Why don't we use the military to build and repair roads etc. like the Romans?

[Swordsmyth]

If security considerations didn't demand that they perform some military task during peacetime (e.g. training), they'd be best released.

By not releasing them, you're misallocating resources: i.e. from whatever productive industries they'd enter, to nonsensical state road building.

You obviously don't believe in a standing army, I do.
IF you have a standing army they might as well be used to maintain government infrastructure during peace time.

The armies were mostly employed in Keynesian type activities, cyclically digging and filling ditches, etc, to keep them too busy for politics.

...that their work be productive was relatively unimportant.

As I said to him:

IF that is true that is not a reason we shouldn't do it, all that matters to my question is that the legions built and repaired many roads and bridges etc.

[Raginfridus]

IF that is true that is not a reason we shouldn't do it, all that matters to my question is that the legions built and repaired many roads and bridges etc.

Its called the Army Corps of Engineers, but do you really want the whole army conscripted for public works?

[Swordsmyth]

Its called the Army Corps of Engineers, but do you really want the whole army conscripted for public works?

The Army Corps of Engineers was civilianized a long time ago.
And yes that is what I am suggesting.

[Raginfridus]

So take 90% of their workforce away, just to hand it over to another labor pool, only who don't have the numbers skilled in the field. Why not just cut the civilians out and privatize at that point?

[Swordsmyth]

So take 90% of their workforce away, just to hand it over to another labor pool, only who don't have the numbers skilled in the field.

Whose work force? Whoever you mean it doesn't matter, I want a smaller army that increases the size of the labor pool. And as far as the skill sets go, the army can train them, the required skills are similar to or the same as things the army already does and they can hire experts to teach any that aren't until the army has the required institutional memory.

Why not just cut the civilians out and privatize at that point?

Privatization would be cutting the government out, what do you mean?
In any case I am suggesting that the government do as much as possible with the army before hiring civilians.

[tod evans]

In any case I am suggesting that the government do as much as possible with the army before hiring civilians.

If you're dead set on using existing government labor to build roads you'd be better off using bureaucrats.

Get the suit-n-tie, silk-panty crowd out in the dirt and sun and keep them away from pens and guns. No more edicts and no more 'enforcement' of the current edicts...

[Swordsmyth]

If you're dead set on using existing government labor to build roads you'd be better off using bureaucrats.

Get the suit-n-tie, silk-panty crowd out in the dirt and sun and keep them away from pens and guns. No more edicts and no more 'enforcement' of the current edicts...

I want them fired.

[TheCount]

It is a question of professional training and readiness, the Militia has it's place but you need Regulars as the backbone of your forces and to train the militia.

If the purpose of regulars is to be professional and ready, why would you have them building roads?

[Swordsmyth]

If the purpose of regulars is to be professional and ready, why would you have them building roads?

They can do both.

[Raginfridus]

They can do both.

They really can't.

[TheCount]

They can do both.

If they can be ready and professional without training full time, then why would you have them be full time?


Either readiness and professionalism requires them to be regulars, in which case having them building roads would be counterproductive, or else the needs of readiness and professionalism could be reached by a military/reserve/part time force of some description. You can't have it both ways.

[Swordsmyth]

If they can be ready and professional without training full time, then why would you have them be full time?


Either readiness and professionalism requires them to be regulars, in which case having them building roads would be counterproductive, or else the needs of readiness and professionalism could be reached by a military/reserve/part time force of some description. You can't have it both ways.

You can't ask part-timers for more than a small fraction of their lives, at some point the life disruption is too great and they won't join unless it is full time, but full timers have enough time on their hands to do infrastructure work.

[Pericles]

It's piss off government contractors and siphon off their generous donations from their government cronies.

Thread could have ended right here.

[r3volution 3.0]

You obviously don't believe in a standing army, I do.
IF you have a standing army they might as well be used to maintain government infrastructure during peace time.

If you're paying soldiers all year round, yet don't actually need them for military purposes all year round (incl. training, etc), you're wasting your money. The solution is to stop paying them during the time you don't need them; not give them busywork. It makes sense to have a standing army when you actually need soldiers to be "standing" 24/7/365; it does not make sense to have a standing army just to have "free" labor to build roads. It's the same in business. Sometimes, an employer will give an otherwise idle employee some fairly pointless busywork, but this is a result of miscalculation as to how much labor was needed; employers don't deliberately hire more labor than they need just to give their employees busywork.

[Swordsmyth]

If you're paying soldiers all year round, yet don't actually need them for military purposes all year round (incl. training, etc), you're wasting your money. The solution is to stop paying them during the time you don't need them; not give them busywork. It makes sense to have a standing army when you actually need soldiers to be "standing" 24/7/365; it does not make sense to have a standing army just to have "free" labor to build roads. It's the same in business. Sometimes, an employer will give an otherwise idle employee some fairly pointless busywork, but this is a result of miscalculation as to how much labor was needed; employers don't deliberately hire more labor than they need just to give their employees busywork.

Nobody will join if you don't hire them on a year-round basis, people have to support themselves and their families.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nobody will join if you don't hire them on a year-round basis, people have to support themselves and their families.

You are aware that the national guard (for instance) exists?

[Swordsmyth]

You are aware that the national guard (for instance) exists?

They are not "Regulars" they don't have the same proficiency that "Regulars" have unless they spent time in the "Regulars".

[r3volution 3.0]

They are not "Regulars" they don't have the same proficiency that "Regulars" have unless they spent time in the "Regulars".

Of course, but I was only rebutting your claim that "nobody will join if you don't hire them on a year-round basis."

Lots of people will join on a part-time basis.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course, but I was only rebutting your claim that "nobody will join if you don't hire them on a year-round basis."

Lots of people will join on a part-time basis.

Two weeks and some week ends a year can be crammed into a normal life because we have laws to force employers to co-operate, if you increased the duty time it couldn't be made to fit with another job to support the man and his family the rest of the year.

[r3volution 3.0]

Two weeks and some week ends a year can be crammed into a normal life because we have laws to force employers to co-operate, if you increased the duty time it couldn't be made to fit with another job to support the man and his family the rest of the year.

Part-time armies have existed throughout history, with or without (mostly without) any such legal protections.

Haven't you yourself been saying you favor a standing army and a militia?

[Swordsmyth]

Part-time armies have existed throughout history, with or without (mostly without) any such legal protections.

Haven't you yourself been saying you favor a standing army and a militia?

The amount of time required for Regulars to maintain professional competence is too great to accommodate any other job whether the militia can get along without the laws to make their employers co-operate or not.

[r3volution 3.0]

The amount of time required for Regulars to maintain professional competence is too great to accommodate any other job

Like building roads?

[Swordsmyth]

Like building roads?

NO, you know very well I meant a paying position with a private company.
There would be enough free time that the military could put them to work on infrastructure because it was already paying their year round salaries.
NO private company is going to employ someone who has six months or more dedicated to the military when they could hire someone who is available all year.

[r3volution 3.0]

NO, you know very well I meant a paying position with a private company.
There would be enough free time that the military could put them to work on infrastructure because it was already paying their year round salaries.
NO private company is going to employ someone who has six months or more dedicated to the military when they could hire someone who is available all year.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing at this point and, to be honest, this topic doesn't especially interest me, so I'm just going to leave it there.

[heavenlyboy34]

I actually agree with you. In addition, defense in this day and age requires having quite a lot of very specialized equipment on hand, which must be maintained.

And I'd rather the standing army only be large enough to do these things. I don't care for the idea of maintaining a bunch of extra grunts to play roadworker.



Here I will never agree with you. We have a fine highway system in place. We have through routes which connect at state lines all over the continental U.S. Federal involvement has been growing, and so has federal tyranny. This is no coincidence. The federal government has used withholding of federal highway funds to force the states to enact all sorts of goofy tyranny, from changing drinking ages to operating drunk driving checkpoints to things completely unrelated to motor vehicles. I'm ready to repeal the federal motor fuels tax and be done with the whole thing.

And state militiamen being roadworkers is fine--they're militiamen, and by definition, they have day jobs. I don't care what those day jobs are. But I see no reason for state militias to take over road maintenance. They should be able to attract militiamen with a wider variety of interests and civilian skillsets than that.

Going to have to disagree on this one, brother. It's fine for moving goods and materiel(that's what it was made for).For moving people-not so much. There are better models in Europe to emulate for moving civilian traffic around.

[acptulsa]

Going to have to disagree on this one, brother. It's fine for moving goods and materiel(that's what it was made for).For moving people-not so much. There are better models in Europe to emulate for moving civilian traffic around.

Eisenhower sold federal involvement in the Interstate system as a defense necessity. The highway systems of the various states were intended for domestic purposes, and the U.S. highway system (white shields) involved only enough federal involvement to encourage the states to knit their systems into a network that was suited to travel beyond their borders.

As for the European models, their highways aren't much to write home about. Most are designed, at best, to get you from one frontier checkpoint to another. At worst they're specifically designed to make you sell your car and vow to travel by rail next time.

Amusingly, the military seems to disagree with you about the Interstate system's sterling usefulness to them. One only seldom sees military convoys on them any more. They generally move their tanks around by rail and their men by the most fuel-inefficient method possible--jet transport aircraft.

[XNavyNuke]

It would save tax money and give them something to do during peacetime.

UPDATE: Poll added.

Can you stipulate that the army can use calones like the Roman army?

XNN

[VIDEODROME]

Dude that's freaking genius. Can you imagine the state putting up a toll on a stretch of road only to have a private land owner make his own road to bypass the toll?? Put up a big ass sign that says "AVOID THE TOLL --->>>"

In most cases you can skip the tollway taking State or US Routes. For example, Route 20 that runs parallel to the Indian and Ohio Turnpike toward Toledo.

I'm a truck driver and my cheapass company has a policy of having us run around the tollways. If big trucks can do it, cars can do it.

[Swordsmyth]

Can you stipulate that the army can use calones like the Roman army?

XNN

The driving of the supply mule-train, and the care of the pack-animals, was in the hands of the legion's calones, professional camp-servants, most likely also on the army pay-roll, who accompanied the unit everywhere on campaign. These men were armed as light infantry and given basic combat-training, so that they could protect the mule-train and, in emergencies, the marching-camp itself. 200-300 calones would accompany each legion. (Calones were distinct from the personal servants – slaves or freedmen – whom officers generally took with them on campaign).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army

Sounds like a Transport MOS.

I would leave that to others who know better to decide.

[pcosmar]

This is a theoretical question about what WE should do if we ever get power.

after disbanding the standing armies?