Conservatives and support for our troops
MisterE strongly opposes the lack of material support for our troops. Often, I find myself similarly outraged - it is too easy to fly a flag and make a speech praising our troops when the cameras are on you - then hand money to the nice men in suits who will bankroll your political career when the cameras are gone.
But after listing a fairly long-standinging group of complaints (esp. the lack of armor, whether personal or vehicle), MisterE wrongly concludes
This is conservative republican bull shit for you. Sacrifice people’s lives for money.
Failing to support troops is NOT conservative politics of any kind.
First, some political theory:
- Conservative theory focuses on giving to others what they’ve earned and meeting responsibilities.
- Liberal theory focuses on producing the most that is possible while renewing the community and avoiding harms to any group. Troops should be given certain provisions, balanced against other national priorities.
- A libertarian believes that society will spread wealth in the most efficient manner, unless government interferes. Thus, our troops are already getting everything that they’re entitled to - unless the government stopped them from getting it.
Now, conservatives and liberals would both probably seek to ensure that the troops have the armor they require - but they’d see it differently.
Conservatives would say, "We must give whatever is required to those who risk their lives for our country!"
Liberals would say - "Gee, for the price of one nuclear attack submarine, we could provide every troop with body armor AND outfit all the vehicles with some form of hardening…"
And a libertarian? "Well, we’re already paying for what we ought to pay - unless the government somehow screwed it all up."
Take the two libertarian variants on arguments:
(1) States rights. Libertarians oppose government intervention, and federal government intervention most of all. Which means - if the people of Idaho want to leave their troops naked and vulnerable, they’re entitled to do so.
It’s necessary for our freedom that Idaho national guard stand out there without armor - because, if the federal government were to give a handout to Idaho, then they would destroy the freedom.
Of course nobody makes this argument this way - they only make it for abortion and other issues. The joys of logical consistency…
(2) Free market arguments. Technically, this is a bad argument. A "national military" is a quintessential "non-free market" solution to security problems: if we really wanted a free market here, we’d privatize the military entirely (aka, mercenaries, or the modern equivalent, "private security consultants.")
Now, since the military can never be a truly "free market" system - we have to figure out "how free" is appropriate.
For it to be a capitalist system, the providers of essential equipment must operate from a profit motive. Which means, they have to earn profits - at the expense of the troops.
Which shouldn’t be a major problem. After all, some $400 billion has been spent on Iraq by now - and it’d only cost about $2-3 billion for body armor. Surely there’s enough profit left over, right?
Which moves the discussion into a slightly different direction - one that a true libertarian can’t comprehend: "how much profit is fair?"
The libertarian can’t even consider this question: whatever the market gives is "fair" - unless someone interferes with the market and steals. If someone at Hailburton, et. al., engaged in a crime - then they’ve distorted the market. Otherwise, all is well.
And there’s the rub: the contractors, being anything but stupid, seldom engage in overt crimes - and yet, the market, despite a massive budget outlay, has failed to provide body armor that the troops need (and failed to equip their vehicles to protect against roadside bombs).
whereIstand Tags