Baby Steps Part 1: Consultation - ongoing supply, Military

Day 2,110, 18:11 Published in Australia Australia by Ranger Bob

THIS IS RE-POSTED FROM THE EAUSTRALIA FORUMS. SOME PEOPLE ARE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO USING THE FORUM, OR DO NOT HAVE ACCESS. HOWEVER IF YOU DO, HERE IS THE LINK IF YOU WANT TO SEE DISCUSSION TO DATE:

http://auserepublik.com/index.php?topic=21973.0


Right

Since it seems no discussion on the ongoing supply arm of government support for the Military gets anywhere, usually because we either get caught up in the semantics of process, structure and funding...

I want to start this off, REALLY WEEEEEALLLY simple. And with some baby steps.

This is part 1 of the discussion. For now, I want to base this on the following key assumptions:

1. Assume for the moment, NOTHING exists.


Difficult right? But if you can't then don't comment. I want to at this point take a MASSIVE STEP BACK, and imagine a world for the moment where we DON'T have an ADF. We DON'T have a model of providing ongoing supply for some form of Military/fighting group(s) - be they MU or other, that use YOUR money.

2. Assume this is NOT going anywhere NEAR the HOW right now.

Ignore the process or HOW. This can be discussed next. For now, let us focus more on what is actually WANTED from a who we want to support point of view. Too many times we have been distracted on this because people get hooked on the semantics, then the basic questions are lost because people get debating detail on an abstract before they even get near the WHAT they want.

3. We are not talking about BATTLE funding.

I mean, funding supplied for battles, brostralia on rizon or the like where money is set aside to pay for weapons when we actually are fighting for either our region or other causes. This is about our ongoing supply for people, eAustralia citizens who form part of a military unit or units, or force that will receive funding for doing SOMETHING (again, ignore process, that can come next)

4. Assume, you have opportunity cost considerations.

I appreciate the sentiment that yes, of course if we had unlimited funds we would fund everyone. However, you are being asked from a principle point of view, given you are not Bill Gates, to make a choice here. Either focus on funding all with less, or fund less with more.



Got it? Read on...


I would like to invite comment on some questions to inform key PRINCIPLES. Yes / no to each question is sufficient for now. You can explain why, but, answer the questions. They are not for political maybe's or run arounds. They are pretty straightforwar😛

Question 1:

Should only D1-D2 players who meet some form of requirement (be it rosters, roll calls or hitting for us in any Government DoD order or the like) receive ongoing supply?

*This could be via centrelink or an government unit or other - again worry less about process for now.

Question 2:

Should all players who are eAustralian who meet some form of requirement (be it rosters, roll calls or hitting for us in any Government DoD order or the like) receive ongoing supply (ie, D1-D4)?

*this could be differential or not, again, worry less about the process for now...

Question 3:

Should people be allowed to be in a Military Unit (MUs), AND, be eligible to receive ongoing supply?

Question 4:

Should there be NO model for ongoing supply, and funding only be supplied for major/approved battles?

Question 5:

Should MUs receive funding to sort this out themselves, instead of ongoing supply?

(for example, in return for monthly battle targets that must be reported - such as deliver x damage in a week for DoD battles, receive y in incentive payment to use for ongoing supply).

This is an example to illustrate the point of the question - again, worry less about process for now...

Question 6:

Should there be a combination of BOTH ongoing supply for people and MU support?


I'll be interested in views, and the point of these is to try and start drilling down to the crux of what people actually think.

If you have another meaningful question or point, this is fine but remember at this point this is NOT about process. This is about WHAT you want to fund.

Kind regards.


PS: Given this is NOT senate, given this is NOT executive this has no real material authority in terms of directing senate or exec on away forward. But, keep in mind citizens that any model where government pays uses your money. Your tax. So you have a right to a view too, you know?

PS: For Henry