How do libertarians like Donald Trump and Erik Prince/private MILITARY/SPY services? (minimum wage, drug)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you could use a model in any time period were there are perverse incentives for prison and warfare. All you have to do is agree with a conservative on the profit motive of a well run prison system to demonstrate they are either idiots or in on the scam. The drive to widen their market should send a shiver of horror. There should never be for profit prisons or armies in any liberty loving society.
Ok, so you are a LIBERTARIAN correct ??
yet you do not support privitazition of armed services
...how about first responders, animal services and parks and rec??
You will concede that the vast majority of libertarians support privitazition of ALL government services eh??
I guess I should apologize for assuming you were a "standard" LIBERTARIAN.
Don't you have a more simple and currently relevant explanation?
IE: using a corporate model while fighting warfare means the warfighter has an incentive to create more war...say bombings civillians or hitting a religious building would create more anger and vitriol thus ensuring more war and more money vs the government warfighter that gets paid either way and thus would rather have peace and a quick return home.
No. Think of navy seals. Use the least amount of force as possible to achieve a mission.
More incentive to accomplish their objective within a deadline for they will be compensated the same whether they're there for 3 days 3 weeks 3 months 3 years.
A long term war is far from profitable. Instead of a nation and it's tax payers paying for the war, it's a private entity who contracted the war fighters on their terms on their budget.
Do you even comprehend basic economics? Well no you've answered that previously with your statement of efficiency...
War is far from profitable. Want to waste money? Stay in a territory for YEARS with no real objective. Think about it. Fuel. Equipment. Infrastructure (encrypted comms). Man power. Munitions. Intelligence. Reconnaissance. So on and so forth.
Why? Because the taxpayer funds it. Opposed to a private entity with finite funds. We pay for it to go on. We are almost uncle sams infinite piggy bank.
Look up how much it costs to send a batallion or division of infantry somewhere. Never mind air support. Naval support. Just the costs of infantry.
Then compare the costs of a few fire teams of former spec ops/veterans. Doing what a company or battalion or division is dispatched for.
Say I pay 3 fire teams each member gets 100k for a mission I put together to raid a Taliban held town. I give them a month to achieve this mission. Under the terms of the contract they must achieve the objective. Whether it takes them 1 month or 1 year. I end the mission at my discretion. Opposed to the Pentagon and Congress and generals. There's no media coverage. They have the freedom to conduct the mission as they see fit. They perform their own recon. Gather their own intel and then engage as they see fit. Not me. I merely supply them with a paycheck and whatever tools they require or their agency supplies them with that onus is on them. And you wouldn't know about it unless an investigative journalist caught wind.
It would be in their best interest to achieve victory in a month or less. Not dragging out for months or years.
That's when it would be profitable to get a victory sooner than dragging it out. Now should they drag it out it will be at their expense. I gave them a month to prepare engage and accomplish.
No. Think of navy seals. Use the least amount of force as possible to achieve a mission.
More incentive to accomplish their objective within a deadline for they will be compensated the same whether they're there for 3 days 3 weeks 3 months 3 years.
A long term war is far from profitable. Instead of a nation and it's tax payers paying for the war, it's a private entity who contracted the war fighters on their terms on their budget.
Do you even comprehend basic economics? Well no you've answered that previously with your statement of efficiency...
War is far from profitable. Want to waste money? Stay in a territory for YEARS with no real objective. Think about it. Fuel. Equipment. Infrastructure (encrypted comms). Man power. Munitions. Intelligence. Reconnaissance. So on and so forth.
Why? Because the taxpayer funds it. Opposed to a private entity with finite funds. We pay for it to go on. We are almost uncle sams infinite piggy bank.
Look up how much it costs to send a batallion or division of infantry somewhere. Never mind air support. Naval support. Just the costs of infantry.
Then compare the costs of a few fire teams of former spec ops/veterans. Doing what a company or battalion or division is dispatched for.
Say I pay 3 fire teams each member gets 100k for a mission I put together to raid a Taliban held town. I give them a month to achieve this mission. Under the terms of the contract they must achieve the objective. Whether it takes them 1 month or 1 year. I end the mission at my discretion. Opposed to the Pentagon and Congress and generals. There's no media coverage. They have the freedom to conduct the mission as they see fit. They perform their own recon. Gather their own intel and then engage as they see fit. Not me. I merely supply them with a paycheck and whatever tools they require or their agency supplies them with that onus is on them. And you wouldn't know about it unless an investigative journalist caught wind.
It would be in their best interest to achieve victory in a month or less. Not dragging out for months or years.
That's when it would be profitable to get a victory sooner than dragging it out. Now should they drag it out it will be at their expense. I gave them a month to prepare engage and accomplish.
Come on man you can't be serious... the taxpayer is still paying the bills not the PMC
Mercenaries like War because they get paid to fight war no war no pay...plain and simple
Yeah I comprehend economics win the war you lose your job and go home and be a security guard LOL
Oh switching the goal posts now?
Which is it? Haliburton or Blackwater? Haliburton is not Blackwater/Academi/Triple Canopy.
I'm speaking to Blackwater.
yet you do not support privitazition of armed services
...how about first responders, animal services and parks and rec??
You will concede that the vast majority of libertarians support privitazition of ALL government services eh??
I guess I should apologize for assuming you were a "standard" LIBERTARIAN.
I'm not a libertarian, but I just don't think you are grasping the concept of libertarianism. Privatizing the military is not a libertarian belief. Thats a common conservative belief.
This is probably the most common view on military in libertarian circles, but perspectives will vary. There are a handful of loud anarchists on this forum, and they have entirely different perspectives then many libertarians. https://www.libertarianism.org/guide...tional-defense
Back in the day when I considered myself a libertarian, I followed the minarchist theory the most. I have since moved to the center considerably. But, they basically say the state will alway exist, so we should just keep it to the absolute minimum to keep a stable society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
He seems to advocate for a lot of LIBERTARIAN theory...
I suspect he's not a LIBERTARIAN
However....
while campaigning he seems 95% libertarian.
Now not as much. He said states rights on cannabis and showed up with Jeff sessions.
(Flip flop) but now he seems to be folp flipping back...
What was his stance on abortion in campaign mode?
EVERYONE
PLEASE READ OP SLOWLY
I asked what Libertarians thought of his privatization ideas on the MILITARY and SPY networks
Remember responders I NEVER said Erik Prince OR Donald Trump were libertarians!!
I believe they are simply corporate prostitutes looking for a way to hack into our tax money.
I did read the OP.
It screams naivety and a total lack of understanding for what you express concern for.
It's no different than telling someone hydro fracking is bad because the tools used, inject hydrogen dioxide into the shale to get to the natural gas and idiots out of ignorance think it's some poisonous chemical... not high pressure water...
You expressed outrage over PMC black water. Got smacked down on that one when evidence of their being more effective at doing war stuff than the military... Shift goal posts to Haliburton. And ask how people feel, not what people think.
What you? 18? 19? 20?
Now your asking about abortion and the Keibler Elf at the DOJ and pot needles. yet want people to revist the OP?
You're either young or have some sort of ADD/ADHD going on.
What is your concern. Your expressed concern without derailing your own thread.
Stop. Take a deep breath. Revist the OP yourself and what is it you are trying to convey disdain for? Can you do that? Or do you need to be all over the place and conflate and grasp for straws with various issues?
Why would I bother to identify myself on such a flimsy premise? Its an ism which can often be twisted into anything. What I can say is most of the people that agree with my politics are dead , but were particularly bright. From my observations there is not statically determined answer as to maximize liberty. Countless people felt at liberty to have sectarian squabbles while their enemies approached.
Quote:
yet you do not support privitazition of armed services
...how about first responders, animal services and parks and rec??
We do not act economically in emergencies on the supply side so it tends not to be a good private market. However it should not be "free".
Quote:
You will concede that the vast majority of libertarians support privatization of ALL government services eh??
I guess I should apologize for assuming you were a "standard" LIBERTARIAN.
Again its the conservatives that tend to support privatization that I know of. Libertarians might be for private service but they would not agree to have private companies funded by tax payers. That is what the conservatives preach. They want to take public money and give it to private enterprise which is pure lunacy.
Public funding needs to be defined as being in the discretionary budget of the public, not what entity receives those funds. In addition to this, anytime da guberment makes you purchase something , its an appropriation of funds with the illusion of private transactions
Why would I bother to identify myself on such a flimsy premise? Its an ism which can often be twisted into anything. What I can say is most of the people that agree with my politics are dead , but were particularly bright. From my observations there is not statically determined answer as to maximize liberty. Countless people felt at liberty to have sectarian squabbles while their enemies approached.
We do not act economically in emergencies on the supply side so it tends not to be a good private market. However it should not be "free".
Again its the conservatives that tend to support privatization that I know of. Libertarians might be for private service but they would not agree to have private companies funded by tax payers. That is what the conservatives preach. They want to take public money and give it to private enterprise which is pure lunacy.
Public funding needs to be defined as being in the discretionary budget of the public, not what entity receives those funds. In addition to this, anytime da guberment makes you purchase something , its an appropriation of funds with the illusion of private transactions
Not all of us. I've argued to legalize pot so farmers wouldn't need subsidies as they'd have a cash crop to make up for when they have a failure and other stances that do not take public monies to give to private enterprise. Especially with bailing out banks and car companies.
I can understand the logic behind it. But it doesn't make it right.
If a bank wrote bad mortgages and willingly put themselves in the position they were in well that's their fault for writing loans to people they knew couldn't pay for them. Their responsibility to forclose and sit on properties paying the SALT taxes on those houses. Their responsibility to turn that liability into an asset. Or liquidate it at a loss and learn not to write junk loans. Instead. Oh that's okay... you made a booboo... here... let's give you tax money to help you out you're too big to fail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
