[Zak]

In principle, I agree with you, but most of the things you list are relatively cheap.

In the United States (I know Jacques isn't American), the majority of the Federal budget is devoted to the military, interest on the national debt, various forms of free/subsidized insurance for the old and poor, and various forms of income support for the poor. The public goods other than national defense you list are very cheap in comparison to these things. Federal fuel taxes exceeded Federal highway spending in 2010 according to http://usgovernmentspending.com.

The US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, so there's a good chance it's possible to have effective national defense for an order of magnitude less than we currently pay. Most of the rest of the spending falls in to the category of supporting people who for whatever reason have difficulty supporting themselves.

There's a reasonable debate to be had about how and how much we want to provide support to some people by taxing others, but let's not pretend it's primarily about things like roads and fire departments.

[Jare]

> The US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, so there's a good chance it's possible to have effective national defense for an order of magnitude less than we currently pay

But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do.

The security and strength provided by that military is a significant factor in the ability of the USA to create and retain its wealth. Limiting the size of military to purely defensive levels would also limit that ability, so in many ways it's as much an investment as roads and fire departments. It's hard to measure the ROI but the stakes are clearly very high.

Hope this doesn't feel cynical.

[enraged_camel]

>>But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do.

We don't need a huge military to have that effect. We already have nukes.

[swombat]

No one believes that the US is going to use its nukes in all but the most dire circumstances.

Does Iran fear that the US will nuke it? No. But it does fear a traditional war.

[enraged_camel]

Nukes are the most effective deterrent we have against non-nuclear states.

Of course Iran fears that it may get nuked. Why do you think they are desperately trying to develop their own nukes?

[jackpirate]

According to all intelligence reports by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency and the US's CIA/NSA, Iran is not trying to develop nukes and has fully abandoned their nuclear program. Anyone saying elsewise is simply saber rattling.

What the are doing is developing a civilian nuclear industry. Such an industry---like any other industry---has the potential for making military development easier in the future, but that is not its primary purpose.

[enraged_camel]

Considering the current geopolitical climate, you have to be extremely naive to believe that Iran's long term goal is not developing nuclear weapons. A "peaceful" civilian nuclear industry is only the first step.

[Zak]

I don't think Iran's primary motivation for wanting nukes is US nukes. It might be, in part Israeli nukes, but I bet it's primarily conventional war with the US and/or Israel. Iran likely believes that having nuclear weapons of its own will discourage conventional attack.

That line of thinking isn't unreasonable. As far as I know, there has never been open conventional warfare between two nuclear-armed states - just minor skirmishes.

[Zak]

at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do

All true, but I think these things are true of China, with 1/5 the spending or the UK with 1/10. It is probably possible to provide an effective defense, including the ability to effectively attack an overseas enemy spending a much smaller amount than the US actually does.

[winter_blue]

> Federal fuel taxes exceeded Federal highway spending in 2010 according to http://usgovernmentspending.com.

Wow, looking at that chart, the greatest spending is on Healthcare! ($1.1 trillion!!!) Shouldn't $1.1 trillion be able to provide world-class universal healthcare (to everyone) ?

[T-hawk]

Nope. $1.1 trillion divided by the 300 million population of the US comes to only $3666 per person. That's enough for routine care and common prescriptions and such, but not going to cover any kind of serious surgery or therapy.

(It's kind of amazing that at the scale of the United States government, a trillion dollars is not in fact a whole lot of money.)

[Zak]

Consider though, that most people do not need serious surgery. Most people who do do not need it yearly. My yearly medical expenses during the past five years have consisted of two fillings and some over the counter drugs. The yearly average ould cover a decent plate of sushi.

That means there's about $3620 left over for someone else's more serious issues. Well, except for the part where I paid those expenses out of pocket so they don't show up in the Federal budget.