Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Right to Privacy is in the constitution. See: Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.

As is the provision for the common defense. The Air Force plays a role in that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, but why?

Why pick the military and not public health?

To protect your stuff!

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Right to Privacy is in the constitution. See: Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.

As is the provision for the common defense. The Air Force plays a role in that.

Constitution says you can have an Army and a Navy, no Air Force .

Unless you want to argue that the Constitution is an organic document that changes with time.

 d-usa wrote:
Constitution says you can have an Army and a Navy, no Air Force .

Unless you want to argue that the Constitution is an organic document that changes with time.

That's a false dichotomy. You don't need to buy into "living document" bs to not agree with word-for-word literalism.

Although it turns out you're right.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, the Air Force isn't even in the constitution but we still have all those pesky planes flying around.

That it is not in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. See: abortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But why is it constitutional?

Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.

The point I an trying to make is that you can and should make choices about these things based on efficiency, accountability and so on. Then make laws to reflect those choices.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that government is more efficient than the private sector? Because...Jesus, if so.

The point I am trying to make is that the government may indeed be more efficient than the private sector and if it is, why not use it?

WW2 was not won by the private sector.

The US health system, more or less privatised, costs nearly twice as much as the social health systems in France, the UK, Japan, etc and gets worse results.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that the government may indeed be more efficient than the private sector and if it is, why not use it?

Because efficiency alone is simply not a good enough argument. Dictatorships are often pretty efficient, for example, but I doubt you'd be clamoring for their implementation simply in the name of expediency.

WW2 was not won by the private sector.

It wasn't won without it, either. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing up military examples, though.

The US health system, more or less privatised, costs nearly twice as much as the social health systems in France, the UK, Japan, etc and gets worse results.

I've been pretty happy with my results. Moreover, I'm actually happy with the results of the system in general. We're the world leader in medical research and innovation due to that privatized system. Our five year cancer survival rates are better. Etc.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that the government may indeed be more efficient than the private sector and if it is, why not use it?

Because efficiency alone is simply not a good enough argument. Dictatorships are often pretty efficient, for example, but I doubt you'd be clamoring for their implementation simply in the name of expediency.

WW2 was not won by the private sector.

It wasn't won without it, either. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing up military examples, though.

The US health system, more or less privatised, costs nearly twice as much as the social health systems in France, the UK, Japan, etc and gets worse results.

I've been pretty happy with my results. Moreover, I'm actually happy with the results of the system in general. We're the world leader in medical research and innovation due to that privatized system. Our five year cancer survival rates are better. Etc.

Well one could make the argument, that private industry gearing up and outproducing the rest of the planet DID win WWII for the US. We built 31 aircraft carriers in WWII. Not the fascists, the communists, or the imperialists. No "ist" came close in production to us.

I brought up many examples and you fastened on military. You seem to think it is an either/or proposition, which is incorrect. Though when you think about it, the Soviet Union did a bang up job in WW2 without any private industry at all.

I am happy with my results in the National Health Service.

Most medical research is carried out in universities rather than private hospitals.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I brought up many examples and you fastened on military. You seem to think it is an either/or proposition, which is incorrect. Though when you think about it, the Soviet Union did a bang up job in WW2 without any private industry at all.

Well, us giving them the overwhelming majority of their rail cars, the overwhelming majority of their logistical materiel, and 20% of their military aircraft certainly played a part.

I am happy with my results in the National Health Service.

Awesome.

Most medical research is carried out in universities rather than private hospitals.

Yeah. We got a few private examples of those.

PhantomViper wrote:


Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.

skyfi wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.

That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?

Seaward wrote:
Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.

Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WW2 was not won by the private sector.

It wasn't won without it, either. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing up military examples, though.

Yes it was. the USSR didn't have a private sector, and they were responsible for defeating the Nazis.

Frazzled wrote:Well one could make the argument, that private industry gearing up and outproducing the rest of the planet DID win WWII for the US. We built 31 aircraft carriers in WWII. Not the fascists, the communists, or the imperialists. No "ist" came close in production to us.

One could make that argument. However, one would be laughed out of any academic context very quickly, because action movies about American efforts during WWII are not historical documents. The US did not "win" WWII; at least not in Europe. That was the USSR, and any claim otherwise is pretty laughable. Germany lost on the Eastern front. The American efforts in Europe were a distraction, or putting pressure on Germany at best. But is was the USSR that broke Germany's back with massive waves of soldiers being thrown at them in sheer volume, not unlike that scene from the World War Z trailer.

Germany's 2k of Grey Knights just couldn't handle Stalin's 6k Green Tide list.

Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.

PhantomViper wrote:

skyfi wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.

That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?

The point he is trying to make is that the government doesn't force you to be a good father, the government tells you what happens if you're a bad father...

 azazel the cat wrote:
Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.

Nope, sure doesn't.

Yes it was. the USSR didn't have a private sector, and they were responsible for defeating the Nazis.

You should probably educate yourself regarding Lend-Lease sometime. The Soviets' lack of a private sector left them hilariously under-equipped to defeat the Nazis. Without American industry, they literally wouldn't have been able to move what materiel they did have.

 Alfndrate wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

skyfi wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.

That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?

The point he is trying to make is that the government doesn't force you to be a good father, the government tells you what happens if you're a bad father...

this

Frazzled wrote:Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.

Oh good. Not only has your History education failed you, but your Geography as well. Japan isn't in Europe.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.

Nope, sure doesn't.

Yup. Sure does.









See? Look how useless a post like that is. You made a bad post and should feel bad.

 Alfndrate wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

skyfi wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.

That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?

The point he is trying to make is that the government doesn't force you to be a good father, the government tells you what happens if you're a bad father...

Only for sufficiently extreme values of "bad." Just because you're not going to jail for your parenting doesn't make you a good parent. Want to divorce mom before the kid's born and drink yourself to death while verbally abusing your kid? As long as you pay your child support, the state considers you an acceptable father. The law in no way forces you to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Yup. Sure does.

Not according to any remotely serious constitutional scholar, nor any Supreme Court justice I'm aware of.

See? Look how useless a post like that is. You made a bad post and should feel bad.

I'm afraid I don't take aspersions cast by someone who's never heard of Lend-Lease all that seriously. You can go back to spouting off psychology you read about on Wikipedia if you like, though. That at least piqued my curiosity.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.

Oh good. Not only has your History education failed you, but your Geography as well. Japan isn't in Europe.

Evidently either the Canadian education system failed to mention Europe was only one theater of the war; or you were a sleep. Which is it?

Seaward wrote:I'm afraid I don't take aspersions cast by someone who's never heard of Lend-Lease all that seriously. You can go back to spouting off psychology you read about on Wikipedia if you like, though. That at least piqued my curiosity.

Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.

However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Evidently either the Canadian education system failed to mention Europe was only one theater of the war; or you were a sleep. Which is it?

I think you should go back and read my post again. I think you'll find there are additional words following a semicolon.

I'll just assume that you've not had coffee yet.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.

However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.

Pretty much the entire logistics train for the USSR was provided by the US. Now, I know I don't have your military acumen, but I'm still fairly sure logistics is an important part of a sustained campaign. Soldiers ain't good for much if they're stuck in Chelyabinsk the whole time.

Azazel, I went back to your post, and didn't see a semi-colon... It seems someone was sleeping in Language Arts as well

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:I'll just assume that you've not had coffee yet.

Ah, gotcha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.

However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.

Pretty much the entire logistics train for the USSR was provided by the US. Now, I know I don't have your military acumen, but I'm still fairly sure logistics is an important part of a sustained campaign. Soldiers ain't good for much if they're stuck in Chelyabinsk the whole time.

Probably more alive though.

Ever had the crazy desire to lay down in a slit trench? Tired of taking crap from the Hitlerites? Ever wanted to travel, and see Berlin in person? If so, then the Red Army has a job for you!

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, but why?

Why pick the military and not public health?

Because the military's constitutional, for one. It's also something that can't be handled by the private sector.

Well, the Air Force isn't even in the constitution but we still have all those pesky planes flying around.

You do know that's a silly retort.

That's like saying we don't have freedom of speech/press via Television and internet.

With regards to the Air Force... It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an "arm" of the Navy, could be excepted... and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense dude... the Framers certainly did NOT intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an "arm" of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.

Private industry didn't think to itself, "This war is good business", let's get in there. The government paid them to produce the weapons using taxes levied on the population, and the weapons were carried by conscripted men.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.

Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.

Nope... that's referenced in the Declaration of Independence... not the Constitution itself.

The 5th, does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.

Private industry didn't think to itself, "This war is good business", let's get in there. The government paid them to produce the weapons using taxes levied on the population, and the weapons were carried by conscripted men.

But they were produced more efficiently and more cheaply under the good old capitalist model.

 Seaward wrote:
Because the military's constitutional, for one. It's also something that can't be handled by the private sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

 Frazzled wrote:
But they were produced more efficiently and more cheaply under the good old capitalist model.

Yeah, it was entirely the capitalist model (or at least as much as you can apply 'capitalism' to massive government contracts) that did it, not the sheer size of the US combined with geographical isolation making our industry completely immune to disruption by the enemy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Because the military's constitutional, for one. It's also something that can't be handled by the private sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

Yep, up until the formation of the modern nation-state military action was conducted almost entirely by mercenaries. It was only the sheer expense of fielding heavy cannon that did away with the practice.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Because the military's constitutional, for one. It's also something that can't be handled by the private sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

You don't see any problems with having nuclear arms in the hands of folks who work for the highest bidder? How about aircraft carriers?

C'mon.