Quote:
Originally Posted by MattLarson
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.
|
Please identify a civilian job offering full material subsidy, monetary compensation, education and retirement using public funds without making an economic contribution.
Quote:
|
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.
|
All 911 sub-contractor responders in my area other than LE are private entites. Our county fire and ambulance services are available only by private subscription, which is far less expensive than publicly funded districts and they still show a profit and contribute to the economy. The line people are paid hourly wages for when they're on-duty or in training, but not 24/7/365.
Quote:
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
|
Of course they are. It doesn't sound like you have much experience with the disadvantaged. Talk to someone on public assistance to understand the hoops they're required to jump through in justifying the bureaucratic process. Training to become an assembly worker or such at government expense is no different than being trained to operate a weapons system or such at government expense. Neither makes any economic contribution nor are there civilian positions available for either function but both are subsidized by public money, so what's the difference?