bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 As I said countless times, the exact same charges laid against the F-35 were also put on the Hornet purchase over 30 years ago…….. But that mindset actually thinks there would be great savings in using existing spares, tooling, and test equipment on Super Bugs, which is a different aircraft. That might work going from a Buick to a Chevy, but not in aviation, and really not in military aviation. Canada was cannibalizing from hangar queens to begin with. A savvy politician might suggest the result of Canada not having fighter aircraft, hence not being able to contribute to NORAD, and the response of the Americans in defending their sovereignty…….That angle always works…… True that....nothing gets them motivated faster than outsourcing to the Americans. They hate that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 This is where property agreements, trespass laws, and contract enforcement come in. And that's where the idea of a minimal government comes in. What would the government use to enforce its will when the police force is in private hands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 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.] Why do you suppose none of that happened in historical times? You know, prior to big government with all its regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 But that mindset actually thinks there would be great savings in using existing spares, tooling, and test equipment on Super Bugs, which is a different aircraft. That might work going from a Buick to a Chevy, but not in aviation, and really not in military aviation. Canada was cannibalizing from hangar queens to begin with. That argument has/is being used by many of the F-35 critics………Of course, the only thing we could recycle from our current Hornets and use on a Canadian Super Hornet is the ordinance, but of course we’ll be able to do likewise with the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 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. Which is why government, which represents the collective will of the people, funds medical research. 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. And who organizes this massive effort? Fund raising companies which go door to door to collect the money? And how much of that goes to the resarch and how much to the fund raisers? From what I've seen, fund raising organizations typically require a huge percentage of what they raise for fund raising operations, so less goes to the charities they support. Absent then, how do your research organizations collect money if not from government? And do you think ordinary individuals are more capable of determining what medical research gets funded than the government is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 And Switzerland? Makes itself far too difficult to conquer for the value of conquering it. Diplomacy didn't spare Switzerland. Lots of guns and bunkers did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Incompetent doctors go out of business making room for those who provide a good service at a fair price. Doctors who charge more than you can afford lose business, and turn away potential profits. There's always a market for every income level - especially without government regulations, and bureaucracy getting in the way. In reality, incompetent doctors, much like incompetent tradesmen and contractors do now, would rip people off continuously, and then simply set up elsewhere. There is a free market in contractors. Shouldn't they be scrambling to underbid each other and doing their very best to impress clients? It doesn't seem to be happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You're describing anarchy. I advocate free market capitalism. There is a difference. Not really. I recall a professor in college, in one of my business classes, making the point that pure capitalism would be an even more miserable system to live under than communism or fascism. The individual would basically be a slave to whomever employed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 yes that's all correct,(I knew you would get that) times change and the bases haven't, even if they were to scramble jets before the hangers were flattened and the runways holed where are those F35's going to go? To bomb Washington and New York. The idea is not to be able to defeat a hugely larger opponent but to make it too costly to attack. If all you had to do to rob a bank was simply scoop the money off the counter and walk out, how many more people would do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 we cannot defend ourselves against super powers....those we can defend ourselves against don't have the capability to invade us... We are in an alliance in order to defend ourselves, and in order to reduce the costs. Being in that alliance requires that we ante up at least a minimum capability to be able to join with our allies. The super hornet might meet that criteria today but it likely will not in twenty years. And you haven't provided any evidence it would really be much cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 That's funny because the current way of doing things isn't viable, and yet here we are. What evidence do you have that the current way of doing things isn't viable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 For the last time! I do not advocate anarchy. Do not. Get it? What you are advocating would quickly lead to anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 That's just it...we spend billions and then they get old, then we have to spend billions again...and then again...and then again...it never ends. There are cheaper alternatives out there. Diplomacy, trade...they may not be the panacea, but they're a great start, and cheaper than endless amounts of toys. The only thing throughout all of history which has guaranteed a nation's sovereignty is military force. All you propose has been tried, and has failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Good defence. Blow yourself up. How do you destroy gold anyway? How do you blow up the oil sands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Anarchy is a the result of free market capitalism? Based on what? Your say-so? It's not utopia, nothing's perfect, but it's a lot better than the current corporatist state. The level playing field doesn't exist because the majority of the citizenry is too brainwashed or distracted to understand they're getting hosed. You think there'd be a level playing field in your world? The wealthy would be far and away more powerful in such a 'free market' structure, and the individual would have no real protection against ANYTHING, be it dangerous working conditions, poisoned food and water, or being murdered by thugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You have to rememer too, that a government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people...that is NOT what we have now. In a free market capitalist society the government would be by, for, and of the people. The government would be the people, and vise versa...law enforcement would be an extension of that...and that is not anarchy, and that is not the current system. You have not explained why the government in such a system would be any more representational of the people than the current bunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I carpool, and let someone else incur the costs of upkeep. I like the freedom of leaving home when I want, and leaving work when I want. I like the freedom of driving where I want when I want, and not having to beg rides or wait for others. Freedom has a cost I'm willing to pay. Apparently, you aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 How do you blow up the oil sands? Good question. No idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 How much is your country and your way of life worth to you?. Thats a rather dishonest way to frame this debate. Our country and way of life are no less threatened whether or not we buy this particular plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thats a rather dishonest way to frame this debate. Our country and way of life are no less threatened whether or not we buy this particular plane. Says who? Better put, if there is no threat, why have a military at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thats a rather dishonest way to frame this debate. Our country and way of life are no less threatened whether or not we buy this particular plane. It's all a matter of degree. Having more modern jets is an incremental increase in the ability of Canada to defend itself. It slightly increases the level of deterrence, it increases the needed resources someone would have to commit to undertake a successful military action against Canada. The higher that threshold is, the less likely it is to be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Says who? Better put, if there is no threat, why have a military at all? Say hello to the new Iceland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Say hello to the new Iceland. And like I said earlier............Who "defended" Iceland since the second world war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Nobody? Certainly not the USofA or Nato, Icelanders themselves perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) Thats a rather dishonest way to frame this debate. Our country and way of life are no less threatened whether or not we buy this particular plane. Why, because we are just too nice or you believe the US would never let it happen? Edited December 11, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.