As for the military side of things, our core doctrine of defense is to make sure that we can apply force anywhere in the globe whenever we need to. The purpose of this is to keep wars that we are interested in from getting out of control.
With the collapse of the imperial powers of the 20th Centruy we were the only ones left to really fill the roles that they held before WW2. Is it still needed? Probably. Should we be doing it? Probably.
As far as Imperialists go we are pretty benevolent, usually to a fault. We engage in questionable activities to preserve stability, but would our questionable activites be worse than China, our likely successor? Probably not.
The bases that have real stratigic value I think we should keep, those that are distant from hostile territory we should probably return to the friendlies with a use agreement.
Do you post this stuff on any forum where it might actually make a difference? You really should. Your conclussions are more intelligent and better thought through than most that I've hear in a long time.
Profit motive is at odds with providing Health CarebrotherjustinMarch 17 2010, 03:25:38 UTC
The Military and Agriculture points, I mostly agree with you. Not so much on the health care unless you concede that we need health care like the Norwegians. For-profit health care is a vampire on your sickness. Hospitals like it when people get cancer because it provides more revenue for your business.
I agree that we are on the precipice, but overpopulation is the fundamental factor to all of our woes. The only thing left to do is circle the wagons and remember the Alamo. By 2017 we will be on the downward slope of Peak Oil and resource scarcity economics will have more influence on our lives then any sort off return on your investment in Treasury Bonds.
Re: Profit motive is at odds with providing Health CarevoidengMarch 18 2010, 17:18:18 UTC
Health Care is a luxury that we are trying to treat as a necessity; it is a limited resource that has a cost for a given capacity. We can either provide a fixed amount of resources and ration them via Nationalization or we can move it to a completely private and allow people to apply their resources to it and allow the capacity to grow and shrink as it is needed. Currently we have a hybrid system with some flexibility in the resources and no real rationing, resulting in the fixed resources provided by the state to be off-set by the people paying from the open market
( ... )
Comments 6
Reply
With the collapse of the imperial powers of the 20th Centruy we were the only ones left to really fill the roles that they held before WW2. Is it still needed? Probably. Should we be doing it? Probably.
As far as Imperialists go we are pretty benevolent, usually to a fault. We engage in questionable activities to preserve stability, but would our questionable activites be worse than China, our likely successor? Probably not.
The bases that have real stratigic value I think we should keep, those that are distant from hostile territory we should probably return to the friendlies with a use agreement.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I agree that we are on the precipice, but overpopulation is the fundamental factor to all of our woes. The only thing left to do is circle the wagons and remember the Alamo. By 2017 we will be on the downward slope of Peak Oil and resource scarcity economics will have more influence on our lives then any sort off return on your investment in Treasury Bonds.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment