Privatise the Military (2 Viewers)

[semper fidelis]

privatise...

no

we hav private security firms n privatisin the army would make us more likely succeptable to coups n unstability

bottom line we dont need it so y risk it

 

[Tully B.]

Market sovereignty is merely another way of taking humans out of life's picture and replacing them with an inhuman mechanism of an ideology which essentially works against men's interests. It is you who offers the mask of horror, as you deny outright the very existence of objective morality and truth. You surrender everything, offer heart and soul, sacrifice your loved ones, to the unholy beast of the market because you are blind to truth and numb to God.

I merely insist that man and mankind must be at the center of our development, rather than some other irrelevant and evil objective, like maximum efficiency. The market is not inherently moral; efficiency pays no heed to right and wrong; only men who love and God and eachother can evaluate the goodness of a policy
Privatisation is death

You're quite a melodramatic person.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well without wanting to derail a discussion of materialism versus more ethereal concepts of happiness lets look at how a privatised military would (or would not) work.

As has been pointed out a privatised military is a very different beast to a PMC. A PMC is all about filling a relatively defined and small-scale need, an outsourced military is about private contractors proving most or all of the military services required by a country. A service provider in this context could be delivering everything from infantry to naval battlegroups.

Could this work in practice? And would there be cost savings to justify it?

There are three potential areas of cost-saving:

• The current military is bloated and wasteful, a contractor would not be. Therefore their overheads would be lower and they could charge a price (and make a profit) which was below our current cost price.
• A contractor could ramp up and down the services provided on a ‘pay for what you use’ model. This was we get the services needed during war and don’t pay the upkeep during peace.
• A contractor would be servicing multiple states simultaneously and through centralisation they could reduce the cost of recruitment, logistical and other support functions thus achieving economies of scope and scale.

Are these valid? How might the business model work? What are the disadvantages?

 

[Iron]

Meh, sorry locky but I find it difficult to take this thread seriously. Cant see how it would be anything but essentially privatising the whole state. I mean, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd holds an authority granted to him by the people and respected by the bureaucracy, but what would the status of his authority be when the military coercion that lurks behind his rule becomes directly controlled by a company - any company - probably a foreign company? A company that has no sacred trust to serve the people of Australia etc?
Preposterous idea

 

[DavidBenGurion]

how would a privatised military make money?

 

[Iron]

east timor, papua new guinea, solomon islands, new caledonia, vanuatu, fiji, new zealand...


I suddenly support this idea

 

[Iron]

[youtube]8AIppqNePdM[/youtube]
[youtube]O8Q36-9UUQE&feature=related[/youtube]

Try to ignore the audience participa-shaun

But this is essentially why i'm against >privatisation. It's just a way for us to sheirk responsibility for our lives and the world. We can say that market forces dictated this evil and that disaster and wash our hands of the matter. It's bs

 

[DavidBenGurion]

i like teh chicky babes in teh second 1 at 0.27

^_^

 

[SylviaB]

how would a privatised military make money?

The government pays them for their services.

 

[Freedom_]

.

 

[Iron]

Dudes, read up on the EIC. It would work dudes. Rio Tinto and BHP buy it all up, go nuts in Africa, we pretend it's not happening. Point is that it shouldnt

 

[DavidBenGurion]

The government pays them for their services.

That's dumb. Ur dumb.

1. The benefits of privatisation are:
* No taxation, hence stealing from the population
* Increased efficiency because of profit/loss mechanisms
etc

That's not privatisation at all. It is utterly pointless outsourcing.

 

[Freedom_]

Tue "privatization" in the free market sense is when those Australians who favour submarines, and fear a Chinese/Indonesian threat, would subscribe toward the financing of such vessels. Those who prefer an ABM system would invest in such defensive missiles. Those who laugh at such a threat or those who are committed pacifists would not contribute to any “national” defense service at all.

 

[SylviaB]

That's dumb. Ur dumb.

ur face is dumb.

Anyway, I meant in the sense of the OP's presented plan, as per this post

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.

 

[Freedom_]

thats just saying the australian public can determine what better to spend our money on than defence analysts.....which is blatantly wrong imo....and thats not what we're talking about really...

Well in a truly free society each individual has the right to decide where his/her money goes. Where we spend our money is not the concern of some bureaucrat in Canberra.

hmmm....but if you outsourced the military, and it went bust.....gov would have to bail it out lol

well I don't like OP's proposition simply because we will end up like the Americans where large cooperate giants with disposable income will buy senate votes.

 

[Riet]

No because PMCs are fucking evil incarnate.

 

[Freedom_]

so is this what you are advocating?

Yes I am.

 

[Iron]

Well in a truly free society each individual has the right to decide where his/her money goes. Where we spend our money is not the concern of some bureaucrat in Canberra.

I dont see why it isnt obvious that this supposed 'progression' towards an earthly paradise thru more and more individual freedom is a false promise which will lead no where - just like all the main ideologies, whether they consider classnessness, racial purity or whatever as their own nirvana - theyve all inflicted horrors against humans and ended in tragedy. Neoloberalism is no different.

No ideology is fool-proof or total. Men cannot institute paradise in this earth. Men will not be 'naturally' good if certain systems and institutions are established, but rather each man must learn what is good from cradle to grave - this is their quest - all must be claimed anew. Pls let's learn this tiresome lesson and move on to more practical matters...

 

[Freedom_]

so Freedom, what if everyone decides to spend their money on wonderful social welfare programs and other things, like roads infrastructure, gets neglected? How does that work? How does your proposed system work in reality?

haha. I have not been converted to the notion of Road privatization yet.

But in general we are paying far too much taxes than we really should be. Lets face it, if person X is paying $12000 worth of taxes per year, I doubt he ever reaps the rewards of it which leads to the question as to Why he should be paying it in the first place.

 

[Freedom_]

I dont see why it isnt obvious that this supposed 'progression' towards an earthly paradise thru more and more individual freedom is a false promise which will lead no where - just like all the main ideologies, whether they consider classnessness, racial purity or whatever as their own nirvana - theyve all inflicted horrors against humans and ended in tragedy. Neoloberalism is no different.

No ideology is fool-proof or total. Men cannot institute paradise in this earth. Men will not be 'naturally' good if certain systems and institutions are established, but rather each man must learn what is good from cradle to grave - this is their quest - all must be claimed anew. Pls let's learn this tiresome lesson and move on to more practical matters...

I agree with everything you have said except the first sentence. +1