charles brough Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Well, one way is illustrated in a news article this-week in the Los Angeles Times. An Army convoy of trucks bringing military supplies to our troops in Afghanistan was attacked by a heavily armed Taliban force in which one guard was shot and killed and over one hundred and fifty U.S. Army trucks were destroyed! So, how does that work?! Our government buys over a hundred and fifty military-industrial complex produced trucks. Then the government pays a corporation to hire drivers and guards to drive and protect the trucks and the corporation-purchased military supplies they are to haul. But it is cost effective to hire too few guards. After all, the corporations do not own the trucks and the supplies within them; the U.S. taxpayers does. So, to hell with the trucks; instruct the guards to run if attacked. Since the trucks were burned up, it is possible that the Taliban took all the supplies to use themselves. If they did not, then it can be assumed they already have enough to last them until they attack the next convoy. The only way to come out ahead would be for us to have the corporations buy trucks themselves---and the supplies they carry. That way, they would hire enough mercenaries to properly guard them! But why stop there? Why not hire a corporation to replace the whole Army? It could set up appealing Kentucky Fried Chicken-like franchise recruitment stations across the country and attract patriotic men and women to fight for their country. They would pay whatever it takes to hire enough people that our government could attack any nation it wishes anywhere in the world. With enough pay, we could add a million more troops to carry our more military adventures. Companies like Halburton could easily arrange to buy trucks and fill them with military supplies for their company-trained troops to protect. Even the officers could all be company trained and organized. The U.S. government could then be in the business of attacking other countries without even bothering to have an army to do it with! Let our mercenaries do it for us! But why stop with the Army? Why not the Air Force, Marines and Navy as well? In fact, why not hire the big corporations to run our whole government---including our educational system, health care, providing for our retirement and taking care of the indigent? They would be very cost-effective. . . . They could even collect our taxes for us . . . (!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiantiglace Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Sort of... Instead of corporations, I always like the idea of the government being run by the academic community, instead of politicians acting like well researched individuals, have our professors act like politicians once in a while. I don't see why the matter of agriculture should go to a guy like Vilsack, why can't a collection of the best schools and their department heads take care of specific matters. I kind of like the idea of everything being privatized and a minimal amount of government to interpret the laws once in a while, thats it. Unfortunately with your and my ideas, it would put a lot of under-qualified people out of a job and out of power, they wouldn't like that at all, they will do anything to hold on to their comfortable government wage and low-stress lifestyle producing nothing but meaningless paperwork. There are a lot of people who have become professional bullshitters, and if you take away their ability to do so (or try to however) you will see a great defiance. The most unfortunate part is that there are so many people in this country unaware of what is possible if they let go of their cognitive fears If anything, I definitely think that the Government should be less quarrelsome with the idea of privatized military. If NASA can offer up an "X prize" for space exploration I think the government can loosen up a little, especially since they are losing a huge social battle right now. I think attitudes would change as well. I don't understand why people can scream to the press for the government to "bring our soldiers home". Why are they in the army? For three square meals a day and free education? The reason I didn't join the military was I didn't want the government to have control of my life. Since their isn't a draft that means every man and woman in the military weighed that decision and decided to go into a government run military, they knew what was at stake. If I have a reason to disagree with war it isn't to save the life of people who chose to be part of it. I don't disregard their decision either, I am very proud of them. Who I am not proud of are the weaklings who use their decisions and pride against the government as if the whole idea is to keep them out of warzones. What is the point of a military if you don't use it? I can already hear the reproachful comments to that statement, and I don't mean it as to say we need to go attacking people at will. Just because the war is on someone else's turf doesn't mean its not a defense, it may very well be the best kind of defense, it all depends on how you look at it, everyone is right and wrong in there own respect but there is a better option. The best option is to become independent from a group of hostilities. The big reason why we are even at war is due to large corporations who are struggling to keep their livelihood alive. The difference between us and the Saudis is the free economy. The money coming into the united states get well distributed in a free-market fashion from stocks and bonds, wages and benefits, not to mention all of the markets it is attached to. The money going into Saudi Arabia doesn't stretch nearly as far, just like most of the other middle eastern countries. There is a stranglehold of power their and the people their deserve to have a free market so that they can pursue their own happiness, but we see how well a feudal system works. So I think it would be a great idea to have a privatized military for these corporations struggling to stay connected in the middle east, then it would be their problem not Americas and as a people we could be as indifferent as we wanted to be. of course that wouldn't be the solution to the problem. If we became energy efficient for ourselves and no longer need their exports the little bit of economy they had would fall and a revolution would be inevitable, probably something Osama Bin Laden has been struggling with for so long. I would sympathize with him had he not committed such heinous, unforgivable crimes. Until all borders are dissolved and the world trades like it should I think privatized military for protection could in theory be the best plan, though I wouldn't dissolve the federal governments military, you can treat it like free market competition just like school should be so that no large conglomerate can assume indisputable control. GAHD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted January 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 response to "big ? guy": That would be a bit mess, wouldn't it? I can just see professors trying to run either government or business!:doh: Everyone is putting blame either on government or business, but corporations will cheat if they can in order to pay more dividends to the stockholders. They are set up in such a way by law that it is bound to happen if not regulated. Government, however, is too incompetent to do a decent job of regulating them because the people are so dense they cannot manage to even vote for the right people. But no one wants to blame "the people". Are people naturally "dense" and incompetent voters? No! Something has happened to the public; it has changed for the worse. What has caused that? This is what we should be looking into here and discussting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Sure! Why not? It's worked so well for the parts we have privatized so far :) The entire concept is silly and has resulted in a huge waste of money and lives. :hihi: The military should take care of the military, contrary to neocon propaganda the private sector does not do everything better. :doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiantiglace Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Sure! Why not? It's worked so well for the parts we have privatized so far :) The entire concept is silly and has resulted in a huge waste of money and lives. :hihi: The military should take care of the military, contrary to neocon propaganda the private sector does not do everything better. :doh: Thats just not true at all, where are you getting your facts? Are you going to call blame on large corporations because a couple like enron and aig are disaster stories? What about all the companies that produce and do so very well? what of the rest of the fortune 500? not to mention the hundreds and thousands of relatively large companies lined up behind them. In fact the evidence shows that when countries loosen their borders and restraints on privatization the economy booms. Every single european nation that opened up and cooperated with the european union has seen amazing increases in production and economic position. Simply within a couple of years very large companies came to form and were helping a lot of people out of poverty. Look at the difference in school systems where they are or were largely privatized. Florida attempted that several years ago with great success until the teachers union brought the whole thing down. Privatization filters the lazy and the pathetic, always. Enron's story would not have happened if the people there weren't cutting each others throats, there was no healthy competition or transparency. The idea of business was to sell each other out for raises and promotions, the employees were scared for their life and willing to knock anyone aside to keep their job, and if it meant blacklisting someone for nothing then the lies piled in. Lay produced a great company that didn't none of these things, infact quite the opposite, Skilling, his replacement, was the one that turned the company upside down for his own personal gain. We can easily get carried away with regulation, I think it would be better to have communication and transparency. If someone blew the whistle on Skilling and Fastow long before then we would have a problem, but the people are somewhat pathetic. Also, when has the public ever been anything but "dense". I think Jay Leno does a great job notifying that factor with his "Jaywalking", but throughout time there hasn't been much change in the public mental capacity. The only time that may have peaked was during the industrial revolution or just prior to it when coffee and tea were fighting for most popular drink in Britain, other than that people seem to ignore lifes complexities. How many times have you heard someone tell you that they "don't like politics". How can you live your life without politics, even if you were on a deserted island with only three other people, politics is unavoidable, it's what shapes your life, but people just want security, and if you take privatization away they will probably get their much wanted security which slowly enslaves the rest of us who want nothing more than to achieve more (with a net wrapped around us carrying those who need "security"). People don't have a right to security if it takes away the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. And people don't have the right to pursue happiness if it affects the natural rights of others. But unfortunately in the world with such cognitive dissonance people scream for blood simply through fear that their rights are being taken away, when in reality they are not, the are just being pushed to act on the right to survive, and they don't know how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Thats just not true at all, where are you getting your facts? Are you going to call blame on large corporations because a couple like enron and aig are disaster stories? What about all the companies that produce and do so very well? what of the rest of the fortune 500? not to mention the hundreds and thousands of relatively large companies lined up behind them. In fact the evidence shows that when countries loosen their borders and restraints on privatization the economy booms. Every single european nation that opened up and cooperated with the european union has seen amazing increases in production and economic position. Simply within a couple of years very large companies came to form and were helping a lot of people out of poverty. Look at the difference in school systems where they are or were largely privatized. Florida attempted that several years ago with great success until the teachers union brought the whole thing down. Privatization filters the lazy and the pathetic, always. Enron's story would not have happened if the people there weren't cutting each others throats, there was no healthy competition or transparency. The idea of business was to sell each other out for raises and promotions, the employees were scared for their life and willing to knock anyone aside to keep their job, and if it meant blacklisting someone for nothing then the lies piled in. Lay produced a great company that didn't none of these things, infact quite the opposite, Skilling, his replacement, was the one that turned the company upside down for his own personal gain. We can easily get carried away with regulation, I think it would be better to have communication and transparency. If someone blew the whistle on Skilling and Fastow long before then we would have a problem, but the people are somewhat pathetic. Also, when has the public ever been anything but "dense". I think Jay Leno does a great job notifying that factor with his "Jaywalking", but throughout time there hasn't been much change in the public mental capacity. The only time that may have peaked was during the industrial revolution or just prior to it when coffee and tea were fighting for most popular drink in Britain, other than that people seem to ignore lifes complexities. How many times have you heard someone tell you that they "don't like politics". How can you live your life without politics, even if you were on a deserted island with only three other people, politics is unavoidable, it's what shapes your life, but people just want security, and if you take privatization away they will probably get their much wanted security which slowly enslaves the rest of us who want nothing more than to achieve more (with a net wrapped around us carrying those who need "security"). People don't have a right to security if it takes away the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. And people don't have the right to pursue happiness if it affects the natural rights of others. But unfortunately in the world with such cognitive dissonance people scream for blood simply through fear that their rights are being taken away, when in reality they are not, the are just being pushed to act on the right to survive, and they don't know how. Did you just fall out of the sky last week? Did you read my post at all? Do you know that this thread is about? Pull your head out of your ***, I didn't say anything about the subject of your rant, I said the using private contractors for the military was a mistake. Read the title of this tread again and all the other posts in this thread, then come back and see if your post has anything what so ever to do with anything.:doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Thats just not true at all, where are you getting your facts? Are you going to call blame on large corporations because a couple like enron and aig are disaster stories? What about all the companies that produce and do so very well? what of the rest of the fortune 500? not to mention the hundreds and thousands of relatively large companies lined up behind them. In fact the evidence shows that when countries loosen their borders and restraints on privatization the economy booms. Every single european nation that opened up and cooperated with the european union has seen amazing increases in production and economic position. Simply within a couple of years very large companies came to form and were helping a lot of people out of poverty. Look at the difference in school systems where they are or were largely privatized. Florida attempted that several years ago with great success until the teachers union brought the whole thing down. Privatization filters the lazy and the pathetic, always. Enron's story would not have happened if the people there weren't cutting each others throats, there was no healthy competition or transparency. The idea of business was to sell each other out for raises and promotions, the employees were scared for their life and willing to knock anyone aside to keep their job, and if it meant blacklisting someone for nothing then the lies piled in. Lay produced a great company that didn't none of these things, infact quite the opposite, Skilling, his replacement, was the one that turned the company upside down for his own personal gain. We can easily get carried away with regulation, I think it would be better to have communication and transparency. If someone blew the whistle on Skilling and Fastow long before then we would have a problem, but the people are somewhat pathetic. Also, when has the public ever been anything but "dense". I think Jay Leno does a great job notifying that factor with his "Jaywalking", but throughout time there hasn't been much change in the public mental capacity. The only time that may have peaked was during the industrial revolution or just prior to it when coffee and tea were fighting for most popular drink in Britain, other than that people seem to ignore lifes complexities. How many times have you heard someone tell you that they "don't like politics". How can you live your life without politics, even if you were on a deserted island with only three other people, politics is unavoidable, it's what shapes your life, but people just want security, and if you take privatization away they will probably get their much wanted security which slowly enslaves the rest of us who want nothing more than to achieve more (with a net wrapped around us carrying those who need "security"). People don't have a right to security if it takes away the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. And people don't have the right to pursue happiness if it affects the natural rights of others. But unfortunately in the world with such cognitive dissonance people scream for blood simply through fear that their rights are being taken away, when in reality they are not, the are just being pushed to act on the right to survive, and they don't know how.We are not at war with business! Capitalism is the only system that works. What is at issue here is not business but the economic cult that claims that corporations can and should do everything and replace most if not all functions of government. Unfortunately, this extreme doctrine has grown to be a major factor in the Republican party. Ultraconservatives would use it to in effect take over government and lower taxes for the affluent and rise them for the middle and lower classes. The tax code needs to achieve some redistribution of national wealth in order to provide some social welfare for the unaffluent classes and keep the disparity of wealth between the classes from expanding forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minna Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Call me conservative but I think essential things like food, water, defense etc are better kept in the public's hand. (as cost ineffective as they may be...but not EVERYTHING has to make a profit to exist) Anyway what business model would this coporation follow? There are only a few instances where monopolies are beneficial and in this case I definately don't think it would work. There is even less of a chance of it working as a duopoly or some other models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moadib Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 hhmmm im thinking people didnt catch the sarcasm angle Charles lol. Im a neocon and think that the military is 1 of the 4 or 5 thing that you DO NOT privatize...The list is short but im pretty sure military is at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think there are other things too. I've actually seen private police release suspects rather than have the expense of taking them to the police and being involved. For-profit prisons make more profit by skipping rehabilitation. Insurance corporations take your money for years and then when you have a medical problem, they find some record somewhere that there was a clue you might have had the problem earlier and refuse to foot the bill. They are wrong, but you cannot afford to go against their powerful legal staff. Some corporations insure workers with what the co. calls "dead peasant policies" which pay the company when you die. For-profit charter schools are an opening for the religious to eventually work in "Creationism." And look what Enron did with utilities. . . And if corporations are so efficient and "good," why do they need "stimulating"? Why do they hack out subsidies from government? Yes, conservative. I am because I believe in marriage, concern for the world's future and a strong moral code. Unlike most people then, I was never attracted to the hippy life at all. I was against the unisex culture, and all the other secular extremes. But I think corporations are and will continue to corrupt our society unless they are restricted and controlled because they are supposed to do nothing but make money for the stockholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moadib Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The 4 or 5 thing I believe that can not be privatized are military,police,roads and infastructure,customs,and post office.With monopoly laws to prevent situations like AIG and minimal regulations just about everything else can be privatized.As far as private school, i gotta go the compete opposite as you craig.If a group of people want to teach that a green haired 4 arm dwarf created the universe, in america, thats all right by me. America was found so anyone can believe and say just about anything. Even farther why should citizen be force to pay taxes to pay for failing schools that allow illegal aliens to attend free, can not disipline sudents and often cant fire subpar teachers, and then in some areas if they want their kid to get a good education pay another $6000 for a private school. The main agruement against vouchers that ive heard is that some people dont want beliefs that they dont agree with taught in any school even if that parents agree and others have the chose not to go there...sound like a govt monopoly on ideas and speak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 The 4 or 5 thing I believe that can not be privatized are military,police,roads and infastructure,customs,and post office.With monopoly laws to prevent situations like AIG and minimal regulations just about everything else can be privatized.As far as private school, i gotta go the compete opposite as you craig.If a group of people want to teach that a green haired 4 arm dwarf created the universe, in america, thats all right by me. America was found so anyone can believe and say just about anything. Even farther why should citizen be force to pay taxes to pay for failing schools that allow illegal aliens to attend free, can not disipline sudents and often cant fire subpar teachers, and then in some areas if they want their kid to get a good education pay another $6000 for a private school. The main agruement against vouchers that ive heard is that some people dont want beliefs that they dont agree with taught in any school even if that parents agree and others have the chose not to go there...sound like a govt monopoly on ideas and speak What do you think about the Treasury department? Would it be better to corporatize it and have it pay quarterly profits to stockholders? Should we let Blackwater take over the Dept. of Homeland Security? If we corporatized the fire deptments, we could end up with a fire deparment monopoly dedicated to cutting expenses in order to make more profit. We could set up hospitals for profit and let the poor either pay or die. How would we corporate Congress? Since Big Business already owns Congress, I guess I have already answered that question. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haech Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Ahem... State the problem as an utility function and optimize using a relevant discount rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.