[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. If we both want something different, one of us is going to get disappointed. That's a pretty big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty big?? That's huge. It's the reason I like privatization so much (including the privatization of privacy, but that's another topic). I mean with health care, I'm not really hurt if you pick an idiot doctor, nor are you hurt if I choose to go to a great one. With food, we can each have our favorite farms and be just fine. However, with the military (I'm working under the assumption that the US fades away slowly and everyone else in the world is basically the same, fair?) we don't have that luxury (in my estemation) for reasons explained further down.

[ QUOTE ]
Theory? You mean taxes for defense haven't actually been observed in the wild?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I mean theory in the sense that's it's not plausable that we bring down the US government tomorrow and get to dissolve into ACland. So I'm (as a Libertarian) firmly in the make it better camp. That means if Ron Paul is the lesser of two evils, I'm voting for him. I like his ideas for the most part, he gets my vote. Some people don't want to vote and that's their right, but you (and others) need to look in the mirror and repeat "I will NOT see AC in my lifetime" over and over until it sinks in. Then maybe we can start to make some change. I firmly believe that pouting on internet message boards and causing fights won't help anything. But as I said, a different topic.

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm for 'almost' total opposition to murder, but I still want to be able to kill a few people."


[/ QUOTE ]

If you could kill one person to save 1 million...etc etc and on and on.

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that the current US military is decentralized, so that it doesn't matter if some "big chicken" commander gets picked off. Now you're saying it *is* centralized, which gives it some "integration" advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of it like this: There is no "head" to cut off to kill the body, but since there exists a firm and (99%) unquestioned chain of command, decisions can be made and carried out brutally effieciently. This speed would not likely exist on such a scale without the force behind the US Military. PMCs could certainly have their own chain of command, but would be unlikely to amass a power equal to that of the US (and required for effective protection). More over, it's unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that given what we know about stress and human nature, that these many and ideologically varied companies could band together to fight with the effectiveness of the US Military.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think companies are "wasteful" now, certainly not when compared with baroque bureaucracies like the US military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry meant to say "you think the military is wasteful now, wait til the private firms get ahold of it." The idea that once something goes private all the fat is trimmed is silly. Businesses exist to make money, and ignoring manpower and land limitations they'll hamper competition if allowed, sometimes using the same red tape as governments. At any rate, this is largely tangential to the thread

[ QUOTE ]
These "borders" are known as property lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't think it will stay this way right. HOAs and other organizations will pop up, giving rise to citys, perhaps even states, in all likelyhood nations won't be far behind. People will realize they hold a large amount of power and try to oppress others...

Maybe we're so messed up physiologically that it's the natural order of things. I wish there was a way to test this.

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? I'm asking if you see any disadvantages to "less regulation and more competition". Not disadvantages to more centralization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops! Read that wrong. In any case those things I listed in my OP in this thread about cover it. I don't see it being a particularly effective way to do it. I'm for deregulation and privatization of alot of things, but not the National military.

Cody