Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano
The military hasn't defended the country since ww2, which denies the word employment. Standing by in case of war under contract and being subsidized by the public to do so is not a circumstance comparable to the private sector. The parallel would be identifying a welfare recipient adhering to civil obedience while receiving 100% public subsidy including training or retraining as employed. Both are on the public teat, neither makes any societal economic contribution. Yet some of us deny health care to children being publicly funded because they're not deserving? That's quite a value system.
|
Your concept of what the military does - namely that the military is only working when defending the country - is defective on it's face. There are many civilian jobs which comparable situations.
Take, for example, the paramedic working for a private sector 911 provider. If said paramedic is at the station participating in a training drill, is he not working? If we apply your standard above, the answer would have to be no.
Your parallel falls flat because the person on public subsidy in the real world is not required to provide services back to the government, whereas a military member is.
Matt