Kryptos said:

demiu5 said:

DividedQuantum said:

As for the military, I would say that 40-50% of the current military allocation of funds would be more than enough to be superior still than any other military on Earth, and the way government works, a lot of that would just be waste, so you'd still have a roughly comparable capability. I think that would quite possibly be a lot more than strong "enough," but I think we can agree that that would suffice, and we'd be able to fund our discretionary budget amply.

Enough is hard to define these days, because so many people feel it's Uncle Sam's moral obligation to police the globe. And that's really a cover story for geo-politics and the lust for power and control, but nevermind. If we ceased our imperialist behaviors, enough would be tiny compared to what we have now, imo. But 40-50% of what we have now? Fund everything overnight? Why can't we agree on that?


And I agree that authentic meritocracies/aristocracies-worth-a-damn are very difficult to find in the historical record. I really like your points there.

---

an entity "has to" spend twice as much on "defense" as every other nation combined when every other nation in the world despises the actions of said entity

---

To respond to DQ first: keep in mind that cutting military spending would also put a *lot* of people on the unemployment line. Even a modest cut would have significant effects. While some of these people (officers, specialists) could easily be picked up by the private sector immediately, Private Joe Infantry and nothing else is a bit fucked.

To respond to demiu5:
Maybe we should try spending that money on being less of a gigantic, gaping asshole to the rest of the world, so they don't have a bone to pick?

Something else related to military specifically, that I find quite interesting, is that other nations on the planet don't even need to do R&D anymore. The recent release of the NSA hacking tools, and the subsequent cyberattacks using those tools, demonstrates a clear trend. We make the biggest, baddest guns, but then we put them behind a paper door with a shitty lock, and everyone that wants the biggest, baddest, guns just has to kick down the door and stroll out with it. Because, let's be honest here, we don't spend money on defense. Or, for that matter, defense of our coolest toys. We spend money on offense, and hope that the best defense is a good offense.

Which is why the NSA is now scrambling madly to figure out a way to beat it's own attack software. They didn't plan on having it jacked, and they didn't develop countermeasures because that takes time and its like 3:30 on a Friday.

---

accident, or no, you know those movies...with the security companies...like...Eraser.

that is going to be a real thing

DividedQuantum said:

It's very interesting to see how politics changes over time. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, things were very different. I thought it would be fun to gauge which side modern conservatives and liberals might have been on.

Here were their positions:


Federalists

strong central government
strong military
central bank, national debt
monarchical leanings
federal republic
increase taxes, spending
aristocracy


Republicans

smaller central government
states' rights
agrarianism
social/civic liberty
pure democracy
cut taxes, spending
no aristocracy


Examples of Federalists include Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and John Jay (and to some extent George Washington, who was officially an independent but leaned that way). Republicans included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson.

What party would you have supported? And why?

---

demiu5 said:

an entity "has to" spend twice as much on "defense" as every other nation combined when every other nation in the world despises the actions of said entity

---