F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Signals.Cpl]

oversimplification by the historically ignorant no less...low countries were armed but defending against a much larger foe like Germany futile, just as canada's situation would be versus any opponent with the capability to invade us...any opponent we are capable of defending ourselves from doesn't have the capability to invade...if the USA, Russia or China had the intention to invade canada 200 F35s couldn't save us, they'd neutralize the flying pigs in a day or two at most...

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.

[kward]

Only if the other side is interested in compromise. And if you don't have a military, and they do, then why should they compromise?

I'm not advocating for zero military. I'm saying don't go broke paying for it. Or better yet, don't rob the constituents through taxation to pay for it. I'm saying don't throw away billions on gear when strong diplomatic skills will do. Sure, have something under glass in case of emergency, but don't throw money away on some arbitrary feeling of safety that can never be achieved. You wind up losing most if not all of what you're trying so desperately to defend in the first place. And that makes no sense at all.

[Smallc]

200 F-35s in Canada would present a challenge to anyone but the United States. They are far from pigs and it would be very hard for any country to send 200 fighters our way.

[Signals.Cpl]

Right across the board? You've studied this I take it? But really it's beside the point. I'm not talking about moving to all volunteer fire departments. I advocate citizens who have an interest in paying a fire protection team, come together in their community and pay for it free and clear of government regulations and without being forced into it. AND operating it in a free market economy where the cost of fire and rescue equipment and training comes at a fraction of the cost it incurs now.

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?

[Signals.Cpl]

I'm not advocating for zero military. I'm saying don't go broke paying for it. Or better yet, don't rob the constituents through taxation to pay for it. I'm saying don't throw away billions on gear when strong diplomatic skills will do. Sure, have something under glass in case of emergency, but don't throw money away on some arbitrary feeling of safety that can never be achieved. You wind up losing most if not all of what you're trying so desperately to defend in the first place. And that makes no sense at all.

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?

[kward]

And how answerable would this body be to non-members? If this private police force decides to beat people up at random and the local land owner doesn't care, what then?

This is where property agreements, trespass laws, and contract enforcement come in. And that's where the idea of a minimal government comes in.

[kward]

That's certainly true. Absent government and insurance the doctors and hospitals would have to greatly lower their prices.

But it would still be far out of reach of the poor. We saw that in history. So you're prepared to just let the poor die? So you can have more money?

This is an argument borne of emotion rather than reason. The ranks of poor would be very limited in number in a free market, because there would be very few people priced out of the labour market. Health care would not be far out of the reach of the poor. People doing well would start, and fund charities who would help care for those who cannot afford care - even as cheap as care would be.

Just because people are able to earn more and spend less on goods and services doesn't mean they become different people and stop caring for those less well off. Generosity will still exist in a free market economy - probably more so since they'd be free of onerous government taxation.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is where property agreements,

And the guy in position of strength does as he pleases.

trespass laws,

Different militia's will interpret and enforce the laws in much different ways if at all.

and contract enforcement come in.

AKA militia's?

And that's where the idea of a minimal government comes in.

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.

[kward]

Virtually all important health care research is done or paid for by government. Get government out of the way and there won't be more research but far less.

And what about people who don't have boatloads of money to pay to have their busted appendix removed? Let them die?

1. People don't need the government to provide an incentive to have research performed that will benefit them and their families. The demand for research comes from the demand for people to feel well, to get better, and to stop diseases from spreading or even occurring in people. This demand is fundamental to human survival. The government doesn't know better than you to help pay for researching illnesses, and disease. It certainly doesn't know any better on how to allocate resources and spend them in the places that make the most sense. With government out of the way, and all of its high-salaried middlemen employees, more research dollars will go directly where it's needed most. Research becomes more effective, and you get more bang for your buck in a free market.

2. It only costs boatloads using today's health care costs as an example. In a free market that cost is vastly reduced. And if in a free market it is still too expensive - you use your catastrophic health insurance to pay or help pay for the procedure. And it's a catastrophic health insurance policy you've purchased in a free market meaning it'd be affordable. No one's talking about letting people die, that's just emotion talking.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is an argument borne of emotion rather than reason. The ranks of poor would be very limited in number in a free market, because there would be very few people priced out of the labour market.

I am still waiting for the example as to where this worked.

Health care would not be far out of the reach of the poor.

By your own admission it will still be out of reach, just not far out of reach... unfortunately close is not good enough.

People doing well would start, and fund charities who would help care for those who cannot afford care - even as cheap as care would be.

Sure because we see so many of the rich are very charitable right?

Just because people are able to earn more and spend less on goods and services doesn't mean they become different people and stop caring for those less well off.

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.

Generosity will still exist in a free market economy - probably more so since they'd be free of onerous government taxation.

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?

[Wilber]

Correct, if you decide not to opt in, you are not protected by that service. Maybe there's another cheaper service you'd prefer. Or none at all. Something doesn't effect me directly? Like what? Don't paint with a broad brush, be specific.

A bunker? That's just pessimism talking, not reason.

Actually, they already have what you are talking about in some parts of the world. We call them warlords.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Wilber

[wyly]

200 F-35s in Canada would present a challenge to anyone but the United States. They are far from pigs and it would be very hard for any country to send 200 fighters our way.

first order of business for any invasion, take out air bases(only two of them would have f35's) and radar, multiple cruise missile strikes on runways, ground the fighters on day one of invasion...and that,as they say, is that ...we would fair no better than Iraq(probably worse) vs the US, air defense is gone in a day....

[kward]

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.

1. Kill the supply? Silly-ness.

2. You're talking about anarchy. I'm not.

3. Rob and kill? Do you understand how business works? If you charge what you want, and no one can afford it, how do you make money? How do you stay in business?

4. In what country can you see what amazing example? Of free market capitalism? There is no country in the world that I'm aware of practicing it. Why? Because the wealth is concentrated, and those at the top are bent on protecting it. A free market makes for an even playing field - we haven't evolved enough yet to get to that point. In most countries we're still hoarders, control freaks, and social engineers.

5. Do you know what a democracy is? It's mob rule, and a terrible way to run a society. In a democracy 51% of the people get to make decisions for the other 49...no thanks.

6. It would be pretty awesome, I know. Unfortunately, courage is in short supply.

7. Immorality will always exist...everything else? Well, that's where money comes in.

8. Because you know it's immoral, and stealing is against the law. Again, I'm not advocating anarchy. Just minimal state power. The government has a role to play in maintaining the courts, property rights, and contract enforcement.

9. You seem stuck on this unarmed thing. I am not saying we should disarm. I am saying we shouldn't waste billions of dollars on military toys with no end in sight. A nice "break glass in case of emergency" set up is fine. But even better is being armed with intellect, diplomatic talent, boatloads of cash and product to sell.

10. See numbers 8 and 9.

11. Over-simplifying. If you enter someone else's property, you're on your own. You made the decision, you assume all the risk.

12. Everyone has a price. There are more ways to find leverage than with brute force. Brains will trump brawn every time.

[wyly]

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.

bs...france, england, russia the germans rolled over all of them regardless how well they were armed, tiny low countries with populations of 9 million each are not going to fight off a nation of 80 million...

[Smallc]

Right....

[wyly]

Right....

you admit your error ..good...

[Smallc]

It wouldn't be as easy as you seem to think.

[DogOnPorch]

Belgium managed to hold on in WW1 even though it got quite the sound beating from Von Kluck and his band of merry men in the summer of 1914. Good soldiers. In WW2 they didn't stand a chance...good soldiers or not.

[DogOnPorch]

bs...france, england, russia the germans rolled over all of them regardless how well they were armed, tiny low countries with populations of 9 million each are not going to fight off a nation of 80 million...

Belgium sure did in WW1. Holland was out for that one.

[DogOnPorch]

They also put up quite the scrap vs Napoleon @ Waterloo.

[Wilber]

bs...france, england, russia the germans rolled over all of them regardless how well they were armed, tiny low countries with populations of 9 million each are not going to fight off a nation of 80 million...

Yup, because they were largely prepared and equipped for the last war. Kind of what you are advocating.

[kward]

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 Switzerland?

[kward]

oversimplification by the historically ignorant no less...low countries were armed but defending against a much larger foe like Germany futile, just as canada's situation would be versus any opponent with the capability to invade us...any opponent we are capable of defending ourselves from doesn't have the capability to invade...if the USA, Russia or China had the intention to invade canada 200 F35s couldn't save us, they'd neutralize the flying pigs in a day or two at most...

Agreed.

[Signals.Cpl]

1. Kill the supply? Silly-ness.

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).

2. You're talking about anarchy. I'm not.

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.

3. Rob and kill? Do you understand how business works? If you charge what you want, and no one can afford it, how do you make money? How do you stay in business?

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.

4. In what country can you see what amazing example?

One example where it has WORKED, not theory but a concrete example.

Of free market capitalism?

Yes!

There is no country in the world that I'm aware of practicing it. Why? Because the wealth is concentrated, and those at the top are bent on protecting it.

It does not exist because it makes no sense.

A free market makes for an even playing field - we haven't evolved enough yet to get to that point. In most countries we're still hoarders, control freaks, and social engineers.

So you are saying we have to radically change our mindset as a species for your theory to work?

5. Do you know what a democracy is? It's mob rule, and a terrible way to run a society. In a democracy 51% of the people get to make decisions for the other 49...no thanks.

Well its preferable to 1 guy making the decisions for the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%

6. It would be pretty awesome, I know. Unfortunately, courage is in short supply.

Or on the flip side common sense is more prevalent.

7. Immorality will always exist...everything else? Well, that's where money comes in.

It has existed since humanity began and will exist until the day humanity seizes to exist or someone decides to genetically engineer people.

8. Because you know it's immoral,

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 stealing is against the law.

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.

Again, I'm not advocating anarchy. Just minimal state power.

The state that cannot enforce its laws and protect its cities seizes to exist.

The government has a role to play in maintaining the courts, property rights, and contract enforcement.

All this private militias will take the power of the state and soon enough will overthrow the state.

9. You seem stuck on this unarmed thing. I am not saying we should disarm. I am saying we shouldn't waste billions of dollars on military toys with no end in sight. A nice "break glass in case of emergency" set up is fine. But even better is being armed with intellect, diplomatic talent, boatloads of cash and product to sell.

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.

11. Over-simplifying. If you enter someone else's property, you're on your own. You made the decision, you assume all the risk.

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.

12. Everyone has a price. There are more ways to find leverage than with brute force. Brains will trump brawn every time.

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...

[DogOnPorch]

Yup, because they were largely prepared and equipped for the last war. Kind of what you are advocating.

Agreed.

Belgian weapons and tactics had not changed since 1918...minus a few newish aircraft. But they were thinking trenches and forts. The were totally unprepared for the assault on Eban Emael and Fallschirmjagers + Panzer divisions....Blitzkrieg....20th century....not 19th.