Would you voluntarily support murder?

[jts]

Did you hear the story of the chicken and the pig? The chicken provided eggs and the pig provided bacon. The chicken made a contribution but the pig made a commitment. Enough people volunteer to join the military and fight in the war. That is a commitment. Giving money to the war is only a contribution.

[KacyRay]

jts, your story, while irrelevant, is also misguided.

First off, the slogan that we're an "all volunteer force" is pretty misleading. We're only volunteers in the same sense that a the police force is also a volunteer organization. We all have contracts, we all receive a compensation package, we all rely on our paychecks to survive. The only thing we "volunteered" to do was to become a government-contracted professional supporter and defender of the US Constitution (for a reasonable fee).

Only guys like Pat Tillman can claim to have "volunteered", and you can count the number of those kinds of guys on one hand. Not enough to win a war, I'll put it to you that way.

But I'm guessing from your comment that you are going to ignore the points I made in my comment.

That's okay... luckily there aren't enough people around that don't share your idealism that we don't have to worry about financing our national security (yet).

[FuturistNow]

KacyRay, that tid bit about psychology has nothing to do with people's reaction to a war. The time scales and social situations are entirely different. Voting isn't a good analogy either.

We live in a world where you actively see how much money a charitable campaign is earning, if the earnings stagnate people will notice. Beyond this there are shaming methods that can be used to help motivate people to contribute to their own defense. An example is that maybe a chamber of commerce will refuse to sell to people who don't have a card that says they donated enough money.

As I mentioned above there is also the fact that the larges businesses that participate in foreign markets may need protection from those local governments. Those firms shouldn't get the protection of our intelligence agencies or military for free (that basically turns into imperialism), the should pay for it. This can help maintain the capital of the military. Lotteries and donations can do the rest.

[tmj]

How would such a system work, corporations directly funding military operations work in practice? What would safeguard not only the capital of military but also the Capitol(of the military)?

[FuturistNow]

How would such a system work, corporations directly funding military operations work in practice? What would safeguard not only the capital of military but also the Capitol(of the military)?

1) Remember that the US military has been used to secure foreign markets in the past.

A good example is that of Matthew C Perry, who bullied Japan into signing a trade agreement with the US, (I have mixed feelings about the treaty they signed). I don't mind that the military forced their dictator to allow his people to trade with us, but I do mind that the US military was used to perform a task that mostly benefited a few Japanese and American business men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C_Perry#The_Perry_Expedition:_Opening_of_Japan.2C_1852-1854

If capitalists (or other nations) want to expand trade zones, they should pay that cost themselves rather than forcing me to pay for it.

2) A standing army that did not fight in foreign wars but performed other important tasks (most likely anti-terrorism) would still be maintained. Beyond this the market for mercenaries would have to be strictly monitored and would still be subject to the UCMJ.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The way I've heard the chicken and pig story in the marketing world goes like this:

Ham and eggs. For a chicken, it's all in a day's work. For a pig, it's a lifetime commitment.

Michael