Are you in favor of the FairTax?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

Once you have given broad aims to the military and laid down guidelines about the kind of weapons they can/cannot use (e.g. nuclear, biochemical, landmines) the military are best placed to idenitfy how to achieve those aims.

Very well-put, thank you.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

I share your hope, Epee_Pox, but unfortunately it almost never works that way. Executive crime very rarely results in punishment. Funny about that.

Changing gears back to what Soldier and I were discussing, here's a nice quote from Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

I'll just refer you to my signature by way of reply.

[jeff]

I'm going to assume (since you didn't explain) that you refer to the Burke quotation (and not the chickens), and that you're saying that the cost of the military is the price we pay for preventing evil.

That's one viewpoint, and has quite a bit of merit, but it's simplistic and narrow. As the quote I gave from Eisenhower (the CinC of the largest and most morally clear war the US has been in) makes clear, the cost of the military takes away from everyone who is needy - he calls it theft. And, that's not even discussing the actual effects of the military in policy and in deaths. And, let's not pretend that the military - even ours - has always been used with the purpose and result of preventing evil.

For many people, the clearest way to preventing evil is to constrain the size and influence of the military. It's a viewpoint you might want think about (if not adopt), as it does exist, and is consistent with both religion and the traditional nature of the US (pre WW II).

[jeff]

Returning to the "who benefits" theme of this thread, I'd like to point out two special interest wins for the corporate-donor class:

- The new energy bill, just passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, includes a waiver preventing lawsuit against chemical companies (which include the major oil firms) for water supply pollution caused by MTBE they dumped there. Tom DeLay and Joe Barton, both R of Texas where there are a lot of MTBE-producing oil companies are advocates of this waiver. MTBE has been described as a carcinogen. (Not all agree - heck the tobacco companies didn't agree that they produced a carcinogen - but this wavier preempts the possibility of pursuing this and demonstrating proof one way or the other in the courts). 17 states have banned MTBE from gasoline.

- The dietary supplement DHEA, a steroid, has been excluded from a list of controlled substances due to a special exemption made at the insistence of Senator Orrin Hatch (R. Utah). Utah happens to be the home of many manufacturers of this steroid. Sen. Hatch's son is a lobbyist for their trade association. Just to show this is bi-partisan, Sen. Hatch is joined in this by Sen Harkin (D. Iowa), of another state that leads in producing this. Hatch was previously against banning ephedra, despite it having been impllicated in numerous deaths. A long article in today's NY Times on this, including specific quotes about how economic pressure from companies, rather than health concerns or medical science, are the basis of this exceptional intervention.

Neither of these are about taxation, of course, but you can rest assured that the tax code is full of "gimmies" that benefit the donor class. Maybe a Fair Tax would help end that - but only once the tax attorneys representing the beneficiaries of current tax policy ensure that it's going to be even better for them.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

I'm going to assume (since you didn't explain) that you refer to the Burke quotation (and not the chickens), and that you're saying that the cost of the military is the price we pay for preventing evil.

That's one viewpoint, and has quite a bit of merit, but it's simplistic and narrow. As the quote I gave from Eisenhower (the CinC of the largest and most morally clear war the US has been in) makes clear, the cost of the military takes away from everyone who is needy - he calls it theft. And, that's not even discussing the actual effects of the military in policy and in deaths. And, let's not pretend that the military - even ours - has always been used with the purpose and result of preventing evil.

For many people, the clearest way to preventing evil is to constrain the size and influence of the military. It's a viewpoint you might want think about (if not adopt), as it does exist, and is consistent with both religion and the traditional nature of the US (pre WW II).

I understand the part about the military taking away from helping those in need. Constraining the military, however, will not necessarily lead to peace. Follow your position to its logical end - nobody has a military, and everybody spends all that money on the unfortunate. Won't ever happen; you've got to have a military, because somebody else is always going to raise their own military, for evil purposes. And they have to be opposed.

Yes, the military requires money that doesn't go to poor people (as do interstates, capital buildings, offices, elections, and pretty much everything else the government spends money on...) - but it serves a necessary function. Again, let the politicians decide how big a military we need, and let the officers decide what composition it will be.

You're right; my view is simplistic and narrow. But what is it really leaving out?

[Soldier]

Back to topic a bit, with Fair Tax versus whatever else:

Throw the entire tax code out. Just burn it. And start again.

The catch? Everybody writing the tax code, will be required by law to file their own taxes, by hand, every year.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

You're right; my view is simplistic and narrow. But what is it really leaving out?

I inferred from your sig line that you referenced ("All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.") that you felt it was an adequate one-line response to Eisenhower's statement. If I've taken your meaning correctly, then the implication is that military spending is the response good men take to prevent evil. That, on its face is unrelated to good or evil (I'm sure every military for every nation has felt that way.) What it leaves out is what every pacifist from Martin Luther King to Ghandi to the Dalai Lama to (notably) Jesus would tell you about the nature of response to evil, and where in that "military" fits. Or any Quaker, for that matter. Possessing the worlds most powerful military might has little to do with their notions of good vs. evil.

We have a military of tremendous size, influence and power. While that power can be used in the service of good, it on numerous occasions has not been. Its very power and expense detracts from other efforts to "do good". We don't have to use reduction ad absurdum as a "logical end" to mock it and say that money not spent on millitary would not necessarily be spent on useful things. I would also say that having a population that is well fed, able to think and worship as it pleases (See Roosevelt's "Four Freedom's" speech) is a "necessary function" too, even (especially) when it involves caring for the "least among us".

[Soldier]

Ah, I see much more clearly now.

No, I'm not saying that military spending is preventing evil. I'm saying that maintaining a military is essential to being able to suppress evil where and when it springs up. Jesus talked of forgiveness; he never said to simply lay back and take it when people were going after you.

Yes, the power and expense of the military detracts from other efforts to do good. All the same, it is at times necessary to make doing good possible. Classic example: Somalia. U.S. Marines escorting food, so that it would actually get to the starving people, and not be stolen by warlords. When the Marines were removed, the warlords immediately began attacking the U.N. personnel trying to distribute the food.

Obviously we need a balance. We can't have all the spending on the military while people starve. But at the same time, we can't have all the spending on the people, while the military wastes away and evil men are allowed to trample over people.

Where that balance lies...is again, not for me to decide.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

My point wasn't to bring up the virtues of mass transit vs. automobile (though that would be a fun thread), and I live in suburbs and drive, too. My point (going waaaayyy back), is that the Federal government (also true for state and municipal govts) dramatically subsidizes automobiles and trucks at the expense of mass transit. Yet we typically don't pay attention to these subsidies while focusing on others.

I see it as a Constitutional duty, acting in accordance with the will of the People (in this case, to prefer automobiles over mass-transit).

Originally Posted by jeff

Thanks! I've been travelling a LOT this year, and it's really messing up any attempts I have to fence or train. I have two trips coming up soon: one to install software in the heartland, and the other is my wife and I for our anniversary celebration. That is an interruption from fencing I _don't_ mind!

I tried using that excuse... didn't get very far with the coach. He grumbled something about dedication... but he's divorced twice

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Returning to the "who benefits" theme of this thread, I'd like to point out two special interest wins for the corporate-donor class:

- The new energy bill, just passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, includes a waiver preventing lawsuit against chemical companies (which include the major oil firms) for water supply pollution caused by MTBE they dumped there. Tom DeLay and Joe Barton, both R of Texas where there are a lot of MTBE-producing oil companies are advocates of this waiver. MTBE has been described as a carcinogen. (Not all agree - heck the tobacco companies didn't agree that they produced a carcinogen - but this wavier preempts the possibility of pursuing this and demonstrating proof one way or the other in the courts). 17 states have banned MTBE from gasoline.

I seem to remember something about MTBE being touted as a way to improve air quality. I believe it was based on biased science, but a lot of enviromental groups jumped on the bandwagon. Wonder how much the enviro groups received in donations from the producers...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I see it as a Constitutional duty, acting in accordance with the will of the People (in this case, to prefer automobiles over mass-transit).

Hooo-boy! That's sure a heck of a spin on Constitutional duty! Which article of the Constitution says "subsidize popular styles of transportation"?

Originally Posted by gojujay

I tried using that excuse... didn't get very far with the coach. He grumbled something about dedication... but he's divorced twice

Hmmm. gotta watch those role models!

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I seem to remember something about MTBE being touted as a way to improve air quality. I believe it was based on biased science, but a lot of enviromental groups jumped on the bandwagon. Wonder how much the enviro groups received in donations from the producers...

I dunno about environmental groups. They seem to not like it.

http://www.sierraclub.org/ (put MTBE in search box and click on "go")
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/nafta.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0509-10.htm

However, the American Petroleum Institute (industry lobbyist association) seems to like it:

http://api-ep.api.org/environment/in...08008000000000

[Bokken]

For what it's worth, here's what the folks up the food chain here have to say:

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

From there, you can find data in a table by country (per 100,000 population) of total crime from 1980-1997 (not complete for every country).

For 1994, as an example (last year for US data), some comparisons of US with European countries:

US: 5375

Austria: 6285
Belgium: 5713
Denmark: 11,878
France: 6765
Germany: (1995): 8168
Italy: 3805
Sweden: 12,670
Switzerland: 5116

Table

--Philistine

A few gems from that table:
Azerbaijjan 1995: 266
Bahamas 1995: 7146
Belarus 1995: 1276
Belgium 1995: 7081
Colombia 1994: 561
Colombia 1995: 1
China 1995: 140
Cyprus 1986: 1939
Cyprus 1990: 541
Italy 1994: 3805
Italy 1995: 4
Nigeria 1994: 259
St. Kitts and Nevis 1986: 20063
Singapore 1995: 2045
Singapore 1996: 19553
Singapore 1997: 1833

Need I go on?

The raw data in that table seem extremely suspicious. I would not put any stock in them whatsoever.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, it isn't a question for politicians to be involved with. Because we live in a republic and not a military dictatorship, it is for the politicians to decide when and where the military is employed. But when it comes to deciding how it is employed, and what it is composed of...politicians simply don't know what they're talking about. Leave it to the experts to decide those matters.

So, what about the congressmen that have a military CV? Should I assume that you like that in a HofR or Senator? If so, how should their opinion on the matter be considered according to you? Dilettante or expert?

The issue of "to which degree of detail should the congress decide spending" is a big and thorny one, but I would like more detail than you seem to prefer. Do you also prefer a lump-sum approach in non-military areas? Give the state department a lump sum, and let the diplomats - themselves - figure out how to use it?

Originally Posted by Soldier

I never said that military spending was a problem. An increase in it sounds like a good thing to me. The problem that is being dealt with is the correct force composition - essentially, having a military that's suited to deal with today's world, instead of the Cold War world it was suited for. And quite frankly, I doubt very much that you have any idea whether that's happening effectively or not.

Remember the adage of every army being well prepared to fight the last war. (That is probably not the exact wording of the original, but you get the general idea) If old traditionalists in the armed forces develop a fondness for some specific method/weapon system/whatever that worked well in the past, or that they personally have excelled in, - but nowadays is not money well spent - what are the checks and balances in your system?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

So, what about the congressmen that have a military CV? Should I assume that you like that in a HofR or Senator? If so, how should their opinion on the matter be considered according to you? Dilettante or expert?

The issue of "to which degree of detail should the congress decide spending" is a big and thorny one, but I would like more detail than you seem to prefer. Do you also prefer a lump-sum approach in non-military areas? Give the state department a lump sum, and let the diplomats - themselves - figure out how to use it?

Don't know what a CV is offhand. And yes, I really do like to see prior military service in a politician - raises my respect for them, and makes me think they might have a bit more integrity than the standard.

You're going to have to refine your second question a bit more; I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Basically, though, I think the experts should be given the money-spending decisions.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Remember the adage of every army being well prepared to fight the last war. (That is probably not the exact wording of the original, but you get the general idea) If old traditionalists in the armed forces develop a fondness for some specific method/weapon system/whatever that worked well in the past, or that they personally have excelled in, - but nowadays is not money well spent - what are the checks and balances in your system?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Yes, I know the adage - is something they stress a lot in officer training. The whole idea is to try to make sure we don't do that when we become the ones making decisions.

I can't name any specific checks and balances for you; it's not like we've got a three-house system going (we do need to get things done, after all). I simply put some trust in the officers running things. I've seen enough of them that do know what they're doing and are looking ahead to the next war, and I can tell you from personal experience that the military's commissioning sources stress thinking ahead to the next war. So basically, it's a simple matter of trust. And I trust the military, without specific checks and balances, a whole hell of a lot more than any politician. Because we also teach integrity to the officers.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

Don't know what a CV is offhand.

Must say that I am surprised. Anyway, it is shorthand for Curriculum Vitae, Latin for "passage of life"(approximate translation). Anyway, it is a one page document which describes one´s life, job experiences, skills and some other vital information, and one of these must be sent in with each job application.

Originally Posted by Soldier

And yes, I really do like to see prior military service in a politician - raises my respect for them, and makes me think they might have a bit more integrity than the standard.

Shall I interpret that in such a way that you think that they have more integrity than other politicians coming from other walks of life where truth is a vital concept, such as people of natural sciences training?

Originally Posted by Soldier

You're going to have to refine your second question a bit more; I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Basically, though, I think the experts should be given the money-spending decisions.

2nd question restated:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

The issue of "to which degree of detail should the congress decide spending" is a big and thorny one, but I would like more detail than you seem to prefer. Do you also prefer a lump-sum approach in non-military areas? Give the state department a lump sum, and let the diplomats - themselves - figure out how to use it?

1st example: a money bag to the diplomats.

Let´s go to a non-USA example: in Sweden, the same department (of transportation) is in charge of both railways and (non-city) roads. Politicians also want to have their say to direct projects to their home areas, and specify the general rules for prioritizing. Such a question as: "what percentage of the DoT should go to roads, and what to railroads?" - where do you think that the decision should be?

If one follows your principle of letting money-spending decisions into the hands of experts, then were do we stop? How far down the chain of command should it go? What safeguards are there against experts being bribed, embezzling, or subject to other problems? You have in other threads pointed out that some people may be experts in their own fields, but lack information and the "big picture" to be reliable on bigger issues. Does not something similar come into play here also? What would your principle leave the pols with to decide? Also, do you honestly believe that the pols would just roll over and give up that kind of power?

Originally Posted by Soldier

Yes, I know the adage - is something they stress a lot in officer training. The whole idea is to try to make sure we don't do that when we become the ones making decisions.

I can't name any specific checks and balances for you; it's not like we've got a three-house system going (we do need to get things done, after all). I simply put some trust in the officers running things. I've seen enough of them that do know what they're doing and are looking ahead to the next war, and I can tell you from personal experience that the military's commissioning sources stress thinking ahead to the next war. So basically, it's a simple matter of trust. And I trust the military, without specific checks and balances, a whole hell of a lot more than any politician. Because we also teach integrity to the officers.

So, your answer boils down to "trust". However, if all military officers could be trusted and the integrity lessons would always stick - then what need would there be for JAG? With a bit of google searching I think I could up with some cases of armed forces procurement which are not all that good for your line of thought.

Trust is necessary in a war situation - clear objective, high danger situation, and short decision times necessary. However, in many non-military situations those conditions do not apply, and there is a case for decisions to be made by multiple people who do not trust each other, and therefore act as (albeit imperfect) checks and balances to each other.

Furthermore, the comparison:

Originally Posted by Soldier

And I trust the military, without specific checks and balances, a whole hell of a lot more than any politician.

is flawed. You are comparing a group to a member of another group. A more relevant comparison would be comparing the military to the politicians as a group. Maybe the former still should deserve more trust than the latter, but that is another matter.

You still have not specifically have answered the problem of personal fondnesses that I alluded to. People can be trained a lot, but subconsious (or partly so) wishes are notoriously hard to get around on ones own - that is why we need others to tell us to "get over it!"

A thing about procurement - it can be good to have someone from the industry to buy big-item stuff. If they themselves have sold something to way over its reasonable price, they will hopefully be more adept at knowing when the tables are turned. A con man is better at smelling out another con man, and your training in integrity can work against you in this respect. Since the con men (presumably) are weeded out of the armed forces as soon as possible, you will have less experience in spotting them.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson