mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Ok, let me tweak the question further, for those who believe in restricting the size of government:
* Do people here believe that the federal government is the most competent at providing for national defense, or if something else, say states or private corporations, are more competent?
* If the answer is that the federal government is most competent at doing this, and you don't believe anyone else is, then what makes the military the only thing it is most competent at?
|
A single private corproation would be more competant for providing national defense on a national army level.
It's just you wouldn't want a single private corpoation running your entire army since force is the last negotiation tool.
If you think the company running your private army is asking too much money.... ehhhh. Who's to say they don't just overthrow you?
Even if they don't. Then you gotta go about getting a whole new private army.
It's pretty much the only job that can't be split up to prevent these problems.
|
Not only that, it would allow for a corporate monopoly...That is usually not much better than a government monopoly.
At least with the current military structure, there is a hybrid of private and public companies - the government employs the troops while the private sector does the bulk of R&D and arms them. That way, businesses can compete for the most efficient delivering of arms to the sector. Is it perfect? Beyond no. But its the best that we can manage.
In a 'perfect' world, we would have militias only, and everyone would rally to the common cause of his brother and defend the state and nation. However, that has not been the historical case. Just look at the Toledo War. Ohio and Michigan were a few steps away from initiating a full scale war against eachother.
|
And to think... it was over toledo!
