Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (185856)	4/28/2006 3:41:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, you and Geode etc have a LOT in common with that proposal. Your dispute is what you will do with the state serfs who shall be forced to comply with your demands, and who gets to order them around. I far, far, prefer freedom, self-determination, voluntary exchange of value, free markets, capitalism, to such serfdom with Kremlin-style central planning of "national service". Mqurice PS: Those not working at the coal face of confrontation should pay what the market will bear for those talented enough and interested enough to provide military services. <And how do we pay for all of this? I believe the savings we'd achieve by not paying the (relatively) high paying salaries of the all-volunteer military (including all those benefits)> Confiscating the labour of incompetents is no substitute for paying the going rate for the professionals. I wouldn't want a conscripted doctor to work on my offspring either. I prefer to pay the going rate, expensive though it might be. Apart from the fact that it would be ethically evil to conscript workers' services. That's just slavery by another name. How anyone could be so evil is beyond me. Also, if the true price was paid, there would be less inclination to be militarily belligerent. Price is a great incentive to avoid foolish ideas. OPM [and lives] is a great way of avoiding those costs.