Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Nationalization of arms manufacturing?

spellfail
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:00:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I fail to understand the concept of nationalizing the manufacturing of arms. What are its pros and cons? Why should we or should not nationalize the manufacturing of arms?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:35:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pros:

Government t co try all gubs and will likeley increase gun control...
Wait that's a con

Cons:

More gun control
Unconstitutional
Would hurt the private sector which creates millions of jobs
Pisses NRA off
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:13:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pros:
Greater control upon which types of individuals get arms and greater development funding.

Cons:
Decreased development in terms of new weapons design and cutting edge military concepts.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:49:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:00:57 PM, spellfail wrote:
I fail to understand the concept of nationalizing the manufacturing of arms. What are its pros and cons? Why should we or should not nationalize the manufacturing of arms?

Firstly, regarding point 1 and 2 of 16k's post, they're not true, but policies that may be enacted by a totalitarian regime alongside the policy. In other words, unless your political ideology is best expressed by Big Brother in 1984, then those points aren't really relevant (and there isn't a part of the constitution that says "no nationalisation of the weapon institution, he's just ranting about gun control still). Point 4 is a pro (in other words, it's a normative not positive point). Point 3 is actually the only relevant one, except its just completely and utterly wrong in every way anyway. A public institution by a conservative model would make a tall structure of the industry, meaning more are employed unnecessarily, meaning more problems for the industry (ineffciency) but when run by the government, more equity. Further, nationalisation doesn't mean firing everyone and becoming a pacifist nation, it'd mean maybe +-10% either way due to massive infrastructure change. And the general employment currently is a fair bit under 200,000, at most.

http://www.nssf.org...

Essentially, it can be put down to a few things:

PRO

More gun control on the safe guns allowed into the country, the guns that actually work into the country, etc.
Fake guns will be decreased if the industry is corrupt.
If industry is inherently oligopolistic (which is arguably true), then it will shuffle the markets if only one is nationalised, or make the market equitable again without severe efficiency problems. Or general equity improvement.
Allows state to gain weapons cheaper, as the state is the major user of the weapons as wholesalers to sell them on.

CON

Nozick's theory of the free market
A threat to efficiency in a free market
As per some ideologies, a threat to equitability
If government is corrupt, severe threat to efficiency and equitability
Companies lose major suppliers and consumers due to political reasons, e.g. embargoes and similar.
Companies become massively and overly influenced by political issues (breaking up of the company, or kicking out successful but unpopular business tycoons may occur).

If you want more help or expansion, feel free to pm me.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:56:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 1:13:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Pros:
Greater control upon which types of individuals get arms and greater development funding.

Which increases crime, make that a con.


Cons:
Decreased development in terms of new weapons design and cutting edge military concepts.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:17:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nationalizing arms manufacturing would remove competition and innovation from the arms industry. Remember that it was industrialists that were responsible for the production miracle during World War 2, not a centralized government. We'd be at a disadvantage if we became involved in another major war.

Also remember that many of the products and gadgets that the military adopts are either slight modifications of the original product, or an unaltered original product of a private arms manufacturer. As someone who has been in the military, I can tell you that weapons and weapon accessories made by private companies are FAR superior to military issued gear. In fact it was so superior that I personally went out and bought magazines, vests, and gear accessories with my own money, rather than use the standard military issued gear.

I can also tell you that if we were allowed to buy our own weapons, I would have done that too. I know a lot of my fellow Marines felt the same way.

I do however, believe that the arms industry is one of the few industries that should habe at least minimal regulations. The arms industry is vital to the national defense, so we should subsidize them if we need to during a time of war or in preperation for war. We should also ensure that the arms industry isn't selling weapons and military gear to countries that we consider to be our enemies, or countries that violate human rights. Finally we should ensure that the arms industry isn't producing tanks, nuclear weapons, or aircraft without government contracts.

That's just my take on it though, and I have history on my side.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 2:17:27 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Nationalizing arms manufacturing would remove competition and innovation from the arms industry. Remember that it was industrialists that were responsible for the production miracle during World War 2, not a centralized government. We'd be at a disadvantage if we became involved in another major war.

Also remember that many of the products and gadgets that the military adopts are either slight modifications of the original product, or an unaltered original product of a private arms manufacturer. As someone who has been in the military, I can tell you that weapons and weapon accessories made by private companies are FAR superior to military issued gear. In fact it was so superior that I personally went out and bought magazines, vests, and gear accessories with my own money, rather than use the standard military issued gear.

I can also tell you that if we were allowed to buy our own weapons, I would have done that too. I know a lot of my fellow Marines felt the same way.

I do however, believe that the arms industry is one of the few industries that should habe at least minimal regulations. The arms industry is vital to the national defense, so we should subsidize them if we need to during a time of war or in preperation for war. We should also ensure that the arms industry isn't selling weapons and military gear to countries that we consider to be our enemies, or countries that violate human rights. Finally we should ensure that the arms industry isn't producing tanks, nuclear weapons, or aircraft without government contracts.

That's just my take on it though, and I have history on my side.

Totally agree with what I've put in bold (and I know people in the military who would agree with the former part of your statement.) That being said, it will not happen anytime soon. Private U.S. arms companies not selling weapons to those places? That's highly desirable, and laughably unrealistic. Those very companies not only do that, but have enough political sway to keep it that way, and to sell their own weapons to the U.S. based on the overall increase in perceived threats to national security. It's sick if you actually think about it.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 3:16:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 3:01:59 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:35:01 AM, 16kadams wrote:

Cons:
Pisses NRA off

This is a Con?

This. Put this somewhere, I'm pretty sure...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 4:05:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 3:01:59 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:35:01 AM, 16kadams wrote:

Cons:
Pisses NRA off

This is a Con?

Yes
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 4:09:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is there that much of a "free market" in the arms industry? I mean, it doesn't seem like there's that much scrutiny (eg: malfunctioning firearms in Vietnam)? Especially as people can be rendered unelectable for suggesting that less $ should, in effect, go to that sector.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 4:37:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:00:57 PM, spellfail wrote:
I fail to understand the concept of nationalizing the manufacturing of arms. What are its pros and cons? Why should we or should not nationalize the manufacturing of arms?

Nobody else seems to want to mention that a huge Pro would be that private weapons companies wouldn't be able to sell arms to so-called "enemy" states, and then in turn make a huge profit selling larger amounts of weapons back to the U.S. government. And they wouldn't have the profit margins to lobby for pro-war (and thus pro-their own profits) candidates and legislation. Which is in reality one of the main reasons we even have war.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." ― Smedley D. Butler, "War is a Racket:" The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 6:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 1:56:42 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:13:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Pros:
Greater control upon which types of individuals get arms and greater development funding.

Which increases crime, make that a con.


I was referring to the sale of advanced weapons to Nations we do not support, not civilians.


Cons:
Decreased development in terms of new weapons design and cutting edge military concepts.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.