Seeing that we will never all agree as to how much we ought to spend on the military, the degree and kind of threat we face, and what our military ought to be spent on, among other things, what would be a more democratic way to fund the military?
Among the options I could see:
1. Cut all direct government spending on the military and replace it with an income-tax earmark of let's say 2.5% of income. On the income tax statement, a section would be provided whereby you could choose to fund either the national military force or an international police force.
The national force would be subjected to Canadian laws only, as is the current Canadian military. The national force, being international, would be under UN command, could receive funding from any nation, would be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 well-trained and equipped men at any time, and would be based in any nation willing to host it, with Canada being wiling to host bases on Canadian soil for this force.
It's reasonable to assume that such a force would be only strong enough to defend Canada's populated areas, and would also make it more difficult for the government to engage in military operations abroad through a simple majority, seeing that such an operation would require the full concentration of Canada's defense budget, which could only be accessed either by having both the Canadian government and UN send both the national and international forces in a coordinated attack, or by having all taxpayers choose to give their 2.5% to the national rather than the international force. this would ensure that Canada could not fight a war abroad without broad support from the majority of Canadians or, alternatively, a simple majority of Canadians plus the support of the international community.
2. If any additional defense funding is required for more isolated locations, it would be the responsibility of the private sector to fund it. For example, if the concern is over mineral resources in scarcely populated areas of the Arctic, then any private company desiring to exploit the resources of the North could be required to meet a minimum standard of security as defined by legislation. This could be whatever the government dictates to the company, be it a minimum number of ships, submarines, aircraft, etc. as prescribed by the government. This would ensure that only those who actually benefit from the North or other isolated areas pay for the extra protection, with the standard military forces being responsible for the more traditional role of defending the people. This way, such companies would have to add such defense costs to company overhead and pass them on to consumers. If consumers are willing to pay the extra cost, then clearly the North is worth defending beyond its populated areas only. If not, then clearly not.
Why must we turn the military into some kind of socialist welfare-statist make-work department of the government's?
Any thoughts on your part as to where funding for the military ought to come from so as to ensure that military spending is fair for all Canadians and not just another excuse at a tax grab?
Among the options I could see:
1. Cut all direct government spending on the military and replace it with an income-tax earmark of let's say 2.5% of income. On the income tax statement, a section would be provided whereby you could choose to fund either the national military force or an international police force.
The national force would be subjected to Canadian laws only, as is the current Canadian military. The national force, being international, would be under UN command, could receive funding from any nation, would be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 well-trained and equipped men at any time, and would be based in any nation willing to host it, with Canada being wiling to host bases on Canadian soil for this force.
It's reasonable to assume that such a force would be only strong enough to defend Canada's populated areas, and would also make it more difficult for the government to engage in military operations abroad through a simple majority, seeing that such an operation would require the full concentration of Canada's defense budget, which could only be accessed either by having both the Canadian government and UN send both the national and international forces in a coordinated attack, or by having all taxpayers choose to give their 2.5% to the national rather than the international force. this would ensure that Canada could not fight a war abroad without broad support from the majority of Canadians or, alternatively, a simple majority of Canadians plus the support of the international community.
2. If any additional defense funding is required for more isolated locations, it would be the responsibility of the private sector to fund it. For example, if the concern is over mineral resources in scarcely populated areas of the Arctic, then any private company desiring to exploit the resources of the North could be required to meet a minimum standard of security as defined by legislation. This could be whatever the government dictates to the company, be it a minimum number of ships, submarines, aircraft, etc. as prescribed by the government. This would ensure that only those who actually benefit from the North or other isolated areas pay for the extra protection, with the standard military forces being responsible for the more traditional role of defending the people. This way, such companies would have to add such defense costs to company overhead and pass them on to consumers. If consumers are willing to pay the extra cost, then clearly the North is worth defending beyond its populated areas only. If not, then clearly not.
Why must we turn the military into some kind of socialist welfare-statist make-work department of the government's?
Any thoughts on your part as to where funding for the military ought to come from so as to ensure that military spending is fair for all Canadians and not just another excuse at a tax grab?
