My wife and I go round this often, and we wholeheartedly endorse Sam's argument.
But the military seems to be pleased with their "all volunteer army",
and probably would resist a permanent draft, as is likely for the general public.
All the time while recent demands on US National Guard and military families have been terrible.

The draft during the Viet Nam war did help to bring that war to a close,
but not until after the troops on the ground were overly represented
by Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor who could not find a way to avoid conscription.
The more well-to-do managed to get into a different branch of service (e.g., Air Force),
a deferment, or went to a foreign country in one guise or another.

Now back to the "HOW's" issue...
A temporary national draft before or during a military excursion would serve
a useful purpose, but would need very strong safeguards against discriminatory inductions.
.

Totally against any draft. To risk life and limb should be a choice. It should not be imposed by the state.

And the notion that any draft would ever be so well managed as to make it fair carries very little weight for me.

Bottom line, at what cost?

Once you attempt a policy of Wealth Redistribution we are no longer a Democracy.

Would you want all supermarkets to be public?

For privatisation in Australia, ditto pretty much everything Dana said about it in Britain.

For our rail gauges, at the moment of Federation in 1901, every state in Australia had rail gauges incompatible with any state it had a border with. :facepalm: Different Colonial governments talking more to London than each other, vested business interests in each state and general stupidity are to blame.

It took 90 years for the federal Government to "herd the cats". In the meantime we found it was easiest to build a machine that could remove and replace the bogeys on a railcar while it was still moving.

[quote=henry quirk;762687I'm not an anarchist (at least: not in formal, capital 'A', sense).[/QUOTE]

By definition, you are.

"By definition, you are."
 

For the record there's (formal, political, philosophical) Anarchism and then there's ('get out of my way and leave me be') anarchism.

But -- okay -- I'm anarchistic.

*shrug*

No sir, I would not.

I don't really understand your question. By the examples I listed, I tried to explain my reasons for having PUBLIC options for these enterprises. I tried to show my thinking that a society that had ONLY private toll roads, ONLY private for profit schools would not be a good idea, therefore, I conclude that government should have a hand in roads and in schools.

Your phrasing "would I want all xyz to be public?" turns my logic on its head. I am not trying to figure out what things that should be undertaken ONLY by the government, though I have discovered a couple in the course of the conversation here: the military, prisons, judiciary. I'm trying to find out what kinds of things I believe the government should be involved in, things I think the government should not be excluded from.

Bigs, what I would like to know is what quality something has that makes it a government task. You say EDUCATION, and I can surely see the argument for it; a society is far better off with all people educated regardless of cost.

But not FOOD, despite the fact that if one cannot afford food one will die.

What traits does each need have that make them good or bad candidates for public operation?

Well, I don't completely know the answer to your question yet. I am working that out continuously, including here in this conversation. I have identified a couple recurring qualities. One is the prospect of the opposite, as I explained above. If I imagine a society with xyz that is ONLY provided by business and I think that's a very bad idea, then I calculate that government should be involved in xyz at some level. I have also identified that government is BIG (or can be big) and some things need BIG. Again this is more a situation of what needs to be done that I can't do and that I don't think is a good idea to have done by business only.

Hm. Maybe that's why I (semi-consciously) rejected your suggestion of public supermarkets. A grocery store, getting food to people is not something that requires BIG to happen. Of course, neither does schooling. More thinking out loud... I think that an uneducated child can be overlooked far more easily than a starving child. I think that our society would find starvation a hard limit. Even society zoomed in to the maximum level, a single individual. I, myself, have given food to others who were in need.

Your question, I don't want to stray far from it.I am working, thinking about this. Cliche though it may be, I think each one should be considered on its own merits, and that there isn't a mechanical formula to arrive at a definitive answer. I know this is not simple, or maybe not even clear. I'm working on it, we're working on it.

More thoughts.

I don't believe government is evil, that government is the enemy, that the gooberment wants all my money or to control me. I think that the structures of government, that the people in government are there MOSTLY for good reasons. Both good for the individual government employee and good for the people the individuals serve. Dammit. Still not the same on the page as it is in my heart.

Something else, like any other growing organism, unchecked growth can (usually) be bad. There's a completely valid perspective for reducing the footprint of government, and that should be subject to the same kind of examination that growth is subject to (or should be subject to). I don't think that "people" in the "government" sit around a big table thinking "what can we do to extend our reach into the private lives of the citizenry?" It's not happening like that. But I can see how it can feel that way. I do think that some folks come up with an idea, (like we're doing but on a smaller scale) and say, Hey, there oughta be a law. And a law or policy or regulation is created--boom--more government has been born. Ideally, the same kind of process could be applied to our laws and departments, Hey, xyz situation no longer exists, and since it was the justification for xyz law, let's get rid of it. That could happen.

That does happen. We've recently retired a tax here in Seattle, the justification for the tax was gone, and so was the tax. I think that there are some current laws that need to be in place, even though that ... thing... hasn't happened today. As an (extreme) example, I think murder should remain illegal, though there hasn't been a murder in my neighborhood in a long time. The same for civil rights legislation or environmental protection laws.

I also recognize that those nice people in government are sometimes power hungry (they are, after all, regular people). Laws can be made, and used, and enforced to gain, exert, and maintain power. This should be considered in my assessments.

...It's a lot to think about. I appreciate your help!

It's a tough question. I enjoy your thinking out loud.

Thank you for the encouragement and thank you for your input. I really meant it when I said "iron sharpens iron".

How about a Constitutional amendment that every law must include a "sunset clause".

Time is a unique asset/resource that seems to actuate people to review and improve.

We'll call it the BigV Amendment
.

ooooooooo

Famous ... interesting. :)

However, being one of those system guys (mentioned by UT in a different thread) I find a logical inconsistency in your proposition. Should we have, forever, a rule (a potent rule--a Constitutional amendment) that says we have to periodically revisit the need for a rule? What about this amendment? What about pre-existing laws? What about the Constitution itself? *boom* my head just exploded.

Seriously though, let's leave aside for a moment the level at which you suggest this rule be established. The basic idea of "Hey, is this still working?" is solid gold. Putting new rules into place with a built in expiration date has strong appeal, especially given that our government shows a FAR STRONGER tendency toward accretion than it does toward erosion. This is one way growth happens, and that's ok. Another way we deal with the aspects of government that no longer apply is that it's no longer obeyed or enforced. Though I am drawing a blank (understandable, since my point is we ignore them) in an effort to find a good example, sometimes laws just die, sink to the bottom and transmorgrify into bedrock. That's ok too.

But sometimes the situation changes and these bedrock pieces become hazards to navigation. I have heard attempts to characterize different networks across the country as information services, and not communication networks and are thereby exempt from some rule or other. I don't know the details just now, my point is that sometimes old and busted laws just die away, sometimes they present a problem.

You've made an excellent suggestion. Thanks.