I think it's more an indication that merging government and private business is a Bad Thing.

I'd accept that perspective as well.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

OK, well this is all I am arguing. Take the government and it's near endless stream of revenue out of defense. They suck at it. And not only do they suck at it, they cause a lot of the problems which they are supposed to fix.

This would be almost as if the government operated all cleaning companies. Because they have a monopoly, they are alread inefficent. But, in order to trick people into thinking that we need the cleaning force to be controlled by the government, the government sends men to people's houses and makes them really dirty. Then, the government maids come in and clean the mess. Then, when some "nut" like me argues for privitation of cleaning services, people argue that, with out the government to clean our houses, the new cleaning companies will come into our houses, create huge messes and then force us to pay them to clean it.

This, of course is ridiculous. If someone had a cleaning company that did this, he would simply get another cleaning company. The same goes with defense. If some private defense company comes in and shoots its customers, the living customers will get a new defense firm. So, in order to aviod tremondous loss of customers like this, the private defense companies will not shoot the customers. I have said for a long time that "a dead customer isn't going to pay anymore." And on top of that, many customers will leave the defense company for fear of losing life.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Honestly, you're wasting your breath (fingers). I'm usually fairly open to differing opinions, but in this case I can tell you that there's no way I'll accept that privatizing defense is a good move.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

You are not even willing to contemplate the idea of privitizing defense? Isn't that a fairly ignorant and low-brow attitude to take?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

We already have private defense organizations that protect people in the US, we call it "Organized Crime". As long as you pay for "protection", no one smashes up your business, or breaks your legs. Of course they compete with the government to provide these "services".
Are you suggesting that if we took the government out of the mix, things would be better?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Insulting me surely isn't going to make me change my mind.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Why do you think they wouldn't?

I didn't mean to insult you, I was asking you a question. The sort of people you find taking the position you are taking are usually ignorant. They have the advantage of living blissful lives, but they remain ignorant. Do you disagree with this assessment?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Yes, I have responded to similar questions on other threads. I am going to copy those responses here because I am lazy and I don't feel like typing them again. Note, they are three responses to three posts, so there is a ceratain ammount of overlap, but none of them are very long.

The mafia has existed in large parts because they bribes government officals. The government officals were able to get by with this because they had a monopoly on protection. If they were a private firm, two things would keep this from happening.

First, the companies could make more from customers than from bribes. Everyone knew a lot of cops were bought by the mafia.

Second, if the maifa tried to bribe private defense companies, customers of the bribed private defense company would change companies because they are no longer being served. Because of this, it no longer makes sense for the mafia to bribe the private defense company and because the private defense company no longer has customers, it makes no money. So, there is strong incentive for the pirvate defense companies to actually serve the customers.

The only thing the mafia could try to do is to bribe all defense companies, but this would be much money. They would have to pay MORE money than all customers combined, because as soon as the defense companies fail to protect the customers, the customers leave.

Once again, you fail to contemplate the entire question. As for fascism, we are arguing against strong government. This means we are arguing against fascism. So I don't know what your point is. We know what the lessons of a totalitarian state are, it is you that obviously fails to grasp this. It is you that argues for state control of defense, not us.

The mafia has existed in large parts because they bribes government officals. The government officals were able to get by with this because they had a monopoly on protection. If they were a private firm, two things would keep this from happening.

First, the companies could make more from customers than from bribes. Everyone knew a lot of cops were bought by the mafia.

Second, if the maifa tried to bribe private defense companies, customers of the bribed private defense company would change companies because they are no longer being served. Because of this, it no longer makes sense for the mafia to bribe the private defense company and because the private defense company no longer has customers, it makes no money. So, there is strong incentive for the pirvate defense companies to actually serve the customers.

The only thing the mafia could try to do is to bribe all defense companies, but this would be much money. They would have to pay MORE money than all customers combined, because as soon as the defense companies fail to protect the customers, the customers leave.

This would be almost as if the government operated all cleaning companies. Because they have a monopoly, they are alread inefficent. But, in order to trick people into thinking that we need the cleaning force to be controlled by the government, the government sends men to people's houses and makes them really dirty. Then, the government maids come in and clean the mess. Then, when some "nut" like me argues for privitation of cleaning services, people argue that, with out the government to clean our houses, the new cleaning companies will come into our houses, create huge messes and then force us to pay them to clean it.

This, of course is ridiculous. If someone had a cleaning company that did this, he would simply get another cleaning company. The same goes with defense. If some private defense company comes in and shoots its customers, the living customers will get a new defense firm. So, in order to aviod tremondous loss of customers like this, the private defense companies will not shoot the customers.

So, I think that is pretty much a basis for my argument against the "mafia theory". Let me know what you think.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Goober reached the same conclusion as me - that you cannot lay your security in non-democratic hands and that defense organizations equal organized crime (i called it mafia) and fascist governement.

The question is - did he reach that conclusion independant from me? If he did we might have a stronger case against you.

Multiple people possessing a similiar train of thought does not speak to the validity of a shared belief but rather its popularity.

How is that? Ambiguous and I are on the same side. That doesn't mean we are correct because we both thought the same thing, independant of eachother.

This is a really bizzaire reason to claim a victroy. And this objection to private defense, the "mafia theory", is not that unique of an oppinion. Many people I debate about this very issue reach the same concusion that you have. That doesn't make them correct as logic and history and morality are all of the side of the "prvitizers."

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I have come to the conclusion that people who participate in non-partisan forums are smarter and more aware than the average person. Non-partisan forum participants are much more intelligent than people who get polled by Rasmussen and other official polling functions.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Pinkerton started several riots in the late 20th century.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004