Privatising the Army (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

So I was thinking about economics and the market, and I got this idea, as stated by the thread title. Why not privatise the army? If it can work for utilities, health care and education, why should defense be an exception?

Pros:
- Better investment. Come on people, our current defense minister was managing kindergartens a year ago. Surely seasoned businessmen and economists would be wiser in choosing which guns to purchase.

- De-centralisation. Currently the government has a monopoly on defense. Should defense be a monopoly? That's anti-competitive. Rival defense companies would be forced to compete for business and enlistments, thus increasing the overall standard of this great nation's military.

- Lower tax. According to wikipedia, 1.9% of our GDP is spent on defense. That's massive. If the defense force were 'user pays', everyone would be happy. Those against the invasion of Iraq could simply choose not to fund it, while neo-cons could put their money where their collective mouths were.

Cons: I really can't think of any. There might have to be laws such that the left can't fund the bombing of America. But really, the less regulation, the more efficient things will be.

Thoughts?

 

[Optophobia]

The army is there to take orders from the government, not big business.

The army is also there to defend the nation, not Big W stores.

The army also has alegence to the nation and should not prioritise the defence of certain assets over the nation as a whole.

Privatising is pathetic.

 

[Jiga]

A big con I can see is the Army trying to use force to take over Australia! Not to mention fighting between rival 'defence companies'. It would be an absolute disaster, it not wise to have an armed private organisation armed to its teeth.

EDIT

Also, the goals of the organisation would vary of that of the actual governments, while the governments is to defend the nation the private company format would be to increase profits.

Id explain my opinion in more detail but I dont see the point, privatising the army is ridiculous

 

[Generator]

Captain, given that I cannot tell whether you are trolling for a response or posting a piece of political satire, this thread has been moved to this part of the NCAP forum. However, if, by some chance, it happens to be a serious thread, please let me know.

 

[transcendent]

aww... but i've always had aspirations as a mercenary! how can my dream come true if we don't privatise the Army?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Captain, given that I cannot tell whether you are trolling for a response or posting a piece of political satire, this thread has been moved to this part of the NCAP forum. However, if, by some chance, it happens to be a serious thread, please let me know.

Satire is the correct answer. It belongs here anyway, sorry about that.

 

[fOxYcLeOpTrA89]

ha ha ha.. privatisation... spoken like a true liberal

 

[Generator]

Satire is the correct answer. It belongs here anyway, sorry about that.

No need for you to be sorry, I was the one who couldn't help but think that your intent may have been to annoy. For that, I am sorry.

 

[Serius]

now thats a crazy idea.

scenario: Howard wants to attack Saudi... the defence board of directors are middle eastern. They refuse orders.

even worse scenario: Defence company is sick of the shit the government is giving them. They decide to take control of key strategic points in australia and effectively ransom the country.

 

[nwatts]

- Lower tax. According to wikipedia, 1.9% of our GDP is spent on defense. That's massive. If the defense force were 'user pays', everyone would be happy. Those against the invasion of Iraq could simply choose not to fund it, while neo-cons could put their money where their collective mouths were.

Haha, this is funny.

 

[Optophobia]

now thats a crazy idea.

scenario: Howard wants to attack Saudi... the defence board of directors are middle eastern. They refuse orders.

even worse scenario: Defence company is sick of the shit the government is giving them. They decide to take control of key strategic points in australia and effectively ransom the country.

The thread is satire apparently. I to, was not surprised at something so ridiculously stupid being suggested on BOS, but apparently i should have been more alert.

 

[withoutaface]

If protective services are all the government provides we don't need explicitly private companies because we can just have a democratic vote which determines only the manager of protection, and so in effect we have different people competing with different management styles and as such can emulate the market without the dangers of anarchocapitalism. Also iirc the amount of voluntary tax (eg gambling etc) received should be enough to fund it.

And yes I realise that this thread was created to pay me out.

 

[Ennaybur]

why to pay You out?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Good idea imo.

 

[withoutaface]

why to pay You out?

Cause I'm part of the "privatise everything" brigade.

 

[Ennaybur]

oh. one of 'those'

 

[withoutaface]

*glares

 

[Ennaybur]

:d

EDIT: goddamnit thats sposed to b a smiley face.. u know .. big "D" .. stoopid bos

anyway u get the jist

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The army is there to take orders from the government, not big business.

The army is also there to defend the nation, not Big W stores.

The army also has alegence to the nation and should not prioritise the defence of certain assets over the nation as a whole.

Privatising is pathetic.

Surely, at least in a democracy, the government is meant to reflect the interests of the nation, ie. the people. Therefore the middle-man, ie. the government is unnecessary. Layers of beaurocracy and inefficiency could be removed if the army took orders directly from the people funding it.

Why would it be in anyone's interest to pay an entire army (they wouldn't exactly be cheap, I'm not talking like $10 to hire a tank here) to defend Big W? Big W stores dont need defending. In the case they are, say, robbed, we have the police to deal with that. I'm not arguing for privatising the police, as this is an essential service provided by government.

now thats a crazy idea.

scenario: Howard wants to attack Saudi... the defence board of directors are middle eastern. They refuse orders.

even worse scenario: Defence company is sick of the shit the government is giving them. They decide to take control of key strategic points in australia and effectively ransom the country.

If enough people want Saudi to be invaded, they will pay, and the board of directors have the choice of providing the service, or going broke. At which point an alternative corporation with, say, non middle eastern directors could be contracted to perform the invasion. Simple.

For the second scenario, I suggest you google figures for the daily cost of, say, the war in Iraq. If you couldn't be bothered, I'll just say it's not in the tens or hundreds of dollars. Should an uppity defense company attempt to take over the country against the wishes of most consumers, they'll find their funding cut off fairly quickly.

If protective services are all the government provides we don't need explicitly private companies because we can just have a democratic vote which determines only the manager of protection, and so in effect we have different people competing with different management styles and as such can emulate the market without the dangers of anarchocapitalism. Also iirc the amount of voluntary tax (eg gambling etc) received should be enough to fund it.

And yes I realise that this thread was created to pay me out.

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of people within the nation. Hence the laws, police, courts and other type law and order system. This should be where voluntary taxation goes, not on buying tanks, ships, etc.
Australia's GDP = $674.97 billion
2% = $13499400000
The tax acquired from gambling is several orders of magnitute smaller than this.

 

[littlewing69]

Libertarianism is yummy.

Then I read some Ayn Rand, and have to throw up.