Gates wants to cut military pay?

[Travlyr]

Where should you focus your ire? At the 1.2 million who carry out the orders, or the 536 people who make the policy and give the orders?

We have to let our solders know that they are not working for constitutional freedom. They don't know that because they have been indoctrinated. They are currently protecting the 536 people which keeps us enslaved.

Listen to this killing machine chant...

 

[erowe1]

I don't care who did what to who. I do believe in contract law. If a person is told that he/she will receive a certain amount of money upon reaching an agreed upon goal, be it tenure, rank, educational achievement, cleanest desk...whatever, then changing the terms of that deal after the fact is wrong.

The problem with this is, I don't see how a contract made by the government promising to give someone something that isn't theirs to give can ever be valid to begin with.

I don't have any delusions about the government actually repudiating all of its debt and obligations that it took on on the behalf of taxpayers and future generations. So I wouldn't seriously advocate a pipe dream like that. But I have trouble seeing how it would be unethical were it to happen.

Edit: The other side of this is that, if the government were to renege on its side of a contract with the troops, then the troops ought to be able to do the same. They shouldn't be forced to stay in for less compensation than they were promised.

 

[nate895]

The problem with this is, I don't see how a contract made by the government promising to give someone something that isn't theirs to give can ever be valid to begin with.

I don't have any delusions about the government actually repudiating all of its debt and obligations that it took on on the behalf of taxpayers and future generations. So I wouldn't seriously advocate a pipe dream like that. But I have trouble seeing how it would be unethical were it to happen.

We are talking about a necessary purpose of government. Common defense is a natural monopoly, no matter how the unfettered capitalists might want to think otherwise. We need to have at least some soldiers, and the fact of the matter is that the expenses of soldiers pay have been constitutionally enacted.

 

[erowe1]

We are talking about a necessary purpose of government. Common defense is a natural monopoly, no matter how the unfettered capitalists might want to think otherwise. We need to have at least some soldiers, and the fact of the matter is that the expenses of soldiers pay have been constitutionally enacted.

I don't dispute any of that, as long as you're not advocating some kind of coercive method of making people who don't want to pay for the military do so. I'm not sure how the Constitution gets into this. It should be natural law that determines whether or not something in the Constitution is right, not the other way around.

And again, I'm not harboring any delusions of ever living in a society free from tyranny. But just because that ideal is unrealistic doesn't make it any less appropriate as an ideal that should provide direction for our ethical decisions.

 

[Pericles]

We have to let our solders know that they are not working for constitutional freedom. They don't know that because they have been indoctrinated. They are currently protecting the 536 people which keeps us enslaved.

Listen to this killing machine chant...

Oathkeepers has great difficulty reaching any percentage of that 1.2 million with just the basic message of the duty required by that oath. I assume you have a more effective plan than that of an organization that at least has some credibility with the target audience?

Yes, going after the 536 that really make the decisions is more difficult, but judging by recent votes, we may be down to less than 450, and with the right majority, the correct 300 will do.

 

[nate895]

I don't dispute any of that, as long as you're not advocating some kind of coercive method of making people who don't want to pay for the military do so. I'm not sure how the Constitution gets into this. It should be natural law that determines whether or not something in the Constitution is right, not the other way around.

And again, I'm not harboring any delusions of ever living in a society free from tyranny. But just because that ideal is unrealistic doesn't make it any less appropriate as an ideal that should guide our understanding of what's right and wrong and provide direction for our ethical decisions.

I do not embrace the idea that taxation is theft. People who refuse to pay for the common defense, which they benefit from just like any service on the private market, should be coerced to pay for it, just like those who refuse to pay for private services they receive should be coerced to pay for it. Yes, that means I believe in having legal penalties for people who do not pay their taxes, which they owe to the civil government for the service it provides in maintaining order and protecting our liberties from foreign invaders and domestic insurrectionists.

 

[erowe1]

I do not embrace the idea that taxation is theft. People who refuse to pay for the common defense, which they benefit from just like any service on the private market, should be coerced to pay for it. Yes, that means I believe in having legal penalties for people who do not pay their taxes, which they owe to the civil government for the service it provides in maintaining order and protecting our liberties from foreign invaders and domestic insurrectionists.

But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And whose right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?

And what if those domestic insurrectionists are in the right, and the politicians are in the wrong? Would it really be right for the politicians to coerce the taxpayers to pay to support the side of the wrong against the side of the right?

 

[angelatc]

The problem with this is, I don't see how a contract made by the government promising to give someone something that isn't theirs to give can ever be valid to begin with.
.

That's because....oh, never mind. I don't want a ban.

The constitution has always allowed the government to fund a military. If you believe that the men who wrote that believed that rights came from the creator, then apparently the founders believed God wanted the government to tax you to fund a military. Go crab at God about Utopian morals and how to achieve them without derailing every fucking conversation you participate in.

 

[Travlyr]

Oathkeepers has great difficulty reaching any percentage of that 1.2 million with just the basic message of the duty required by that oath. I assume you have a more effective plan than that of an organization that at least has some credibility with the target audience?

Yes, going after the 536 that really make the decisions is more difficult, but judging by recent votes, we may be down to less than 450, and with the right majority, the correct 300 will do.

Economic devastation will not be solved politically... only perpetuated. You can elect 536 liberty loving guys and gals, but if you keep the central banking philosophy, you'll keep perpetual wars, the police state, and rampant poverty around the world for mundanes.

 

[nate895]

But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And who's right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?

And what if those domestic insurrectionists are in the right, and the politicians are in the wrong? Would it really be right for the politicians to coerce the taxpayers to pay to support the side of the wrong against the side of the right?

Everyone benefits from the military. The only time when that is not the case is when the Army is turned against the people to suppress political dissent, and that has not happened yet. Furthermore, the military officer corps is nearly always the locus of resistance to dictatorial regimes. That's why Stalin had to purge the Red Army, because even the Red Army could not keep out the ye olde tyme conservatives.

 

[erowe1]

Everyone benefits from the military. The only time when that is not the case is when the Army is turned against the people to suppress political dissent, and that has not happened yet.

You really believe that the only way for a person not to benefit from the military is in that one scenario? Do you really think you have benefited from everything the politicians have used the military to do in your lifetime?

 

[qh4dotcom]

It is just wrong to cut the benefits of somebody who is already retired.

Everything on the federal budget needs to be cut. If you're going to make exceptions that's a slippery slope.

 

[erowe1]

Everything on the federal budget needs to be cut. If you're going to make exceptions that's a slippery slope.

Somewhere along the line it's all going to be cut, and when it does it's going to include cutting benefits for people who are already retired. The government can't keep all the promises it's made, especially the promises it's made to retired people.

 

[nate895]

You really believe that the only way for a person not to benefit from the military is in that one scenario? Do you really think you have benefited from everything the politicians have used the military to do in your lifetime?

Not what they use the military for, but the institution itself. While I obviously do not benefit in any tangible way from the current foreign adventurism, I still benefit from the defense our Army, Navy, and Air Force provide. The fact of the matter is, other countries are afraid of this one, and that benefits us in a lot of ways. The only thing propping up our dollar is our military prowess at this point. While this obviously is not the perfect scenario, and I would much rather have an honest currency and a military designed only for the purpose of defense (I would include anti-piracy efforts in waters that include a substantial amount of American shipping in that), alas, I still benefit from the military, albeit in a way I would rather not and think is unethical.

 

[nate895]

Everything on the federal budget needs to be cut. If you're going to make exceptions that's a slippery slope.

Overall military pay does need to be cut in the end, but that should be done by cutting the size of our military, not by cutting the salaries of the average enlisted man. If we cut military personnel in half, why then we cut the amount we pay in soldier's salaries without cutting any individual salary. This could be done by simply letting enlistments expire, and most military members do not qualify for retirement benefits anyway.

 

[erowe1]

Not what they use the military for, but the institution itself. While I obviously do not benefit in any tangible way from the current foreign adventurism, I still benefit from the defense our Army, Navy, and Air Force provide. The fact of the matter is, other countries are afraid of this one, and that benefits us in a lot of ways. The only thing propping up our dollar is our military prowess at this point. While this obviously is not the perfect scenario, and I would much rather have an honest currency and a military designed only for the purpose of defense (I would include anti-piracy efforts in waters that include a substantial amount of American shipping in that), alas, I still benefit from the military, albeit in a way I would rather not and think is unethical.

Gotcha.

So what about all of what they use the military for that you don't benefit from? Is it right for you to be coerced into paying for that too?

Also, the kind of benefit you've described isn't just something that benefits American taxpayers, but it also benefits a lot of other people around the world, such as citizens in NATO countries, South Korea, and others, in the same way. Does this mean that the tax jurisdiction of our federal government is too small, and it needs to be expanded so that they coerce all those other people to pay for the institution of the military that protects them?

 

[fisharmor]

Everyone benefits from the military.

Wow. There doesn't seem to be a maximum incredulity smiley available.
I do not yet own a battle rifle.
One reason is because significant portions of my income get confiscated to provide for the defense you mention.
In addition, even if I did have the disposable income to spend upwards of $2k on a rifle, it would not be on par with modern military weapons.
If I were to purchase something even close to similar, it would be 30 years old and cost five times as much.

They make it far less possible for me to defend myself, even from domestic varieties of danger such as animals and criminals.
So take your "everyone benefits from the military" somewhere else.
The only people who benefit from the military are the military and its industrial complex.

Moreover, the military as it stands, if not patently unconstitutional, is against the spirit of the constitution.
Repelling invasions and also suppression of insurrections is constitutionally the job of the militia.
Which law enforcement makes impossible, under the premise that the military negates its necessity.
Which military invariably proceeds to undertake actions that have nothing to do with repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections, and indeed makes us less safe.

I'm still not troop-bashing here. I'm just pointing out that the entire organization is unnecessary and against the spirit of the constitution.
Something that ought to be considered when making judgments on it.

 

[nate895]

Gotcha.

So what about all of what they use the military for that you don't benefit from? Is it right for you to be coerced into paying for that too?

Also, the kind of benefit you've described isn't just something that benefits American taxpayers, but it also benefits a lot of other people around the world, such as citizens in NATO countries, South Korea, and others, in the same way. Does this mean that the tax jurisdiction of our federal government is too small, and it needs to be expanded so that they coerce all those other people to pay for the institution of the military that protects them?

No, it is not right for me to be coerced to pay for foreign adventures to countries that pose no threat to my homeland in any tangible way. Why else would I ever even think about supporting Ron Paul! If I thought what the Feds were doing was just, I'd just go over and join the Bill Kristols of the world. As far as what other countries benefit from our protection, I would say that in the current state of affairs, we should demand some form of tribute from Europe and other countries we protect. If we are to be an Empire, we might as well act like one. However, I would rather be a Republic, so I support bringing the troops home.

The fact that Europe does not have to pay for its own defense is why socialism there has been relatively successful. The Soviet Union certainly could not maintain their socialist state since it lacked a prosperous country to partner with for defense purposes. China has only succeeded in this endeavor because it allows for a decent amount of corporatism combined with raw exploitation of citizens' (or subjects', I should say) labor. Left to stand on their own, the socialist states of the world would collapse eventually.

 

[Pericles]

Wow. There doesn't seem to be a maximum incredulity smiley available.
I do not yet own a battle rifle.
One reason is because significant portions of my income get confiscated to provide for the defense you mention.
In addition, even if I did have the disposable income to spend upwards of $2k on a rifle, it would not be on par with modern military weapons.
If I were to purchase something even close to similar, it would be 30 years old and cost five times as much.

They make it far less possible for me to defend myself, even from domestic varieties of danger such as animals and criminals.
So take your "everyone benefits from the military" somewhere else.
The only people who benefit from the military are the military and its industrial complex.

Moreover, the military as it stands, if not patently unconstitutional, is against the spirit of the constitution.
Repelling invasions and also suppression of insurrections is constitutionally the job of the militia.
Which law enforcement makes impossible, under the premise that the military negates its necessity.
Which military invariably proceeds to undertake actions that have nothing to do with repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections, and indeed makes us less safe.

I'm still not troop-bashing here. I'm just pointing out that the entire organization is unnecessary and against the spirit of the constitution.
Something that ought to be considered when making judgments on it.

The government price for a M16A4 / M4A1 is about $500, and I would pay that much if I could have one, or even more than one at that price.

 

[nate895]

Wow. There doesn't seem to be a maximum incredulity smiley available.
I do not yet own a battle rifle.
One reason is because significant portions of my income get confiscated to provide for the defense you mention.
In addition, even if I did have the disposable income to spend upwards of $2k on a rifle, it would not be on par with modern military weapons.
If I were to purchase something even close to similar, it would be 30 years old and cost five times as much.

They make it far less possible for me to defend myself, even from domestic varieties of danger such as animals and criminals.
So take your "everyone benefits from the military" somewhere else.
The only people who benefit from the military are the military and its industrial complex.

Moreover, the military as it stands, if not patently unconstitutional, is against the spirit of the constitution.
Repelling invasions and also suppression of insurrections is constitutionally the job of the militia.
Which law enforcement makes impossible, under the premise that the military negates its necessity.
Which military invariably proceeds to undertake actions that have nothing to do with repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections, and indeed makes us less safe.

I'm still not troop-bashing here. I'm just pointing out that the entire organization is unnecessary and against the spirit of the constitution.
Something that ought to be considered when making judgments on it.

Considering the Founders (yea, even Jefferson, the one closest to the modern Libertarian perspective) maintained the standing military, I find your arguments against the military to be the ones that are specious. The Founders, while opposing the kind of standing army we see today and the British had, were not opposed to common defense forces. Personally, I think we should adopt a constitutional amendment to limit the size of our military outside of an actual declaration of war.