SENATE BILL: End War Profiteering Act of 2014 (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

[TNF]

Why should someone be able to make a killing (pun intended) off of war production? This bill neutralizes the threat of an overtly influential military industrial complex by placing war production directly in the hands of the Republic itself.

[Simfan34]

Do you know how much the present lack of competition adds to defense costs? Due to requirements that stipulate we must source our weapons purchases from domestic producers, we're left with a handful of producers who place a reduced focus to cost-suppression or schedule-keeping. Centralising production would only make this worse, by reducing competition from little to none. If you want to weaken the military-industrial complex in this country, here's a suggestion- remove the protectionist barriers that give it its undue clout.

[Lumine]

I agree with Simfan on this one, I don't believe this is the right way to improve our defense sector. I'm certainly not a fan of complete privatization in defense matters, but this would cause more harm than good (and I object to the constitution of the board, specially in regards to having random people with an enormous amount of influence in the production of war material).

[Simfan34]

Also, members of the public chosen by lots? How on Earth are random members of the public going to be capable of deciding defense weaponry production, research, priorities, etc, etc? I mean, how does this work? Are you going to select some random person and tell them "Congratulations! You've been selected by government lottery to surrender your career and serve on the board of the state defense contractor, of which you know nothing about!"? The same, I guess, goes for the soldiers and the workers, although to a significantly reduced extent. And how are soldiers supposed to elect representatives? Wouldn't they be too busy, well, soldiering?

[TNF]

Also, members of the public chosen by lots? How on Earth are random members of the public going to be capable of deciding defense weaponry production, research, priorities, etc, etc? I mean, how does this work? Are you going to select some random person and tell them "Congratulations! You've been selected by government lottery to surrender your career and serve on the board of the state defense contractor, of which you know nothing about!"? The same, I guess, goes for the soldiers and the workers, although to a significantly reduced extent. And how are soldiers supposed to elect representatives? Wouldn't they be too busy, well, soldiering?

The average person isn't as dumb as you assume they are. We let them serve on juries, after all, and the nation hasn't collapsed into total anarchy yet. I'd wager it wouldn't be a real problem to elect soldiers' representatives either, given that in literally every industry, other workers take breaks from their duties to elect union reps and still manage to do their jobs as well.

[Lumine]

Also, members of the public chosen by lots? How on Earth are random members of the public going to be capable of deciding defense weaponry production, research, priorities, etc, etc? I mean, how does this work? Are you going to select some random person and tell them "Congratulations! You've been selected by government lottery to surrender your career and serve on the board of the state defense contractor, of which you know nothing about!"? The same, I guess, goes for the soldiers and the workers, although to a significantly reduced extent. And how are soldiers supposed to elect representatives? Wouldn't they be too busy, well, soldiering?

The average person isn't as dumb as you assume they are. We let them serve on juries, after all, and the nation hasn't collapsed into total anarchy yet. I'd wager it wouldn't be a real problem to elect soldiers' representatives either, given that in literally every industry, other workers take breaks from their duties to elect union reps and still manage to do their jobs as well.

They would know next to nothing about producing weapons, and I would rather trust the input of the heads of our armed services than three civilians and three to six union representatives when it comes to such a vital issue. I seriously doubt that weakening our military again and against with measures like this is truly what we should be doing to reform the Defense sector.

[Simfan34]

Also, members of the public chosen by lots? How on Earth are random members of the public going to be capable of deciding defense weaponry production, research, priorities, etc, etc? I mean, how does this work? Are you going to select some random person and tell them "Congratulations! You've been selected by government lottery to surrender your career and serve on the board of the state defense contractor, of which you know nothing about!"? The same, I guess, goes for the soldiers and the workers, although to a significantly reduced extent. And how are soldiers supposed to elect representatives? Wouldn't they be too busy, well, soldiering?

The average person isn't as dumb as you assume they are. We let them serve on juries, after all, and the nation hasn't collapsed into total anarchy yet. I'd wager it wouldn't be a real problem to elect soldiers' representatives either, given that in literally every industry, other workers take breaks from their duties to elect union reps and still manage to do their jobs as well.

It's hard for deployed soldiers to "take a break from their duties", I'd imagine. And this is a bit more complex than a court case where all the facts are presented out in terms the jury can understand. The idea that we'd have to put our defense policy in simplistic terms for random people to understand does not sound like it would create efficiency of any sort.

[TNF]

I would feel a lot more comfortable with our defense policies if they were made by people who actually fought in the wars pushed by the MIC and their toadies in government or people that could theoretically get drafted and put in that position, rather than by faceless capitalist pigs who see war as a way to cash in.

[Lumine]

I would feel a lot more comfortable with our defense policies if they were made by people who actually fought in the wars pushed by the MIC and their toadies in government or people that could theoretically get drafted and put in that position, rather than by faceless capitalist pigs who see war as a way to cash in.

Fighting in a war and creating the weapons to fight said war is certainly not the same, and a good deal of experience in one of those areas does not make you automatically qualified for the other. The objective of the defense sector is to produce the most efficient weapons and military equipment to help our troops and win the wars, and it seems to me that this bill is assuming that the supposed lack of military service of the defense contractors (and we're assuming they are a bunch of "faceless capitalist pigs", which is both extremely offensive and irrelevant even if that were the case) does not enable them to do a proper job.

As long as they do the job our government asks from them and their efforts continue to help our military to improve itself, why should we punish them for making a profit?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

At what cost?

Imagine the cost of taking over all these defense and weapons producing companies! The horror!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The best thing for those troops who have to fight in these wars though, is to ensure they have the best possible equiptment at the most reasonable price. I don't think nationalization will accomplish that.


The military is the one place where can make exceptions for a lot of things, precise because it is so deadly serious. I don't think you should have soldiers unionize because not only is a dangerous and disruptive, but would likely produce a situation where is no counter leverage. If a private sectory union goes to far, the business shuts down. If a public one goes to far, the gov't will move to ensure that the public interest is kept, regardless of the cost, so many municipalities are bankrupt precisely because of this (as well as some horrible tax policies, but that does't even begin to cover it). With the military there is even less of an option because saying no doesn't mean you lose the company, it means you lose the country.

I don't think the military should be 'democratized' (as traditionally understood' with soldier's councils electing leaders and voting on what orders to obey. What if they vote to march on Nyman? Civilian appointed military leaders who are to be respected or face charges is a far better for democracy historically then a democraticized Army.

So I think that generally, the military is not "just like anyone else" in many ways.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can open a vote in about thirty minutes if it is desired?

[Prince of Salem]

Unfortunately, good ideas and intentions don't always make good policies. I'd rather have some other kind of regulations... or some other radically different idea. Don't think this would work.

Opposed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators a final vote is now open on the underlying legislation, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[TNF]

Aye

[Lumine]

Nay.

[Goldwater]

NAY

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Nay.

[President Tyrion]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY


This has the votes to fail, SEnators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[bore]

Nay

[DC Al Fine]

Nay