4 ms·

Similarly, I feel that this educational contracting is a threat to democracy. Either employ forced labor to provide education or don't have public schools at al

Similarly, I feel that this educational contracting is a threat to democracy. Either employ forced labor to provide education or don't have public schools at all. I understand the concern that mercenaries may revolt against the real military, but is anyone really suggesting this is a danger to the US? I don't see anyone making that case. The article also brings up real issues that soldiers-for-hire are inadequately supervised. This is a valid concern, but again the response to that should be a measured cost/benefit analysis as to whether adequate supervision + contractors or employees is better. Teachers-for-hire are, in many cases, also not adequately supervised. That doesn't mean we should resort to forced labor to provide teaching, it just means we need a better supervisory apparatus.

redstripe 10y ago
It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally. The is a spectrum for military participation: conscription -> volunteer professional -> mercenery. With conscription people will be more vested because it can affect their families more personally even if they don't support a war. With a mercenary army not only is the death of strangers easier to ignore, but deaths are not always made public. Look how often we had stats about army deaths/injuries reported daily vs how often you heard about Blackwater deaths during the Iraq war/occupation.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor. If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    I don't think your examples work. Public education and road construction don't result in forced labor, they result in increased taxes. The people who vote for public education and road construction already share in the burden of increased taxes. War results in death, but, as the OP points out, people who support war don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      A war with a volunteer army + contractors doesn't result in forced labor either, it results in increased taxes. The people who vote for war already share in the burden of increased taxes. Construction results in (accidental) death, but, as I point out, people who support construction don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
      - toasterlovin 10y ago
        Let me try this again. Scenario 1: a city votes to do road construction. This results in all residents of that city paying more in taxes. All residents get to decide and all residents pay for the results of their decision. Scenario 2: the U.S. invades Iraq. There are some casualties amongst U.S. Forces as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them civilians. What's different about this scenario is that none of the dead Iraqi civilians or their families had a say in the U.S. decision to go to war. But they pay the overwhelming cost in life. Whereas no Americans at all are required to risk their lives. That is the asymmetry in costs that the OP was talking about.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        You seem to be making a totally different argument against war now. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that attaching a poison pill such as forced labor to a war-like policy is: a) anti-democratic (since democracy involves allowing the mob to make decisions, including decisions you disagree with) b) not a valid argument against war since all sorts of policies would be horrific if forced labor were involved.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Its the other way around why do you think the Foreign Legion existed
someguydave 10y ago
I agree, the government-education complex is as much a threat to liberty as the military-industrial-contract services complex.

redstripe 10y ago

It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally. The is a spectrum for military participation: conscription -> volunteer professional -> mercenery. With conscription people will be more vested because it can affect their families more personally even if they don't support a war. With a mercenary army not only is the death of strangers easier to ignore, but deaths are not always made public. Look how often we had stats about army deaths/injuries reported daily vs how often you heard about Blackwater deaths during the Iraq war/occupation.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor. If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  I don't think your examples work. Public education and road construction don't result in forced labor, they result in increased taxes. The people who vote for public education and road construction already share in the burden of increased taxes. War results in death, but, as the OP points out, people who support war don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    A war with a volunteer army + contractors doesn't result in forced labor either, it results in increased taxes. The people who vote for war already share in the burden of increased taxes. Construction results in (accidental) death, but, as I point out, people who support construction don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      Let me try this again. Scenario 1: a city votes to do road construction. This results in all residents of that city paying more in taxes. All residents get to decide and all residents pay for the results of their decision. Scenario 2: the U.S. invades Iraq. There are some casualties amongst U.S. Forces as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them civilians. What's different about this scenario is that none of the dead Iraqi civilians or their families had a say in the U.S. decision to go to war. But they pay the overwhelming cost in life. Whereas no Americans at all are required to risk their lives. That is the asymmetry in costs that the OP was talking about.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        You seem to be making a totally different argument against war now. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that attaching a poison pill such as forced labor to a war-like policy is: a) anti-democratic (since democracy involves allowing the mob to make decisions, including decisions you disagree with) b) not a valid argument against war since all sorts of policies would be horrific if forced labor were involved.
walshemj 10y ago
Its the other way around why do you think the Foreign Legion existed

someguydave 10y ago

I agree, the government-education complex is as much a threat to liberty as the military-industrial-contract services complex.