Rocketman on April 14, 2008, 10:47:04 pm
Hitler may have be a great orator, but he was one LOUSY military leader.  He made a number of strategic blunders during the second world war that had the decision be made the other way would likely have changed the course of history.  Just off the top of my head... 1) After London was accidently bombed by german bombers during the Blitz the RAF struck Berlin.  Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe bombing of english cities instead of concentrating on British airfields and factories.  The British were on the ropes at that point and this blunder gave them the time that they needed to recover.  2) The ME-262 was available early in they war but Hitler insisted on it being made into a bomber instead of the role that it was perfect for which was a B-17 and B-24 bomber interceptor.  3) The Stg-44 assualt rifle should have been made in mass quantities but because of Hitler the german infantry had to make do with bolt action mausers and sub-machine guns until it was too late.  >:( 

Leviathan on April 26, 2008, 06:43:31 am
Well, thank goodness for governmental ineptitude.  A private, decentralized "system" of defense would've neither attacked its neighbors (bad business, it's more profitable to trade in a free market), nor been relegated to inefficient use of resources simply because some top level moron doesn't know how to utilize them effectively.  Multiple companies doing such a thing would require each and every CEO (or whatever title you use) to be just as incompetent.  And let's not even mention the stupidity of wiping out an entire sector of the marketplace (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc. etc. ad nauseum), and thus losing many valuable potential customers.

Of course, this speculation has been brought to you by free market ideology.  Because people believed that a state could grant them prosperity and a good life, they gave their taxes and didn't rise up when their monopolized-through-force "security company" decided to expand its territory.  The Nazis didn't create the seat of power.  They just used it in a manner consistent with its nature.  Everyone should learn that fascism is the true face of government.  Anything else is just window-dressing on a deadly "servant", and a terrible master.

Emote Control on August 04, 2011, 05:09:09 am
Well, thank goodness for governmental ineptitude.  A private, decentralized "system" of defense would've neither attacked its neighbors (bad business, it's more profitable to trade in a free market), nor been relegated to inefficient use of resources simply because some top level moron doesn't know how to utilize them effectively.  Multiple companies doing such a thing would require each and every CEO (or whatever title you use) to be just as incompetent.

There are two problems with this logic.

1)  In the private sector, there are plenty of incompetent CEOs.  I've worked for two.  In one case, when I pointed out a grossly inefficient use of resources, the man exploded, and accused me of plotting against him.  In another case, I explained that he (this was a different boss) wanted me to do was not only utterly unnecessary, but had a good chance of totally bringing down the network and making it impossible to access our files.  This boss said that if I didn't do it, I would be fired.  I did it, and the network went down.

2)  Private, decentralized systems of defense *would* have a very strong motivation to attack their neighbors -- to wit, looting.  Stolen good, as they say, are never sold at a loss.  Read up on the Fourth Crusade sometime.

I'm not saying that government is immune to either of these problems, or many others.  That would be silly.  But I am saying that expecting private enterprise to be immune to them involves a gross denial of reality.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 09:19:50 am by Emote Control »

Scott on August 05, 2011, 09:56:08 am
Quote
I'm not saying that government is immune to either of these problems, or many others.  That would be silly.  But I am saying that expecting private enterprise to be immune to them involves a gross denial of reality.

True enough. I've had my share of incompetent bosses. The difference is, if a company is subject to the discipline of a free market, incompetence will bring the company down, creating a chance of a more competent leadership taking its place. With a government, incompetence is rewarded with more power and money, and the democratic process has not proved effective at replacing incompetence with greater competence. Especially now that it is so completely controlled by corrupt actors.

So, I will take a system that offers some chance of improved competence, even if that chance is a lot less than 100%, over a system where the chance is close to 0%.