What are your thoughts on the huge private American military manufacturers and contractors?

These companies make a profit, so how is it cheaper than the government running it straight up. I know efficiency of scale and all that. But seriously, the government is the single biggest buyer as most people are not allowed to by fully equipped tanks and such.

My question is more about the morality of the power that these companies, that are going after a profit, have when their profit comes from war.

@MarsSword: Morality aside for a moment, private enterprise can deliver a better engineered product at a lower price than any government run enterprise. We've seen this again and again and again in the history of the world.

As for the moral side, are you implying there is something morally wrong with profit? If so, then the question is not about military expenditures, but our entire western economy. Would you prefer socialism or communism instead? State ownership of enterprises has been tried and has failed miserably.

@sarabee1995: You misunderstand me. Theoretically it doesn't make sense that private enterprises can deliver a better product at a lower price with the profit. But I do see how this is normally not the case for the simple reason that the desire to profit and competition pushes people to be more efficient.

But the morality I am talking about is not profit itself. I do believe in capitalist economy. There is nothing wrong with profiting. My question is: is there something wrong with profiting off of war? I am talking in a very limited scope about weapons manufacturers and how they have a lot of power and an incentive for the US to be at war.

@MarsSword: Why does it not make sense (theoretically or not)?? The whole premise of capitalism is the [b][u]efficient[/u][/b] movement and utilization of resources.

As for the morality... Is it moral for the government to take more than it needs from the people in taxes in order to deliver the goods & services that it needs to deliver (i.e. war)?? So if we had state ownership of industry with no profit motive and paid twice as much per round of ammunition, would it be somehow more moral simply because no one made a profit?

The only challenge with the capitalism argument (which you alluded to, but perhaps unintentionally) is that the profit seeking private industry could seek to influence the government's decision process on when to go to war. That (obviously) would be very immoral.

@sarabee1995: Because in a purely mental world the government should be able to manufacture arms at a cheaper price than the private companies because the government is only selling to itself and if the government owned and operated arms manufacture sells the products at cost then there isn't the extra profit margin tagged on. Now I know in the real world this doesn't usually work out because governmental bureaucracy gets in the way.

That is exactly what I am talking about, the last part of your comment. The wealth that has resulted from war for these arms companies and contractors thus incentivising them for the continued state of war. They have a huge amount of money, and as we all have seen with the oil companies and gun companies there is a huge amount of power to influence the government through lobbying and supporting different political figures.

This is why I think the arms dealers and military contractors should be state run organizations. Because the powerful motive of profit for these wars and conflicts to continue is very sinister in today's world.

@MarsSword: The only world that matters is the real world. For profit, private industry delivers goods & services to the market at a lower cost than state-run industry. We've proven that in theory and in practice many times over. It is neither moral, nor immoral. It is simply fact.

Now, to the more important question of morals... Would it be right to bar certain industries and their key employees from government lobbying?

Can you point to a particular conflict that you think was influenced or brought about by industry influence?

@sarabee1995: I agree, I do tend to focus on the real world. Still, sometimes it is interesting to ask the question why since it seems reasonable that the other is true. None the less, I agree that that is just how it is and that it is neither moral nor immoral.

Yes, I think it would be right.

I think it would be hard to see the direct action of the industry, because that would be counter productive. But it isn't hard to see how conflicts in the past have really assisted these companies. It is begging the question a bit, but look how long America has been at war. We know that money influences and sometimes controls our leaders, we have seen it with the tobacco industry, and alcohol, we have seen it with oil companies protected from legislation. It doesn't take much imagination to stretch to think that the same might be going on behind the scenes with these massive arms manufacturers and military contractors. The only difference is where their profit comes from is a sinister road of death and suffering.