Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boppers

(16,588 posts)
23. They already do.
Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:06 PM
Jan 2012

The super-rich can even buy their own governments, with armies attached....

However, I guess I'm proposing a US government without a costly, constant, paid, standing army....

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Why do austerity measures always need to target poor kids trying to do the right thing? Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #1
Thank you sarge43 Jan 2012 #12
Why should I get paid at all? boppers Jan 2012 #19
Why should anyone be paid to be police, then? TheWraith Jan 2012 #32
Should we expand the military to provide more employment opportunities? Hugabear Jan 2012 #27
. denbot Jan 2012 #2
+1 Muskypundit Jan 2012 #3
+1 JSnuffy Jan 2012 #13
The most worthless military are the contractors that often replace the regular military Guy Montag Jan 2012 #4
You mean, if our military was based on a paid force? boppers Jan 2012 #20
The regular military are accountable under rules of war Guy Montag Jan 2012 #30
Go back to ancient times when only the rich knew how to fight and bear arms? Zalatix Jan 2012 #5
Knowledge? No... boppers Jan 2012 #21
Sounds like how the Libertarians would fund an army. white_wolf Jan 2012 #6
Underfunded, ill equiped, poorly led, and lacking in training? oneshooter Jan 2012 #14
How many times were we invaded pre-WWII? boppers Jan 2012 #22
Pre-WW2, we had a regular army just like today. TheWraith Jan 2012 #33
Uh, no the funding wasn't *anywhere* near as huge. boppers Jan 2012 #34
Um, who could afford to be a member of the military if they had to pay their own way? Ecumenist Jan 2012 #7
Those who actually had something to lose. boppers Jan 2012 #18
Better yet, if you support any type of military aggression you must join the military Arctic Dave Jan 2012 #8
You know, I've always felt that if you want to declare war, FINE... Ecumenist Jan 2012 #10
But it works just the opposite of that. Lasher Jan 2012 #11
That's exactly the same fallacy as "if you don't want to invade Iraq, go and live there". N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #17
No, it is the logic of if you feel that strongly about Arctic Dave Jan 2012 #31
I have a better idea jmowreader Jan 2012 #9
What historically happens when militaries no longer reflect society? hack89 Jan 2012 #16
So very rich people can raise their own armies? hack89 Jan 2012 #15
They already do. boppers Jan 2012 #23
A majority of soldiers now are poor people. Zalatix Jan 2012 #24
Well, the 2nd Admendment does provide a good foundation hack89 Jan 2012 #28
Hrrrh, hrrrh, hrrrh gratuitous Jan 2012 #25
We already do your "nuke a silo" joke rustydog Jan 2012 #26
They paid me the princely sum of $79 a month when I joined up. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A different idea about mi...»Reply #23