Andrew D wrote: Gob: Why are you so afraid of Australia's having to pay a modest fee for the protection which the U.S. navy provides?
Afraid? What modest fee?
Andrew D wrote:I pay for the police who protect me (to the extent to which they are willing and able) from harm when I am out and about. Why should Australia not pay a modest fee for the police (the U.S. navy) who protect Australian shipping on the high seas?
Well done you.
Andrew D wrote:For a change, no more bullshit.
You started it.
Andrew D wrote: No more blathering about anything other than a simple question.
Ok massa boss...
Andrew D wrote:Just a direct answer to a simple question: Why should Australia not pay a modest fee for the protection which the U.S. navy provides?
Because we don't need to.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Or to put it another way, until the situation changes, and international cooperation is not good enough for Mad President Andrew the VI, and he institutes his whacky plans, , we’ll continue to have good working relationships with the nice people of America.
Do you really expect me to sign up to any “tax” or tribute” which you care to pull out of your arse Andrew? Seriously? Are you that delusional? Give me a figure man.
Or how about this, the US under Mad President Andrew the VI decides only to cooperate with servile nations, no problem. Aus gets a better offer of protection from the Chinese people, half the cost of the US “tribute”, so we sign up with them.
Or maybe the commonwealth countries would form a mutual protection pact, or Aus would join with the European navies.
You seem to have walked down a dead end street Andrew, and are full of sound and fury but going nowhere fast. You still haven't told me who you're protecting us from BTW.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Pursuant to the taxation model, there is no implied threat. If you don't pay the tax, you don't get the service. Nothing about that is implied. It is explicit.
You can consider the withdrawal of the U.S.'s protective service a threat if you like. If I do not pay my taxes, the relevant taxing authority will eventually garnish my wages, seize my property, and eventually even put me in prison. The mere prospect of losing a service which one declines to pay for hardly stacks up to that.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
I previously tossed out a suggestion -- "say, 2% of the gross value of the goods shipped under U.S. protection" -- but that is all it was: a tossed-out suggestion. The precise number (or numbers, because poor nations might not be taxed as much as rich nations, or even taxed at all) I leave in the first instance to those with greater knowledge than mine of the economic intricacies involved and then to the negotiating process that would ultimately result in an agreement.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Gob wrote:Aus gets a better offer of protection from the Chinese people, half the cost of the US “tribute”, so we sign up with them.
Or maybe the commonwealth countries would form a mutual protection pact, or Aus would join with the European navies.
For the umpty-zillionth time, Australia, the commonwealth countries, the Europeans, and any one else is/are perfectly free to decline the U.S.'s offer of protective services for a modest fee (at least enough to defray the net costs incurred by the U.S. in light of whatever benefits the U.S. receives which may offset the gross costs incurred by the U.S.).
If Australia wants to commit the security of its international shipping to China -- if Australia believes that the only price of becoming dependent on China would be whatever fee China charged for its protective services -- good luck with that. But when Australia finds its balls squeezed in a Chinese vice, guess what country Australia will appeal to for help?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
I don't see any significant value for either of us in continuing this discussion, Gob.
You evidently believe that the U.S. should continue its role as the world's unpaid policeman -- that the U.S. should continue to enable other countries, including countries better off than the U.S., to feed on the U.S.'s largesse.
I do not.
What more is there to say?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
OK, the U.S. Flag fleet represents only 2% of world maritime freight tonnage.
But the U.S. Navy protects almost all of the world's commercial shipping.
Doesn't that mean that 90+% of the shipping which the U.S. Navy protects is the shipping of other nations? And doesn't that strengthen the case for the U.S.'s no longer being the world's waterboy for shipping protection? For the U.S. finally to get some just compensation -- or at least some compensation -- for the service which it has been providing for free?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Andrew D wrote:I don't see any significant value for either of us in continuing this discussion, Gob.
You evidently believe that the U.S. should continue its role as the world's unpaid policeman -- that the U.S. should continue to enable other countries, including countries better off than the U.S., to feed on the U.S.'s largesse.
I do not.
What more is there to say?
How about; you get your house in order, we'll get ours.
How about; what we are looking at is the US changing 50+ years of behaviour, good luck with that.
How about; we'll it's the US's problem, stop thinking that any change Australia has to make should take priority.
How about; don't "give away" what you cannot afford.
How about; what you see as your largesse your government and armed forces see as necessary.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Today, the U.S. Navy simply doesn’t have enough surface ships, aircraft carriers and submarines to cover the regional hot spots of a volatile world. One recent sign of America’s weakened status is that the U.S. Navy had no aircraft carrier or even an Amphibious Ready Group anywhere in the Mediterranean on Sept. 11 when al Qaeda-linked terrorists attacked and firebombed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Despite it being the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and despite multiple urgent requests for greater protection by Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. military had no forces in the entire eastern Mediterranean at the time of the attack. The result was that American sovereign territory was attacked and our consulate was overrun with four Americans killed, including the ambassador.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Andrew D wrote:OK, the U.S. Flag fleet represents only 2% of world maritime freight tonnage.
But the U.S. Navy protects almost all of the world's commercial shipping.
Doesn't that mean that 90+% of the shipping which the U.S. Navy protects is the shipping of other nations? And doesn't that strengthen the case for the U.S.'s no longer being the world's waterboy for shipping protection? For the U.S. finally to get some just compensation -- or at least some compensation -- for the service which it has been providing for free?
Sooooo, you continue to serve us with yer merchant ships or what?
No matter what euphemism you use it's still extortion.
However, since it's obvious the world is not going to pitch in what's yer suggestion? Littoral only? Down size is yer ulterior motive for this tack anyway is it not?
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Nations as a rule don't tax other nations, nations generally tax those that are living within it's borders (the exception would be tariffs on goods that cross the border).
Now if you insist we own the high seas...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
What modest fee? 
