Signals.Cpl

No they can't, there is a slight difference between the civilian and military technology.

You are so narrow minded that to you its either black or white, either we have a many state or anarchy no in-between. Right now Canada has a good system going, not perfect but its good and what you are advocating is to give it up and leave it in the hands of the people willing to use force against anyone and everyone else... apparently you cannot see past your nose.

Not from what you are describing. You want to remove police, fire fighters and medical staff and let the average person take responsibility for those things. No law enforcement and the government cannot enforce the laws so certain areas will be peaceful and nice while others will be a war zone... and that is until someone overpowers the other petty dictators that are sure to rise and makes Canada a dictatorship, or more likely the US will move in or some other power will do so and benefit from our land and resources and all because we can't defend ourselves. And to add to that you want to let the people who benefit from little to no regulation set up the rules... Isn't it kinda the reason for our last round of economic problems?

My point is your fantasy does not exist because it is not viable, soon enough someone will gather enough strength and take power and our government will be powerless to do anything. Government can't regulate when it cannot enforce those regulations. Your version of the "free market capitalism" resembles anarchy, essentially arming groups of citizens and letting them enforce the law, no professional standers expected and the guy with the most money/things controls them while the government remains powerless to do anything. Gee I wonder what happened in Germany then? You don't need all the people to throw away their principles, you need enough of them to do so and those few will rule the many. So how would this work? When they form their own police organizations what happens when someone decides they want to benefit from it so they use their power to abuse, who is above them? See all of Africa. What? Doesn't fit your theory so you ignore it? It has happened in Africa, it has happened in Asia, and it has happened in Europe. You remove the law and people form their own little groups to enforce the law, now think about the gangs that demand "protection money" are they not controlling the supply of whatever they choose? They demand more money from someone and that person charges more for their service or goods since they need to live, if they choose not to play along they lose because the other guys have the power. And they are doing much better with the funds of the country than if we handed the reins of the country to the likes of the G8/G20 protestors or the protestors in Quebec. I am the leader of a gang, I demand 10,000 dollars from every business in the neighbourhood/city/area, suddenly their expenses rise and they pass it off to the customer. If the population becomes unruly I withhold food and medicine and people have no choice, support me and get something or don't support me and die... how about that for a choice. And generally people will not strive for the high standards demanded today and will instead offer low standard care, the rich/affluent will be able to get the best because they will get the few while the poor will get a choice between bad bad and worse. I would much prefer to know if the guy is qualified before he cuts me up rather than find out that oops he doesn't know a thing right after he cripples me for life. And I have a gun here that will blow your little daughters head off if you don't tell people I am good at what I do... Nice solution... we lower the standard we get more people in... Again what happens when someone or a group of people control the doctors through force? Unless I desperately need it and go to your house and take your money or just force the doctor to do the operation...remember no one is there to make sure that I treat him/her fairly. The poor get the worst, the rich get the best. What you propose is to lower the standards so low that any witch doctor can practice medicine, and when the supply of good doctors is low and the supply of bad doctors is higher only a select few get the good while everyone else has no choice but to go with the bad.

thats limiting our options, in 15 years we might be forced in a conflict that needs all of these options at which point we either run to the US and get them fast, expect them to cover us or go without. It is easy to plan for one thing but we are Canada, we need a jack of all trades rather than a specialized aircraft that does one thing really good but can't be trusted to do much more.

There was the Maginot Line which was covered by 3rd rate troops because it was virtually impregnable to the Germans, the best Allied troops would have been in the low countries in defensive positions and the Germans would not have dared to risk their prized panzers in attacking such a narrow target as Luxembourg as at anytime the allies would attack south and trap the best of the German Army in France. The battle of France was a german Victory not because they made all the good decisions, they won because the Allies made more bad decisions than Germany. The breakthrough in France happened because of certain Panzer Generals disobeying orders to stop and consolidate and instead they saw and advantage and took it, if the generals in the front had listened to the Generals on the General staff they would have given the Allies a chance to cover the holes.

Yes, but the Swiss can mobilize within 24h, it was unlike Germany can overcome the entire nation in 24h. And they did not invade Sweden because they needed Swedish Iron and Sweden informed them that if they were invaded they would have destroyed the mines rather than letting them fall in to German Hands. In Sweden the Germans needed something, in Switzerland the Germans benefited by not entangling a million or more troops to fight the entrenched half a million Swiss Army in wells stocked and prepared positions, the gain for the Germans would have been nothing while tying down hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops. Try to read a book once in a while you might actually learn some history.

And then we ask for help from NATO, but I think few in NATO will lend us help when we were not even willing to defend ourselves. Besides I understand you think the generals in DND are idiots but they are some of the brightest Canada has to offer, I am sure there are ways to detect and defend from that... see RCN.

Forget that, if the Allied troops were on the front line on day one of the war in the west, the Germans would have failed, they planned to and succeeded in trapping the cream of the allied forces in a position where they were unable to do anything and were promptly cut off. If the Belgians and the Dutch had gone with the allies, the allies would have had a dagger to Germany's heart and seeing as the forces of both sides were nearly equal with the alleys having a somewhat sizeable advantage ins some areas the war would have been a draw and soon after the Germans would lose.

In Switzerland the German High Command suggested against the invasion simply because everyman was armed, and they were fighting on home soil in the Alps, and they had prepared for decades to repel and invasion. They had thousands of bunkers stocked with food, weapons and ammunition and hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were going to fight in one of the most inhospitable area on the planet, the Germans judged that they would rather keep Switzerland neutral and siphon money out to them when it became obvious they were loosing the war rather then open another front they couldn't win. Switzerland was prepared and would have given more of a fight than anyone in 1940... it would have lasted a long time and would have cost the germans a lot.

See, if the low countries were with France and England from the get go the allied defences would have been in place when the Germans hit rather than trying to make their way to the front through the clogged roads full of refugees... that where the collective defence thing comes in, they may not stand up against the Germans individually but together they could have stood. Unfortunately for us they chose to fight individually when it was too late.

The guy with the most rifles can make and enforce his law and that means kill or subjugate competition and everyone around them. You control the supply you can regulate how much of it goes through and how much of it does not see Somalia for example, the UN sends them food during a famine and the warlords capture the food and use it to gather support there is plenty of supply(food) but since they control it simply they ration it to their supporters only(kill the supply). No central government to enforce any laws they create means the group with the most rifles and the smallest collective conscience wins out and to be fair anarchy won't last long, a dictator will unite all the groups soon enough by force. By killing the competition and then charging as much as you want, since there would be no central government to create or enforce monetary policy we end up with a barter society and go back to medieval europe. One example where it has WORKED, not theory but a concrete example. Yes! It does not exist because it makes no sense. So you are saying we have to radically change our mindset as a species for your theory to work? Well its preferable to 1 guy making the decisions for the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% Or on the flip side common sense is more prevalent. It has existed since humanity began and will exist until the day humanity seizes to exist or someone decides to genetically engineer people. I know it is immoral, but so what I want it and I take it if you can't stop me well cry me a river. And who is going to enforce the law? I have more people with guns I make the law, when someone has more then me they make the law. The state that cannot enforce its laws and protect its cities seizes to exist. All this private militias will take the power of the state and soon enough will overthrow the state. How do you propose we protect ourselves? Fighters cost money, tanks cost money, ships cost money, troops cost money wasting money on something that is too small to help is more than useless. I can force you, no one can enforce the law so it is survival of the strongest more armed people on my side you lose and no government to beg for help. Sure, you have something I want it I come and take it...why waste my time negotiating when I can just take it?Give me one reason why people will negotiate when they can just take without fear of repercussion from the law...

I am still waiting for the example as to where this worked. By your own admission it will still be out of reach, just not far out of reach... unfortunately close is not good enough. Sure because we see so many of the rich are very charitable right? No you are right, they stay the same...the same Facebook advocate, you know post something on your wall, congratulate yourself for your courage and watch a movie. Probably but not certainly, you want people to move from a system where they are guaranteed a certain level of treatment and protection to a system where they are guaranteed none at all on the hope that people will become more charitable rather than less so?

And the guy in position of strength does as he pleases. Different militia's will interpret and enforce the laws in much different ways if at all. AKA militia's? So what is a government when it cannot enforce its laws and protect its citizens? Essentially it will come down to people forming their own private little armies and bit by bit in a few years we will be back to a big government only though a lot of bloodshed and maybe we will end up much worse of then we are now.

Why have "something"? Having a thousand soldiers will not change any emergency situation one way or another... hell in a major emergency we wouldn't have enough soldiers to help in one major urban centre such as let alone something the size of hurricane Sandy and would depend on the US for assistance, why on earth would they help us if we aren't willing the help ourselves?

So the poor bastards in Jane and Finch will be protected by the citizen police force of the gangs that terrorize them? And the same Gangs will form the Fire departments? You don't buy drugs from us we let your house burn down right? All the while the more affluent neighbourhoods can keep the peace better... but then who will create the laws?

If you only knew history this argument would be somewhat fun... The low countries chose diplomacy over defence, if they had chosen defence they would have banded with England and France and the disaster that followed would have been avoided. Besides the Dutch and Belgians were armed with obsolete weapons that were little match to the German Weapons. If someone wants to invade us we should be able to defend our territory with the assistance of the US rather then depend on the US to defend us completely....kinda the main reason for all these alliances we have.

You are not affected by the same things that millions of people worldwide are i.e. no healthcare and you don't see the value of the lac of healthcare until it affects you or your family members, when you get sick and no one regulates the doctors or the insurance companies they drop you once you become expensive and can't afford the treatment.

There is no example of the "free market" you are proposing. So you are against safety regulation in aircraft? Or on building construction? And your solution is to create anarchy? You are placing too much emphasis on private citizen organizations, do you think private citizens forming regulatory boards would be better then the government? They would get together and vote for what the guy handing out the most money wants. What happens when I arm and equip 1,000 soldiers and kill or chase away any competition for 500km? You are forced to come to me, or on the other hand I get my people to sit outside the competition and "persuade" you to come to the more expensive treatment if you want to live. Yes they can. For the most part governments deal better with the funds then mobs... And when the competition is the same? What then? But there is no regulatory body to determine who is qualified and who is not, most people will take the easy way thus the supply of good professionals will be far outstripped by the demand for them one person can do only so much. And when all their options are bad? You have 30 Doctors to choose from 26 of them are incompetent and 4 of them charge much more then you can afford(See supply and demand) you go to what you can afford. Ill give you a choice, the only doctors you can afford are the guy who read 1 book, or the guy who read 2 books as they are the only once within your price range... all the good once are much more expensive as they are fewer and more people want to go to them.

Not that much, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg tried diplomacy and failed...when it came time to use force none of them were ready. Just like the British and the French, they relied too much on diplomacy with someone not even remotely interested in diplomacy except as a tool to buy him more time. You are saying that if the Allies had only tried a little harder on the diplomacy front Hitler would have been satisfied right?

And I form my own Armed unit and kill the supply, so now the demand far outstrips the supply... Yes Afghanistan, in some areas they don't have government police, they police themselves and look at how well that turned out for them... Yeah but that true for an iPod, when its medicine you will kill or rob someone to get the money to treat your kid, they can charge as much as they want. So in what country do we see this amazing example? Just like they do in a democracy, your wallet hurts you vote differently. Give me an example where your theory has worked i really wanna see what heaven looks like. And that being immoral has NEVER stopped anyone... And there is nothing wrong with taking it by force, I have the means to take it, you don't have the means to defend... why should I pay if I can take it for free? Who is going to stop me if you are unarmed and I have all the weapons I want? How can you negotiate if all you can offer me I can take from you anyway? Actually the barrel of a gun pushes much harder, why would I take up on your offer if I can simply move in and take all your stuff at will? But you are ok to let the constituents be robbed by pirates and be defenceless so that any petty dictator with a small military can force us on our knees... Thats right, see #10.If you are walking down the street at night, and I come to rob you with my trusty gun, good luck negotiating seeing as I would have all the power and nothing you can say or do will make a difference.

So we should just build an aircraft in Canada that serves no purpose other than just being Canadian, one that was obsolete 50 years ago?

They build around 200, but did they start from scratch? Using designs from 60 years ago? And why would any company in Canada invest billions of dollars researching aircraft designs from the bottom up to build only 65 aircraft? Its one thing when the Us has a working industry and has experience, infrastructure and a lot of the kinks worked out already its a whole different thing designing everything from scratch. If Ford designs a car and the whole project costs 10,000,000 dollars does it mean that if I had the means I can design a car of similar abilities and quality using designs from the 1950's for the same price considering I would have to start from scratch? We DONT need the infrastructure because when we get our 65 fighters we will not be purchasing another fighter fro 30-40 years, what do they do in the meantime? Which private corporation will invest money and time in setting up and industry that would be significantly behind before it even starts? So that brings us to government investment, now imagine having to design everything from the ground up only to discover that few if any nations are actually interested in our aircraft... maybe if the Arrow had succeeded in 1950's and we had continued developing the aircraft and secured a market we could succeed but as it is we will not succeed but pay many times more per aircraft then we do now. spending 1 billion a year on aircraft upkeep and maintenance and 1 billion a year on replacement seems like a waste, we need aircraft replaced every once in a while but every 10 years is too much. is useless since we are not large enough to need it, what we may need is to make a strategy and I mean a real strategy in the shipbuilding projects so that we have the abilities rather then trying to be self sufficient in everything and end up with garbage in everything. Buy what serves our needs and buy it from our allies, or invest on expensive Garbage at home and end up with equipment that meets few or none of our needs. We need to pick our battles, and I for one prefer to have a defence industry for what we need and can afford rather than spending many times the cost of the aircraft using money we DONT have just so it stays in Canada. Breaking even means that we will spend 100 or more billion to develop this aircraft and we will end up being the only user of the aircraft which means that we spend 10 or more times to build the aircraft and that does not even account for the 30 years of upkeep. I would rather take that money, invest it in something else than in an industry that will fail before it is even set up. And unless you can convince the British, French, Americans or any other NAtO country to buy in bulk we will not be able to make our money off the massive investment. So we invest 100,000,000,000 dollars to get 60-100 new aircraft, and then spend another 50 or more billion dollars in upkeep of those aircraft because now we have to maintain production for the next 40 years which will end up costing more then if we bought from the US where they are mass producing the parts. You are proposing that we stop buying our screw driver from the US for $10 a unit and build our own for $100 a unit and tax our citizens to make up for the difference.

What is a free market system? The Somalian one? You are sick and Ill solve it by shooting you in the head... Yeah better let companies give you a placebo or better yet test their pharmaceuticals on you. government regulation is there for a reason, too much regulation is bad just like not enough regulation is bad Any proof or are you pulling this one out of your ass as well... And they can make a boat load when they give you a tic tac for cancer treatment because no one is regulating the qualities. Doctors, Technicians, Engineers etc... are all expensive and since you have qualified people at every level of the process healthcare ends up just as expensive, only since there are no restrictions they can charge as much as they please and let you die or be a virtual slave at the end of the treatment. And therefore everything will be just as if not more expensive because everyone will want a bigger cut and there would be no one to say enough is enough Yeah but why would you need to go to Med School? Its just a requirement by the government? Why not just give you a book, read it and start treating people?

So you have no comment for this right? This is one of many examples where people tried diplomacy and essentially disarmed themselves and were crushed... so much for your theories...