all have very well defined ethics regulations with generally good enforcement. I have no reason to suspect, in fact quite the opposite, that corporations will do the same.

  2. Pwned by the pie chart.
  3. Pookee Lord

    LoL, thanks for the qoute, Borric!
  4. Shagbot Member

  5. PaulO New Member

    That's like saying the American Civil War is the primary example of a centralized, democratic representative government. It's silly. As an aside, those Sub-Saharan African nations are not as free as you may think.

    I disagree. I live here. Out of the thousands I've interacted with personally, Americans as a general rule are peaceful, kind people. That's why our governments are intended to help people. The intention of people is good. That is why I argue that less government in some areas would actually help people more than using a burgeoning, inefficient bureaucracy to try and help people.

    I'm in favor of protecting people from violence, theft, and fraud.

    That's nice. In your "pure liberty" scenario, can I buy a piece of property and peacefully live completely self-sustaining off the grid without being harassed by various tax, health, and regulation agencies?

    I've viewed the failings of socialism as related to people are less motivated to do more than what is minimally necessary unless they personally see a need.

    As an example: I like the idea of helping those in need but oftentimes would prefer to do it personally rather than have a group do it on my behalf with my funds against my will.

    True. There are two books I've been meaning to read that talk about this: Healing Our World and The Market for Liberty.

    A lot of non-profits have a breakdown of the money that go into overhead/costs and how much directly go to their fund. I'd like to see something like that for the government.
  6. StaticBlack Member

    lol the thread that keeps on going.
  7. Pookee Lord


    If you think that American people are genuinely kind and all that blah blah blah... I have one case in point:

    New Orleans when Katrina hit. Once the infrastructure falls out under our society, and without any heavy handed federal military to enforce any sort of order, we will have anarchy. Americans are armed to the teeth, and chomping at the bit to demonstrate it. Any other opinion is nothing but naive.

    And if you want to be so ignorant as to isolate that to a certain racial class within our society, then no conversation need be carried on here, as that is a complete result of the past 100+ years of an institution that has until recently done everything in it's power to suppress one ethnic group within a system that has many.

    And if you are able to see beyond skin color, then you certainly shall see that it's irrelevant what color you are when you're poor, you're still going to go to the same drastic measures to seize at any oppurtunity to equalize your situation with the rest of the nation once the infrastructure that supports economic class difference finally fails.
  8. PaulO New Member

    Actually, that helps prove my point. Borric said, "If what you wanted came to pass, there would be bloodshed on an unprecedented scale. Americans, as a general rule are greedy, selfish and armed to the teeth. The minority who aren't would be obliterated in weeks." That didn't happen. Obviously when there was opportunity to do minor things like theft without consequence, a small segment of people will do it. That's not my argument. And as I've said, "I'm in favor of protecting people from violence, theft, and fraud." That's actually in the video I linked if anyone watched it.
  9. Borric Der Kriegsminister

    Actually it doesn't prove your point at all. It proves my point. N.O. went crazy shit nuthouse, Armageddon-style after Katrina. While Dubya was picking his ass, there was bloodshed on an unprecedented scale. Maybe not unprecedented, but it was quickly moving in that direction. It was way beyond Thunderdome. The only thing that stopped it was the fucking Army (National Guard) moving in with heavy weapons and food. Anytime you need an actual army to quell something it's pretty bad. And Katrina is pretty minor compared to what would happen in Hutto's 'Liberty Paradise'. There'd be no army around to stop it.

    Yes, yes, I know that your're in favor of 'blah, blah, blah', but the goverment model you propsed doesn't support that. At all. It's basically anarchy. When I get home from the UK, I'm gonna snatch up some pistols and ARs. Just so I'm prepared to fend off Hutto's zombie invasion. (Seriously, I probably will buy a pistol or two and maybe an AR). It'll be me defending my Kingdom of Kentuckistan. I'll be sure to greet you at the border with a nice pleasant, 'Welcome to Thunderdome, bitch.'
  10. Verm Lord

    AR's will have their sales banned soon, so hopefully your coming home in the near future:)
  11. Borric Der Kriegsminister

    Lotsa gun-nuts keep saying that, but Obama and Congress have shown no inclination to do anything. I'm actually quite surprised. I could see him possibly doing something in the future, but not really before the lame duck portion (2014-16) of his second term.

    So I've got 6-7 years or so...;)
  12. Detritus Lord

    edit: nm...
  13. halibutk Member

    So the anti-Obama people want Palin for president. Better hope its worth it.

    That woman is a crazy lunatic bitch, and I can have an opinion, I live here, can see her home from my office and my son has played with her youngest daughter...thank god hes two so he cant knock her up.
  14. Bugsii Member

    Buying an AR = Instant gun nut

    I don't see any gun banning in the future. I see the country copying California style gun laws. Look at a California legal AR
  15. Von.Manstein New Member

    I personally have never owned a gun, and have absolutely no plans to do so in the future, because I believe it's more negative than positive to have such an instrument laying around my apartment. I have, however, shot a few in my years and, having grown up in rural northern New England, have many family and friends involved in hunting that I completely respect having firearms for that purpose.

    More importantly, and it's often overlooked, the second ammendment was put in place as an ultimate check against abusive central authority. In my eyes, it guarantees any law abiding adult to own ANY small arm, including automatic weapons, and I view anything circumventing this to be unconstitutional. Though I'm very aware other nations, with Europe in particular, view it as folly, I will stand by the second ammendment and say they are flat out wrong. I think it's something they don't quite understand culturally from an American perspective, and is rather unique to the USA.

    When push comes to shove and the populace would need to revolt against tyranny, having an armed populace puts us in a much better position. If Germany, a nation that was probably the most developed and best-educated in the world at the time, was able to be swayed by the Nazis in the 1930s, I'd say that it could truly happen anywhere. I realize that it's horribly cliched to use the Third Reich for comparison purposes (and I do apologize profusely for proving Godwin's Law to be true, yet again), as somebody who is very well-versed in history I do believe that it is, without a doubt, the most accurate comparison in this case.

    Jeez, she's just scary. It says very bad things about our country that an imbecile like her is able to get as far as she has, and might in the future. I shudder to think of her being in the White House, and she was a complete dealbreaker for me voting for McCain.

    WTB more national politicians who don't think dinosaurs were on the planet 6,000 years ago.
  16. Pwning Lord

    lmao, and YOU think Obama is any better? Soon we'll have marriage defined as "between a person and whatever you want" just to make people happy, so i guess some of you sheep fuckers will be happy then amiright? Btw, what the hell is the government doing in my religion? who asked them to step in, in the first place? Marriage is supposed to be the joining of souls, now everyone just wants the money. I am having fun watching Obama fuck everything up though, so atleast he's an entertaining president! Keep an eye out for all the courts martial coming down the pipeline when all the sailors come out of the closet and get the piss beat out of them randomly by some crazy homophobes in the military, maybe they will create a new MOS, 6969 pillow biter!
  17. Borric Der Kriegsminister


    Of course Obama is much better. He's not a willfully ignorant inbred hick.

    And he's not messing with your religion. Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. All ministers, priests, vicars etc have to sign legal state paperwork to make any marriage they perform valid. When gay folks can finally get married in every state, no one will force religious institutions to perform the ceremony. Some will and some won't, but each church will have their own choice.

    When you bring up the line about sheep, you're just being an idiotic ass. It's a far cry from having two competent and consenting adults who wish to marry (the law) and some freakshow that loves on his sheep. That's an argument made by people of low intelligence and less integrity who think that a ridiculous extrapolation will somehow help their prejudiced cause. It only makes them look weaker. They should just go back to banging their sisters and cousins.
  18. Von.Manstein New Member

    Another profoundly insightful analysis. I never realised that I'm a sheep by not being an ignorant homophobe who manifests latent racism through seething and irrational hatred for a good president. I will work on being more hateful, watch lots of YouTube political videos, and avoid books like the plague from now on. I hope, by taking these measures, I may become a goat or cow instead of a sheep.
  19. Bugsii Member

  20. Gaunsaku Chill Dude

    Pwning, like what Borric said, marriage is just a contract for official purposes. Has nothing to do with your religion. If your religion hates the idea of gay marriage and hates the idea of gays in general, that's its problem. Remember that religion is one's way of linking back. As much as everyone wants to impress their religion and thoughts on everyone else, it really is a 1000% personal thing. It's a core problem of judaism, how the emphasis is on community but a lot of the teachings are all about the individual... things like the path is your path, hidden and mysterious in understanding YHVH and the universe... my path likely will not match the path of the next guy. But we're both jews. It's weird, but all the religions are like that when you get deep into it.

    But to agree with you, I view a real marriage as a union of souls, two halves of a whole. That's my view, however, and the type of soul doesn't make a lick of difference to me, nor does a legal contract. Only thing the contract is for is for the government or organizations to determine what you can/cannot get. It prevents people from abusing the system by claiming ot be married (and get those benefits) without really being so. So why should man-man or woman-woman couples not get the same benefits? Pure perception based on the outside physical appearance of man and woman when truth is that the very core is (or should be) great love and committment between two human beings. Man or woman, the heart is the same. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

Share This Page