If a rich person wants to pay for their own security force, why steal his money to pay for an army?

Question

what if he feels that his current security force, which he spends millions on a year, would provide him with all the secuirty he will ever need, why should he pay for an national army?

why do conservatives want to steal his money to pay for their own security?

why can't they just hire their own personal armies to take out Saddam if they feel he is a threat?

Answer 1

Because that would be lawlessness, and against international covenants.

Countries are sometimes forced to go to war with one another. There are codes of conduct which must be followed. If private citizens wrote their own foreign policy, they would often be in contradiction with the policy of their own government.

It almost seems funny to see movies depicting war during our Revolutionary period. Men would stand in a line and wait their turn to fire a shot. Opposing generals would have elegant lunches with one another and discuss the fine points of how the battle should be waged in a civilized manner, and at what time they should begin.

War has always had a military code of behavior. For example, if you surrender, you are supposed to be guaranteed medical attention to treat your wounds, food, and treatment that befits a person of your rank in the army. If you surrender, the enemy is bound by internationally recognized military codes of ethics. They cannot say, "Oh, it's too much bother to imprison you. We'll just shoot you now and get it over with".

When you hear about insurgents killing women and children, this is a severe breach in the rules of military engagement. Soldiers are only supposed to fight one another. Civilians are off limits. Wars are fought to make it impossible for the enemy to continue fighting. The general population of a country is not part of the fighting force. As long as they do not fight, they cannot be charged with war crimes.

In stark contrast, our soldiers are fighting as if they had one hand tied behind their backs. Terrorists can kill at will. Soldiers are often instructed not to fire at all. They are like sitting ducks. Soldiers can't bomb an apartment building in the hopes of killing a few people they want to target on the third floor. Our soldiers are fighting honorably, taking great personal risk to avoid injuring civilians. The insurgents and the terrorists feel no compulsion to protect the non-combatents. Women, children, the elderly, the wounded... they're all fair targets for the insurgents. Hence, they do not deserve the rights a regular soldier would receive, who was fighting on behalf of his country.

See the difference?

It may sound funny to you, but if there was no exercise of self-restraint in war, it would be complete chaos and barbarism. If everyone participated in the fighting, how could one side offer a truce, or surrender? How could one army lay down its arms if there was no assurance they would not be slaughtered once they gave up their weapons?

Do you know why we can't negotiate with terrorists? Because they do not owe their allegiance to any single government. If we wanted to make a deal with the terrorists, who could enforce the terms of the deal? Who would be authorized to speak on behalf of the terrorists? It just doesn't work this way in the real world.

Answer 2

Good question!
If you divide the UK military budget into the population, we could each own a machine gun and every street a tank.
You ask if the rich should pay for their own security, instead of all of us helping them? Perhaps, paradoxically, the protection of the few rich by law ensures the security of us all middle class by the same laws?

Answer 3

Well, why don't we just quit having police, military and govrnment altogether?

Answer 4

Saddam? Did he come back from the dead?...