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.

 Seaward wrote:
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?

Of course I do, just like I see a problem with a lot of other government functions being in the hands of people who work for the highest bidder. The point here isn't that mercenaries are good, it's that your ideology consists of "the government should do exactly the things I benefit from and no others".

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course I do, just like I see a problem with a lot of other government functions being in the hands of people who work for the highest bidder. The point here isn't that mercenaries are good, it's that your ideology consists of "the government should do exactly the things I benefit from and no others".

The trouble with that is, there's plenty the government could do that I'd benefit from. I don't want them doing it.

It's incorrect, in other words, and not for that reason alone.

Going to an all-mercenary military would, for that matter, benefit me greatly. 360K for 18 months of work? Happily.

 Seaward wrote:
The trouble with that is, there's plenty the government could do that I'd benefit from. I don't want them doing it.

Ok, then let me modify that slightly: you want the government to provide the things you value and want it to provide, and no others. This isn't about some fundamental valuing of rights and freedom and private industry above all else (since you want the government to provide unnecessary services that could be handled by private industry), you just want to get rid of the parts of government that you don't personally agree with. Your desire to have the government handle the military instead of allowing the free market and private businesses to provide one (if there is enough demand for that service) is no different from my desire to have the government provide college education/welfare for the poor/etc instead of leaving it to the free market and private charity.

So, all I see here is the complaining of someone who doesn't like that they aren't the only person making decisions about what the government will do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Going to an all-mercenary military would, for that matter, benefit me greatly. 360K for 18 months of work? Happily.

Of course this is not a truly free market for mercenary services since it is supported by government contracts funded by taxation of private citizens. I'd like to see the average salary for mercenaries in a libertarian utopia where funding for the military is left to private citizens who decide to purchase military services.

 Seaward wrote:

Going to an all-mercenary military would, for that matter, benefit me greatly. 360K for 18 months of work? Happily.

There isn't much difference between a professional military and a mercenary one. The entire concept of a professional military grew out of mercenarism. What the US, and other Western nation-states, have effectively done is compensate their soldiers in a way that isn't (directly) monetary.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, then let me modify that slightly: you want the government to provide the things you value and want it to provide, and no others.

Wrong again. I want the government to provide the things it's mandated by the Constitution to provide.

This isn't about some fundamental valuing of rights and freedom and private industry above all else (since you want the government to provide unnecessary services that could be handled by private industry), you just want to get rid of the parts of government that you don't personally agree with.

Nope. That's exactly what it's about. The military is not an unnecessary service, and private industry couldn't provide it.

Your desire to have the government handle the military instead of allowing the free market and private businesses to provide one (if there is enough demand for that service) is no different from my desire to have the government provide college education/welfare for the poor/etc instead of leaving it to the free market and private charity.

It's actually quite a bit different. We can start with the fact that health care is an individual service.

So, all I see here is the complaining of someone who doesn't like that they aren't the only person making decisions about what the government will do.

Statistically speaking, you should be coming upon a correct conclusion purely by chance at some point...

Of course this is not a truly free market for mercenary services since it is supported by government contracts funded by taxation of private citizens. I'd like to see the average salary for mercenaries in a libertarian utopia where funding for the military is left to private citizens who decide to purchase military services.

...but the statistics haven't swung in your favor yet. A "libertarian utopia" would not privatize the military. That's one of the few things libertarians can agree on.

wow, this thread's gone in interesting ways...

 dogma wrote:
There isn't much difference between a professional military and a mercenary one.

Yeah, there is. For one thing, mercenaries aren't protected under the laws of war that most other nations subscribe to, so we'd run into some interesting difficulties if we ever actually used a wholly privatized military to do anything.

The entire concept of a professional military grew out of mercenarism.

Alright, time for a little Socratic method. Maybe this will work better than simply stating facts and having you ignore them. Why'd states start switching from mercenaries to standing armies in the first place?

You don't see any problems with having health care in the hands of folks who work for the highest bidder? How about criminal justice?

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, then let me modify that slightly: you want the government to provide the things you value and want it to provide, and no others.

Wrong again. I want the government to provide the things it's mandated by the Constitution to provide.

Isn't the constitution mutable? I was under the impression it could be changed, I thought it was even set out in the constitution that the constitution can be amended and added to?

You are alluding to it being cast in stone, you may be confusing it with the 10 commandments.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How about criminal justice?

Wait, thats not how it is now?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You don't see any problems with having health care in the hands of folks who work for the highest bidder?

I'm not terribly worried about the local HMO attempting a coup, no.

How about criminal justice?

What about it? Are you suggesting that the Constitution doesn't put criminal justice within the government's purview?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Isn't the constitution mutable? I was under the impression it could be changed, I thought it was even set out in the constitution that the constitution can be amended and added to?

You are alluding to it being cast in stone, you may be confusing it with the 10 commandments.

It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.

Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?

 Seaward wrote:

It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.

Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?

Obviously not, I'm suggesting that you've touted it for a couple of pages as gospel and it's not, it's something constantly in a state of flux and can be changed as society changes.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.

Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?

Obviously not, I'm suggesting that you've touted it for a couple of pages as gospel and it's not, it's something constantly in a state of flux and can be changed as society changes.

It's been amended 27 times in 224 years. It's been amended once in the last 40 years, and that had to do with congressional salaries. Suggesting it's "constantly in a state of flux" is a bit much.

Better start boning up if you want to pass that test, man.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So if the "common defense" bit covers everything military, it would seem that the next four words would cover all this nanny-state business and stuff like healthcare.

 d-usa wrote:
So if the "common defense" bit covers everything military, it would seem that the next four words would cover all this nanny-state business and stuff like healthcare.

It might seem that way, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, per Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

The government isn't empowered by the preamble to form a military either, for that matter. The preamble's held as having zero legislative effect in constitutional law.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not terribly worried about the local HMO attempting a coup, no.

Yeah, because the only way private-run health care could possibly harm anyone is by attempting a coup...

Oh wait, you're a social darwinist. Never mind.

 Seaward wrote:
Wrong again. I want the government to provide the things it's mandated by the Constitution to provide.

Fortunately the constitution approves of pretty much everything the government currently does, so I don't see how this is a very relevant statement.

Nope. That's exactly what it's about. The military is not an unnecessary service, and private industry couldn't provide it.

A government-run military is an unnecessary service since private mercenaries could provide it (if there's actually a sufficient market for military services).

Now, you might argue that mercenaries might not provide it very well, but I'd say the same about a lot of other government services that you want to get rid of. If taxation to fund health care/college education/etc without any way to opt out of it is wrong, so is taxation to fund a better military with no way to opt out of it.

It's actually quite a bit different. We can start with the fact that health care is an individual service.

Health care is NOT just an individual service. Better health care means stopping the spread of disease, reducing the economic damage caused by unhealthy and/or dead workers, etc. Though I guess since you're a social darwinist you don't put any value on the collective benefit of living in a society where people aren't just left to die (often in really horrible ways) if they're too poor to afford treatment.

...but the statistics haven't swung in your favor yet. A "libertarian utopia" would not privatize the military. That's one of the few things libertarians can agree on.

Well, except for the libertarians who want to get rid of the military. Except for those people, who aren't "true" libertarians, all libertarians agree on this.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if the "common defense" bit covers everything military, it would seem that the next four words would cover all this nanny-state business and stuff like healthcare.

It might seem that way, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, per Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Are you sure you are thinking of Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Because it seems like the decision in that case was that the states has the power to enforce the general welfare. To quote the court:

"The police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety."

The government isn't empowered by the preamble to form a military either, for that matter. The preamble's held as having zero legislative effect in constitutional law.

What about Article 8 then?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

 Peregrine wrote:
Fortunately the constitution approves of pretty much everything the government currently does, so I don't see how this is a very relevant statement.

Only if you read it with the assumption that words don't mean what they actually mean.

A government-run military is an unnecessary service since private mercenaries could provide it (if there's actually a sufficient market for military services).

Once again, no, they could not. I've still yet to hear anyone propose a method of getting around the determination of one or another of the Geneva Conventions that mercenaries are unlawful combatants.

Now, you might argue that mercenaries might not provide it very well, but I'd say the same about a lot of other government services that you want to get rid of. If taxation to fund health care/college education/etc without any way to opt out of it is wrong, so is taxation to fund a better military with no way to opt out of it.

Unfortunately for your argument, providing a military is one of the few enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Health care is NOT just an individual service. Better health care means stopping the spread of disease, reducing the economic damage caused by unhealthy and/or dead workers, etc.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't understand what was said. Health care is an individual service because an individual is capable of providing for it on his or her own. Defending the country is not something that an individual is capable of.

Well, except for the libertarians who want to get rid of the military. Except for those people, who aren't "true" libertarians, all libertarians agree on this.

Could you find me some of those people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you sure you are thinking of Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Because it seems like the decision in that case was that the states has the power to enforce the general welfare.

Yup. "Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

What about Article 8 then?

Do some research on it. It's never been held as a general grant of federal legislative power.

 Seaward wrote:
Only if you read it with the assumption that words don't mean what they actually mean.

So, let me get this straight:

Supreme court cases that go in favor of your ideology are evidence that the constitution doesn't allow X.

Supreme court cases that go against your ideology are just reading it with the assumption that words don't mean what they actually mean.

Ok, if you say so.

Once again, no, they could not. I've still yet to hear anyone propose a method of getting around the determination of one or another of the Geneva Conventions that mercenaries are unlawful combatants.

Why should anyone care about the Geneva Conventions? That's just more unnecessary government intervention in the free market.

Unfortunately for your argument, providing a military is one of the few enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Ok, so now we've gone from having a coherent set of beliefs about how government should function to nothing more than "the constitution says so" legalism?

Unsurprisingly, you didn't understand what was said. Health care is an individual service because an individual is capable of providing for it on his or her own. Defending the country is not something that an individual is capable of.

I would love to live in your fantasy world in which health care is something an individual can provide on his or her own.

Could you find me some of those people?

Given that they're people I talked to offline, no.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you sure you are thinking of Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Because it seems like the decision in that case was that the states has the power to enforce the general welfare.

Yup. "Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

So when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government did in fact have the power to use police powers to enforce the general welfare, where do you think that power came from? Article 8?

Like I quoted earlier, the Supreme Court finds that general welfare is a constitutional power of the government: "The police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety."

What about Article 8 then?

Do some research on it. It's never been held as a general grant of federal legislative power.

So let me get this straight: Article 8 of the constitution, the section that specifically tells congress what it has the power to do, has never been held as a general grant of legislative power?

So if the preamble doesn't make something constitutional, and Article 8 doesn't mean that something is authorized by the constitution. Then where does the constitution back up this statement of yours:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Right to Privacy is in the constitution.

As is the provision for the common defense.

Where in the constitution does it say that providing for the common defense is a function of the government?

 Peregrine wrote:
Why should anyone care about the Geneva Conventions? That's just more unnecessary government intervention in the free market.

Cute. The laws of war are actually pretty important.

Ok, so now we've gone from having a coherent set of beliefs about how government should function to nothing more than "the constitution says so" legalism?

Not at all. I've explained the rationale behind my own beliefs several times, and your response of, "Nuh uh!", while endlessly compelling, was just getting repetitive.

I would love to live in your fantasy world in which health care is something an individual can provide on his or her own.

I'm certainly capable of providing for health care on my own. Note: reading carefully is important. Providing for, not providing.

Given that they're people I talked to offline, no.

I didn't think so.

Thanks for just ignoring the part where I pointed out how the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution apparently only matters when it agrees with you. I like it when people allow such a decisive argument to stand uncontested.

 Seaward wrote:
Cute. The laws of war are actually pretty important.

So what if they're important? I don't think you're going to suddenly decide that you don't want to get rid of a bunch of other government regulations just because they're currently important.

Not at all. I've explained the rationale behind my own beliefs several times, and your response of, "Nuh uh!", while endlessly compelling, was just getting repetitive.

So then why do you have to answer with the fact that providing a military is specifically enumerated instead of providing a reason for why it SHOULD be enumerated? Unless you believe that the constitution is the sacred word of god establishing the perfect system of government saying "the constitution says so" is just legalism.

I'm certainly capable of providing for health care on my own. Note: reading carefully is important. Providing for, not providing.

Only because you live in a society that values collective services like having health care. You're only providing it "yourself" in the sense that a small business owner does everything "himself" while using public services like roads/schools/etc.

I didn't think so.

Yeah, how horrible that I actually engage in political debates offline and don't feel like digging through online sources to find someone with similar beliefs (who you'll inevitably reject as not being a "true" libertarian).

 d-usa wrote:
So when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government did in fact have the power to use police powers to enforce the general welfare, where do you think that power came from?

This is such wildly conflated concepts that I'm not entirely sure where to begin. If you're interpreting what you just said as, "the government can use police powers to provide free health care if it wants to," I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Fortunately, nobody on the Supreme Court has ever agreed with that.

So let me get this straight: Article 8 of the constitution, the section that specifically tells congress what it has the power to do, has never been held as a general grant of legislative power?

No. You're thinking of the wrong Article, by the way. It's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. To quote, in its entirety: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;". That's it. That's the only mention of "general welfare" outside the preamble, and that particular clause has never been held as general legislative power, simply as a modifier on its parent section, the taxing and spending clause.

Where in the constitution does it say that providing for the common defense is a function of the government?

The very same clause, of course. Which would mean exactly the same as the "general welfare" bit if the raising of armies and navies weren't specifically listed within the enumerated powers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what if they're important? I don't think you're going to suddenly decide that you don't want to get rid of a bunch of other government regulations just because they're currently important.

You're aware that the Geneva Conventions aren't something that applies only internally in the United States, right?

You see, when two countries choose to go to war, they're, generally speaking, obliged to comply with the Geneva Conventions - and, theoretically, a few UN conventions - regarding the conduct of the war. Prisoners of war, for example, cannot be mistreated, and should be repatriated at the end of the war. Unlawful combatants, on the other hand, which mercenaries are defined as? You can do whatever you like with them, should you capture them, subject to a general admonishment to "treat them humanely." Lock 'em up for life, if you like.

As we cannot unilaterally force all other nations on earth to disown these conventions, ignoring them is simply not an option.

So then why do you have to answer with the fact that providing a military is specifically enumerated instead of providing a reason for why it SHOULD be enumerated? Unless you believe that the constitution is the sacred word of god establishing the perfect system of government saying "the constitution says so" is just legalism.

Scroll back. That wasn't my initial answer. My initial answer - and it remains my primary answer - is that providing an unbiased military, loyal to the country, is something that no individual is capable of doing.

Honestly, dude, if you're not going to bother to read before hitting Reply and facerolling your keyboard, let me know and I'll bow out.

Only because you live in a society that values collective services like having health care. You're only providing it "yourself" in the sense that a small business owner does everything "himself" while using public services like roads/schools/etc.

I doubt even you know what that meant.

Yeah, how horrible that I actually engage in political debates offline and don't feel like digging through online sources to find someone with similar beliefs (who you'll inevitably reject as not being a "true" libertarian).

Nah. I'm genuinely curious if you can find any evidence of anyone who self-identifies as a libertarian and wants to completely get rid of the military. I don't care either way if they do, I simply doubt that such an animal exists. Sort of like socialists who've done hard work before.

 Seaward wrote:
As we cannot unilaterally force all other nations on earth to disown these conventions, ignoring them is simply not an option.

Sure we can. The free market will account for things like the fact that mercenaries can be subject to summary execution by setting their salary at a level sufficient to compensate for the risk. People had no problem recruiting mercenaries back when things like safety for POWs was just wishful thinking, so there should be no problem finding enough mercenaries to meet the demand of the market.

In fact, this would be even easier in your social darwinist "utopia" since there would be plenty of poor people facing a horrible death by disease and/or starvation who would eagerly volunteer for mercenary duty because a high risk of death is better than certain death. And hey, at least summary execution for being an unlawful combatant is probably less painful than the alternative ways of dying, and being locked up in prison forever would be paradise compared to your "utopia".

Scroll back. That wasn't my initial answer. My initial answer - and it remains my primary answer - is that providing an unbiased military, loyal to the country, is something that no individual is capable of doing.

Great. Then you should post that as your reply instead of pointless legalism.

And you still haven't done anything to show how the military is any different than the government services you want to get rid of. Nobody is disputing that an all-mercenary military would suck, but so would an all-individual health care system, all-individual universities, etc. You can't insist that we need government to provide the best possible military while simultaneously arguing that even low-quality services are good enough for everything else.

Nah. I'm genuinely curious if you can find any evidence of anyone who self-identifies as a libertarian and wants to completely get rid of the military. I don't care either way if they do, I simply doubt that such an animal exists. Sort of like socialists who've done hard work before.

You can use google as well as I can. And I'm not making this up, I've encountered multiple self-identified libertarians who wanted to abolish even basic government functions like the military/fire department/etc and allow the free market to provide them for anyone who is willing to pay.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government did in fact have the power to use police powers to enforce the general welfare, where do you think that power came from?

This is such wildly conflated concepts that I'm not entirely sure where to begin. If you're interpreting what you just said as, "the government can use police powers to provide free health care if it wants to," I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Fortunately, nobody on the Supreme Court has ever agreed with that.

Where do you think that quote came from?

All together, you posted the wrong Supreme Court decision when it comes to backing up your point. Jackobson v. Massachusetts seems to be the exact opposite of every argument you have been trying to make.

Some quotes from your own links:

The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'

If the mode adopted by the commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient, or objectionable to some,—if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question,—the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort, and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few

It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure we can. The free market will account for things like the fact that mercenaries can be subject to summary execution by setting their salary at a level sufficient to compensate for the risk. People had no problem recruiting mercenaries back when things like safety for POWs was just wishful thinking, so there should be no problem finding enough mercenaries to meet the demand of the market.

And those mercenaries tended to be rather unreliable when it looked like they might actually have a tough time of it, which is one of the many reasons everyone switched to a national army. It's simply not a viable solution.

Great. Then you should post that as your reply instead of pointless legalism.

Already did. You ignored it. Again, if you're not interested in actually reading what's said, what's the point of all this? If you just want to rant, go nuts, but quit involving me.

And you still haven't done anything to show how the military is any different than the government services you want to get rid of. Nobody is disputing that an all-mercenary military would suck, but so would an all-individual health care system, all-individual universities, etc. You can't insist that we need government to provide the best possible military while simultaneously arguing that even low-quality services are good enough for everything else.

On the contrary. Private universities and private healthcare tend to be pretty good.

For, seriously, the last time: the argument has never been that government is empowered to do absolutely nothing. There are certain services that it is, in fact, government's role to provide. Military, police, basic infrastructure, judiciary, and so forth.

You can use google as well as I can. And I'm not making this up, I've encountered multiple self-identified libertarians who wanted to abolish even basic government functions like the military/fire department/etc and allow the free market to provide them for anyone who is willing to pay.

I'll have to take your word for it.

You know, about as far as you'd take mine.

 Seaward wrote:
And those mercenaries tended to be rather unreliable when it looked like they might actually have a tough time of it, which is one of the many reasons everyone switched to a national army. It's simply not a viable solution.

And, again, the same is true of having private businesses handling other government functions. You can't demand the perfect military (and therefore government) while simultaneously arguing that the bare minimum is adequate for everything but the military (and therefore no need for government).

On the contrary. Private universities and private healthcare tend to be pretty good.

If you can afford it. If you aren't a social darwinist that's a pretty big "if".

And of course we'll just pretend that private universities and health care don't receive any support from the government...

For, seriously, the last time: the argument has never been that government is empowered to do absolutely nothing. There are certain services that it is, in fact, government's role to provide. Military, police, basic infrastructure, judiciary, and so forth.

In other words, the services that you personally require help with. Things that other people require help with, like not starving to death, are not necessary.

 d-usa wrote:
Where do you think that quote came from?

All together, you posted the wrong Supreme Court decision when it comes to backing up your point. Jackobson v. Massachusetts seems to be the exact opposite of every argument you have been trying to make.

Nope. It's actually perfectly in line with every argument I've been making.

You're massively overshooting from the finding of the case - that the state can indeed intervene in a specific public health crisis that threatens the safety of the whole - and leaping right on ahead to, "The government has a mandate to provide healthcare!"

No. That's not what it is. It's narrowly defined, and the clause in question regarding the "general welfare" is not taken to mean a general legislative mandate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
And, again, the same is true of having private businesses handling other government functions. You can't demand the perfect military (and therefore government) while simultaneously arguing that the bare minimum is adequate for everything but the military (and therefore no need for government).

Good, because that isn't the argument. But you're not going to read this in any way but, "Nothing but the military!" so why bother?

If you can afford it. If you aren't a social darwinist that's a pretty big "if".

Yep. Some things cost money. Hope you're not majoring in liberal arts, kiddo.

In other words, the services that you personally require help with. Things that other people require help with, like not starving to death, are not necessary.

Oh, no. If it was only things I required help with, I'd be advocating for a whole lot more to go.

 Seaward wrote:
Good, because that isn't the argument. But you're not going to read this in any way but, "Nothing but the military!" so why bother?

Ok, military and a few other functions. The basic point remains: you're happy to have big government providing the finest possible military (including socialist things like free health care), but it's the end of the world if we have big government preventing people from starving to death. It's completely inconsistent to say that anything less than the best possible military is not a viable solution but not hold other things to that same standard.

Yep. Some things cost money. Hope you're not majoring in liberal arts, kiddo.

Right, I keep forgetting that you're a social darwinist and don't see any problem with limiting education to those lucky enough to have parents who can afford it.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.

Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?

Obviously not, I'm suggesting that you've touted it for a couple of pages as gospel and it's not, it's something constantly in a state of flux and can be changed as society changes.

It's been amended 27 times in 224 years. It's been amended once in the last 40 years, and that had to do with congressional salaries. Suggesting it's "constantly in a state of flux" is a bit much.

Better start boning up if you want to pass that test, man.

Has a time ever existed when alteration or amendment was prohibited?