Would You Privatize Defense?

[Joanne98]

Would You Privatize Defense?

The case for socialized medicine, Part 1.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 6:46 PM ET

Suppose the national defense of the United States were relegated to the private sector. Instead of the publicly funded Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, the country would be defended by private militias funded mainly by insurance companies. In the event of foreign attack on U.S. soil, the militias would defend those citizens in the affected areas who'd paid defense insurance premiums through their places of work (or, if self-employed, as individuals).

The best-armed troops would defend the wealthiest and most hawkish segments of the population, who would have paid the highest premiums.

The less-wealthy and more dovish customers who'd chosen a less-generous policy would likewise be defended against attack, but they could expect to pay heavily out of pocket because their insurance would only cover costs for weapons and manpower above a fairly high deductible. The doves' militias might or might not call in air support, knowing the insurance company would pay for it only in the most dire circumstances—difficult to calibrate as bombs are dropping all around you. Or perhaps these troops would belong to defense maintenance organizations (DMOs) that blended defense and insurance functions. If so, the soldiers would be required to follow strict protocols that would likely forbid not only air support but also the use of tanks.

Poor people and outright pacifists would buy no defense insurance at all, and therefore would end up being saddled with ruinously large debts to private militias they'd chosen hastily after the invasion was under way. Alternatively, these individuals might simply say the hell with it, wave a white flag, and surrender.
Continued..
http://www.slate.com/id/2161318/?nav=fix




:crazy: :crazy:

[Squatch]

1. It might help to keep prices down.

:shrug:

Free-market military.

Wait...aren't those kinds of people called mercenaries?

[aquart]

2. And they are really well paid.

Hired killers always are.

They're also the ones who later seize the government in what's known as a "military coup."

[robinlynne]

3. NO. de-privatize this country!

[eagler]

4. that's the best idea!

[Joanne98]

5. No more privatizing...

[ComerPerro]

6. How would it make things any different?

All soldiers do nowadays is protect the wealthy and elite. So what would be different?

[Joanne98]

7. We would lose all control. It's very bad bad bad!!!!

:scared:

[ComerPerro]

10. We have no control. And at any moment, given the order,

troops would turn on anti-Bush citizens.

[Joanne98]

11. Actually, I don't think they would...

I suspect the troops might hate Bush as much as we do. They just can't say anything.

[ComerPerro]

12. Well, consider Kent State, on a bigger scale

they wouldn't turn on regular Americans. But protesters.... that's another story

[Cobalt-60]

8. No. The historic record indicates that this is a very bad idea

The first bad thing is that our safety is now in the hands of men who fight for the highest bidder.
If the resident were to fart in the Chinese Leader's face, they would have simply to write a fatter check than ours to wipe us out.
Mercenaries with any skill always turn on their employers eventually.
The Romans outsourced their defense to barbarian mercenaries.
And they were very shortly conquered by those mercenaries.
Imagine some future Blackwell sub commander standing in the oval Office with a future president, informing them that there is no United States. It would be a re run of the meeting in 476AD where mercenary general Odovacar (sp?) informed the last western Emperor Romulus Augustulus that he was out of a job.
It is inevitable with privatized defense.
Privatized Defense is completely unacceptable.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Do you really think the White Halliburton - I mean the White House -

would do a thing like that!

[merh]

13. Did you catch this in his last state of the union address?

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military — so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Oh, and did you know that the gates to some of the bases in the States are manned by private security?

Yup, "hire a cop" people are the folks that protect our bases.

[Joanne98]

14. ..........

[Telly Savalas]

15. Has anybody actually read the damn article?

He's illustrating how screwed up our healthcare system is by applying its principles to our national defence.

[Joanne98]

16. I know. It's a really good analogy...

[arcos]

17. That's what I was thinking...

Everyone is discussing the title and not the content.... :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

This is about healthcare, not about defense!!

[merh]

21. But you don't understand

that is exactly what this admin would like to do and they have privatized many aspects of the military. The meals, the security at the gates, the building and repairs on the bases. It used to be that the military took care of itself, units for security, cooking, maintenance, etc and the purpose of that was so that they could be self-contained and independent should they have to take care of themselves during wartime. Today, more civilians have access to the military than ever before. Bases aren't really that secure.

I understand the article and the comparision made in same. It is a good point, but sadly, the privatization is what is happening to the military.

[Cobalt Violet]

18. Privatization = more death, more suffering, higher bills.

It's a scam.

[Joanne98]

19. kick

[bridgit]

20. no...

[Vidar]

22. Has privatizing ever worked? Usually it means higher prices,

for consumers & less regulation for corporate pirates--which of course suits the Publicans just fine.

[Jonathan50]

23. I know this is really about health care but here is what Machiavelli had to say about mercenaries

http://home.c2i.net/espenjo/home/fyrsten/prince12.htm

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;* and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

* With which to chalk up the billets for his soldiers.

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Why bother? The Pentagon begs for more money for the defense industry and then hires on with them.

"War is a racket." - Smedley Butler