How much socialism does the US already have?

[Guthrie]

How much socialism does the US already have?

Not quite enough

[Pliny]

Not quite enough

So I guess form your signature you would want more police?

[Guthrie]

So I guess form your signature you would want more police?

wherever children cross the street, I want more policemen ---

but of course, Pliny, your question has nothing to do with the issue of this thread

[Pliny]

wherever children cross the street, I want more policemen ---

but of course, Pliny, your question has nothing to do with the issue of this thread

An answer to that question is, I think, pertinent to the thread. I expected your answer to be in the affirmative and the sanctimony was an added treat.

[ToadBrother]

I am not by any means an anarchist, government does have a place in the defense of the individual and the nation. That doesn't necessarily mean that police and standing armies cannot be privately run, optimally they wouldn't be needed but that takes individual responsibility to others and society.

Many armies were once privately run. Many princes employed mercenaries as feudalism began to dry up and the need for professional soldiers became greater. In general, however, greater value was seen in investing in a professional state-controlled military. There simply is no replacement for a general staff of senior experienced military officers and strategists, which is why you really only find mercenary armies in the employ of smaller or more impoverished states that can't afford the costs of building their own armies.

[ToadBrother]

Of course the government has a role in defence and related spending; I agree with you. But surely the United States is spending far more than is necessary for its own defence? I wouldn't consider the well over 100 military bases the United States operates around the world 'defence'. A better term would be 'power projection' for the purpose of promoting 'U.S. interests' (read: the interests of corporations rather than those of the public) around the world. I think that the United States could drastically scale back its military spending and still have perfect security domestically. Perhaps a primarily defencive military? And what threat does the United States face militarily? Terrorism is only fuelled by these international interventions; and besides, domestic security provisions and co-operation with the international community are much better means to counter terrorism.

The US did just that in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, it managed to convince everyone else to substantially demilitarize as well. The end result was a weakened France which was betrayed at every turn in the mid-1930s, the UK having too small a navy and airforce, and the US, despite its vast area and interests in a free Europe, being woefully unprepared despite ramping up industrial capacity in 1940-41, for its first military excursions in 1942.

The sad lesson of the interwar period is that you can cut too much, and that if someone else decides not to play by the rules, all you've managed to do is hamstring yourself.

This is the debate that was played in the US between 1939-41. The Isolationists insisted that the US had nothing in particular to fear from the Axis Powers, and other than some of the outlier holdings like Hawaii, that was for the most part true. The Continental US, indeed, North America as a whole, is sufficiently vast and protected by oceans that it's difficult to conceive of any enemy ever, in a conventional war, conquering the continent. The last time a foreign power tried to actively invade a country in the Americas was Napoleon's attempt to seize to Mexico.

But the question then becomes; is the world in fact safer? Are we living in a post-global war era, or simply living through one of those delightful periods of relative peace and prosperity, and the next batch of troubles are right around the corner? If the former, then yes, one could radically reduce the size of the US military. If the latter, then reductions, if any, must be sensible and with an eye on rapidly rebuilding the forces and armaments at need. At no point would I think it would be wise for the US to simply repeat the the ultimate fiasco of the post-Versailles period, when the army became little more than a place to stick malcontents and juvenile deliquents, and the navy rendered down to a core of aging vessels.

[Pliny]

Many armies were once privately run. Many princes employed mercenaries as feudalism began to dry up and the need for professional soldiers became greater. In general, however, greater value was seen in investing in a professional state-controlled military. There simply is no replacement for a general staff of senior experienced military officers and strategists, which is why you really only find mercenary armies in the employ of smaller or more impoverished states that can't afford the costs of building their own armies.

Kings and Princes usually employed a corps of Royal guardsmen that contained their senior experienced military officers and strategists. It was only in times of war they employed mercenaries. Mercenary armies leased themselves out as professionals. Their professionalism was often in question. The Prussians had a mercenary army that were were part of the American revolution.

Private mercenary armies saved them from having to feed and house a large standing army, let alone pay them.

[lictor616]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heathe...socialized-heal

Senators do not like the public option for health care, but all your property is insured by the government. I would say that the cries against socialism are very misplaced considering this kind thing takes place.

How much socialism does the US already have?

far far too much, the US is a basket case of socialist... even COMMUNIST policycraft, the country is in the process of committing suicide... thanks to opiate religious fantasies and liberal delusions about "one world"... The bedrock economic principle of socialist societies is the vicious siphoning of serf money... ie: taxes. Which the US is increasing year by year... America in other words is enemy occupied territory.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The bedrock economic principle of socialist societies is the vicious siphoning of serf money... ie: taxes. Which the US is increasing year by year... America in other words is enemy occupied territory.

Well, if taxes be the measure for such a circumstance, then Canada and Europe went over the commie edge long ago, comrade.

Marginal tax rates were much higher in the USA in years past.

Edited October 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[lictor616]

Well, if taxes be the measure for such a circumstance, then Canada and Europe went over the commie edge long ago, comrade.

Marginal tax rates were much higher in the USA in years past.

Yes I would agree with your statement bush_cheney. Canada and Europe is a bit more "worst off" the present day US. Of course canada doesn't have as much black and hispanic welfare gobbling minorities or similar drains on society, but yes, canada too is Enemy occupied territory and on the same slippery slope towards the Gulag of the Communist society.

I'm quite sorry to say.