When Blackwater does its IPO we'll all know what it looks and feels like.

I was just going by what you said:
...Directly contradicting your previous statement unless I'm somehow reading this incorrectly.

You're right, it wouldn't be like Iraq under Hussein. It would be like Iraq now if not worse.

The question is: Is it worth the lives of Americans, is it worth any degree of chaos in our own homeland, just so you can install your insane, unworkable economic system?

Yes. I agree; many profit-motivated, corrupted corporations exploit the working man daily.

No. I'd rather see America have the capability to defend itself. I find it sick that some people take this capability for granted and I find it sicker that there are those who would do away with it. It is beyond me why you or anyone would rather put our country in a position where the safety and wellbeing of our citizens would rest in a private corporation that would only defend us if we were the "highest bidder". I'd rather see America employ an economic system where public and private industry can both work side by side and each bring it's own benefits to the country and the people. I'd rather see Americans appreciate what they do have and make an effort to preserve what they do have. By the way, what do you mean "enslave it's citizens"?

__________________

Apparently the lives of the tens of millions who have perished under the rule of government is worth the degree of "safety" that governments have given the world, you know, those sane, workable economic systems that everybody is in love with.

I said that the geurilla warfare tacticts are usually empoyed by the smaller army. I was giving a real world example, this is obvuisly something with which you struggle, given the fact that you have given no real world examples of your economic theories, all the while criticizing mine because "real world" is not an "economics text book."

I am beginning to get fed up with you. Please explain to me how the working man is exploited every day?

When you make these crazy assertions, such as firms somehow make money by not satisfying the consumer, but sometimes profit doesn't matter, but the firm will be able to get $500,000,000,000 a year, you make no sense.

Please explain to me, once and for all two things. 1) How does a company make money with out satisfying consumers, and with out government help. Provide an example that I can study, 2) Explain how a monopoly form on the free market, while considering my objections to your theory. Provide an example that I can study.

The army enslaves the citizens by conscripting them into service. If this is not slavery, I do not know what is. Further, laws such as the Taft-Hartley Act allow the state to stop a strike. This means that people are forced to work; this is slavery.

By the way, did you go to college? Are you in college? If so, what is (was) your major?

__________________
"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

That's a pretty good argument. I hadn't thought about it that way, before. Thanks, you know, I think I have been wrong. After all, as you said, I am a boob. That settles it!

__________________
"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 never said anything about an "economics textbook" in any of my posts? What sre you talking about? You provided a "real-word example" and I asked why you thought that we should have to go through that to privatize our defense industry?

The statement you made, to which i responded with that "worker's exploitation" thing, was hinting you thought publicized defense is a "violation of rights". I said I agreed with you, but acted as if you were hinting that private industry is a "violation of rights". It was a lame attempt at sarcasm on my part.

This whole paragraph makes no sense. I think you are talking about a whole different discussion. Are you still pissed about that? I said that businesses, public or private, can make money with an inferior product, at least until the consumer discovers the product's inferiority. That's completely true.

A company can't make money without at least partially satisfying consumers. What I said, and what I am saying, is that a product does not have to be a good product for people to be satisfied with it, at least until they discover that it is not a good product.

Slavery is forced, unpaid labor. Compulsory military service is still paid.

Why? Are you wondering if I'm stupid? I very well may be a stupid person, but I think I'm intelligent enough to understand politics, economics, and the theories and systems that go along with each. To answer your question, I plan to go to college and study psychology and, perhaps, political science. You, and most members of this forum (with a few notable exceptions) are probably far more intelligent than I will ever be.

I'm not the one that called you or anyone a "boob". I don't think I called you anything. Check the posts again.

__________________

Will someone explain to me how you are going to privatize the military?
You will still have to pay for it through taxes, Right?
The difference will be that now the military will have to show a profit, and the best way to do that would be to outsource it a country like China. Yeah, the US would be much safer with a couple of million Chinese troops here to protect us, and to help collect the taxes to pay them for this service.

__________________
“ 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

When I was explaining how firms in a capitalist economy must satisfy consumers to stay in busness you said:
This is true theoretically, but not always true realistically.

You have told me several times that you are talking about reality. I am only left to guess that you assume I am talking about theories, not reality, ie, theories from a textbook.

Yes I know, but this is what you have been saying.
Ok, I know what you have said. You have said it a lot. You have said it when I showed you why this is, as you desrcibe it, untrue. Yet, you continue to argue this point. And, you havn't provided a single example of either of the two things I have asked.
No, slavery is forced labor at a price for which you would not have otherwise worked. By your definition of slavery, the American "slaves" were not slaves at all. They consumed much of what they produced.
No, I am not calling you stupid. Even if I thought you were stupid, I know that college will not make a person any smarter. I was just wondering what your major was. And NEVER go around telling people that they are smarter than you, unless you are certain it is true. There is no evidence that suggests I am smarter than you or anyone. The only thing we can learn from this argument is that I am correct, and you are incorrect, but this is not, in any meanigful way, a reflection of our intelligence.
I know, the post of mine to which you responded was a response to tamperproof.

__________________
"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

It`s foolish not to make differences between totalitarian and autocratic states on the one hand, and constitutional democracies on the other hand.

I think, that you make the same mistake as Rousseau did. He believed also in the noble savage, who is corrupted by civilisation and state. But history tells another story. The number of killed people decreased with the rise of states and institutions. In native tribes, much more people died in warfare, than today, when you compare the number od deads to the number of people.

State gave the world much more peace. Arbitrary power is much more propable in areas, where common rules and law doesn`t exist.
The neccessity of common rules rises with increase of human connections. Modern capitalism with its global market couldn`t exist with such common rules.
Just look at the people in the slums of the third world: There you can watch your idea of complete exclusion of state law. They have no chance to grow up a successful buisness, because they have no legal certainty.
Private security is without a frame of state law only the rule of the strong.
A common rule/law helps especially the poor and weak to protect their property and wealth.

__________________
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else

Claude Frédéric Bastiat

Hey, it worked for Rome - they hired barbarian troops for a brief period - until the empire collapsed, and the troops sacked....oh,well, guess not.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

Sometimes in discussions of economic systems, one advocating a certain system pays too much attention to how that system should work ideally and not necessarily realistically. Maybe I thought you were doing this when I said that,I honestly can't remember.

Heres an example: An entrepreneur starts a company that produces and sells TV sets. They seem pretty nice, and are being sold at a reasonable price. 100,000 people each buy a set in the span of a few weeks. The people are satisfied with the cost and performance of the product and people continue to buy them. However, after about a month's use, the sets overheat and break down internally (don't ask my why; they just do.) People become angry with the company and over a period of time, the entrepreneur takes what he made off the venture and buys a mansion in the Caribbean and retires. He was able to profit off of a product that, in the end, did not satisfy consumers (although they were satisfied initially.) Yes, the business ceases to exist, but a profit was still made in its short period of existence. This is what I'm talking about.

A slave is "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another" according to Merriam-Webster. I wouldn't say this is the case in our military. Even still, our country's military does not force citizens to serve unless the country is in an intense war situation. It hasn't happened since Vietnam. Even then, they are not the "property of" or "wholly subject to" another person.


Okay. I still wouldn't consider you correct or myself incorrect though. I suppose that is to be expected, otherwise we wouldn't be debating.

My bad.

__________________

As it stands now, the weak don't have any security except that which the strong have given them. They're just given the illusion of security. In the end, everyone under a government is subject to the rule of force because governments are nothing but force.

Sure, this might happen. If it does, the man who sold the broken TVs is responsible. He has, in essence, stolen the TVs from his customers. But, as I said, a firm will not make consistent profits this way. This is why a private defense firm that does not consistently satisfy its customers will ever be able to make $500 billion a year.
Well, a draftee certainly does not own himself. He must do exactly what his commanding officers tell him to do. He cannot allocate his own personal resources. To me, this is slavery.


QUOTE]

__________________
"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