That is patently false.
Well, the polling doesn't agree with you: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
Obviously we won't know for sure till after the election, but based on the overall trend for the last few cycles I think it's likely.
Sounds great, only taking them out of the hands of the military is essentially the same as letting them go.
Not necessarily, depends on who you give them to. More importantly though, why are we not killing them if they're a threat? Or why are we holding them if they're not?
If there was profit or necessity the alterations would be made already. One thing you cannot really do is accuse a greedy business of not seeking profits.
Actually there are a variety of projects that are net positive to society but net negative for the builder, light houses being a classic example. These kinds of projects are called "social goods" and government is the right choice to build them since it socializes both the costs and benefits. A national grid would increase competition which is good for the country as a whole but actually bad for the local operators so they'd never build it on their own.
The solution of problems is the most characteristic and peculiar sort of voluntary thinking. -- William James