Private Production of Defense

[Bendira]

So one of the big things I hear raised in reference to the perceived weakness of free markets is the fact that the free market can't possibly provide defense. I would say this is blatantly false. The idea of large military firms competeing for private business obviously would be rather "scary", but you are ignoring what defense actually is. This notion of massive militaries battleing for control is not what a free market would produce, because defense is nothing more than an extension of insurance. It is hard to understand this, since we live in a system where defense is its own seperate entity. But defense as a service (in a free market) is indeed a form of insurance: protection of your private property from destruction, whether it be natural disaster, or foriegn invasion. It is clear that insurance companies would charge based on the security risk presented by the location you live in, and provide security accordingly. There is no incentive to create a large independent military, nor is there any way to fund it. The best the opposition can do, is create a hypothetical situation where a billionaire goes insane, and decides to try to take over society, just to be a big old meanie pants. I would ask you to ignore this stupid critique, because EVERY system has an achilles heel. Some crazed billionaire could buy an unprotected soviet nuclear warhead and detonate it in the United States right now as well. Both are horribly unlikely scenario's.

So my question is, what argument can you possibly make again the private production of defense?

[Risottia]

The best the opposition can do, is create a hypothetical situation where a billionaire goes insane, and decides to try to take over society, just to be a big old meanie pants. I would ask you to ignore this stupid critique, because EVERY system has an achilles heel.

And why would it be stupid? Just because you say so?
Hint, every market without governmental control tends towards private monopoly. See Standard Oil for an example.

Some crazed billionaire could buy an unprotected soviet nuclear warhead and detonate it in the United States right now as well.

Prove that Russian warheads are unprotected.


Basically, your idea is made of fail. Also see the post-Renaissance Italian wars to understand what resorting to private mercenary companies for defense means.

[Bendira]

And why would it be stupid? Just because you say so?
Hint, every market without governmental control tends towards private monopoly. See Standard Oil for an example.

Markets tend to consolodate when there are some corporations more efficient than others. Through buyouts and such, the amount of corporations often does grow fewer and fewer. But they do not form monopolies. Monopolies are extremely rare, what is more common is an oligopoly.

Prove that Russian warheads are unprotected.

It was just one example of any other countless ridiculous hypothetical scenarios I could make up. Im not going to look for empirical evidence to prove one.

Basically, your idea is made of fail. Also see the post-Renaissance Italian wars to understand what resorting to private mercenary companies for defense means.

Yeah but you must have missed the op, where I told about how free markets wouldn't create private mercenary companies.

[Lackadaisical2]

The best the opposition can do, is create a hypothetical situation where a billionaire goes insane, and decides to try to take over society, just to be a big old meanie pants. I would ask you to ignore this stupid critique, because EVERY system has an achilles heel.

And why would it be stupid? Just because you say so?
Hint, every market without governmental control tends towards private monopoly. See Standard Oil for an example.

One example proves that all markets tend toward monopoly? The fact that relatively few markets have actually produced a monopoly seems counter to that. Even so, a monopoly isn't inherently a bad thing, indeed, monopoly on force is one of the hallmarks of a state.

As to what can go wrong: A Privatized Military might provoke wars to gain revenue, a significantly large one could act very coercively towards its clientele, no super-rich billionaire needed, simply a strong enough force to dissuade competitors from taking them out.

[Risottia]

And why would it be stupid? Just because you say so?
Hint, every market without governmental control tends towards private monopoly. See Standard Oil for an example.

Markets tend to consolodate when there are some corporations more efficient than others. Through buyouts and such, the amount of corporations often does grow fewer and fewer. But they do not form monopolies. Monopolies are extremely rare, what is more common is an oligopoly.

1.Monopolies are extremely rare NOW because there are antitrust laws. You should try and enforce them on a company that keeps a military-grade force as keeps of its standard job. But the mere act of enforcing antitrust laws makes a market non-entirely free.
2.So we would have 5 or 6 military corporations striving between them to conquer the biggest share of the "defence" market. Wow, nice scenario.

Yeah but you must have missed the op, where I told about how free markets wouldn't create private mercenary companies.

I didn't miss it. You implied that they would, by saying that they would provide protection from a foreign invasion. How could they do that without having a military-grade force?


(btw: use quotes properly, please)

[Bendira]

1.Monopolies are extremely rare NOW because there are antitrust laws. You should try and enforce them on a company that keeps a military-grade force as keeps of its standard job. But the mere act of enforcing antitrust laws makes a market non-entirely free.

Do you have any sort of evidence to back up the fact that anti-trust laws have stopped monopolies from forming?

2.So we would have 5 or 6 military corporations striving between them to conquer the biggest share of the "defence" market. Wow, nice scenario.

Do you have a valid critique of this scenario?

I didn't miss it. You implied that they would, by saying that they would provide protection from a foreign invasion. How could they do that without having a military-grade force?

They would use military grade force, but when you said "private mercenary corporation" or something of that nature, you make it sound like defense is its own seperate entity. Only governments make it a seperate entity from other goods and services. It falls under the umbrella of insurance companies, making defense just a subset of the insurance industry.

[The Lone Alliance]

Fine let's Outsource to the magical private sector fairy.

"China: We'll pay you double whatever the US pays you to do nothing when we invade.
Private Contractors: No problem."

Nice one.

We already have a frickin Military Industrial complex, why should we allow the Private sector to control our military even further.

If I had it my way all private contracts would have been shredded and I'd instead offer the equivalent military jobs for those who wanted to join the military.

You're unemployed? Drive a Tactortrailer in the army. Least the military gives body armor.

Would most likely help the economy more than hiring some offshore account run companies.

[Vectrova]

Two words pretty accurately sum up while mercenary style soldiers don't work.

Ancient Rome.

I mean, unless you want corporations to perform literal hostile takeovers and always make the government's military expand to keep up least they be overwhelmed on the point in which it becomes profitable to destroy said government and institute a corporate bordello.

[Meryuma]

-snip-

You seem to think that Bendira is advocating states and borders with private defense on top. He's not. He's a Rothbardian market anarchist, or in other words, an anarcho-capitalist. Aggression/coercion wouldn't be allowed in such a system, so any kind of war is straight out.

[Vectrova]

How does any anarchist society have the ability to prevent aggression from happening? Seriously, how? Do you think the private defense firms won't ruthlessly pursue profit no matter who gets hurt?

[Bendira]

How does any anarchist society have the ability to prevent aggression from happening? Seriously, how? Do you think the private defense firms won't ruthlessly pursue profit no matter who gets hurt?

Tell me what "profits" there are to be made when you are hurting people?

[Vectrova]

How does any anarchist society have the ability to prevent aggression from happening? Seriously, how? Do you think the private defense firms won't ruthlessly pursue profit no matter who gets hurt?

Tell me what "profits" there are to be made when you are hurting people?

So you've never heard of Banana Corp.? Nike? Just about any corporation employing sweatshop labor or ruining the country soil's ability to produce?

Seriously?

[Bendira]

Tell me what "profits" there are to be made when you are hurting people?

So you've never heard of Banana Corp.? Nike? Just about any corporation employing sweatshop labor or ruining the country soil's ability to produce?

Seriously?

Yeah, outsourcing is ridiculous. We should totally rid of these unions and government regulations.

But anyways, back to the topic. How would a private defense agency make profit by hurting people?

[Dyakovo]

How does any anarchist society have the ability to prevent aggression from happening? Seriously, how? Do you think the private defense firms won't ruthlessly pursue profit no matter who gets hurt?

Tell me what "profits" there are to be made when you are hurting people?

Not familiar with the Thirty Years War are you?

[Vectrova]

So you've never heard of Banana Corp.? Nike? Just about any corporation employing sweatshop labor or ruining the country soil's ability to produce?

Seriously?

Yeah, outsourcing is ridiculous. We should totally rid of these unions and government regulations.

But anyways, back to the topic. How would a private defense agency make profit by hurting people?

Unions and regulations are not the reason for greed.

Moreover, this is what a normal corporation does without a private military force behind it. With one? Entire countries get invaded as venture capitalist takes on a whole new name, the UN starts recognizing WalMart as its own country...

Even assuming that doesn't happen, there's nothing with quite a ring to it like paying a defense firm to not attack or assist in the invasion of another country. How would you feel if the TSA was paid by the Taliban to let some hijackers into your country, for example?

Plenty of money to be had in human suffering.

[Greed and Death]

The best the opposition can do, is create a hypothetical situation where a billionaire goes insane, and decides to try to take over society, just to be a big old meanie pants. I would ask you to ignore this stupid critique, because EVERY system has an achilles heel.

And why would it be stupid? Just because you say so?
Hint, every market without governmental control tends towards private monopoly. See Standard Oil for an example.

Where the government assigned oil rights, and purchased oil in such away that bigger =ed better

Basically, your idea is made of fail. Also see the post-Renaissance Italian wars to understand what resorting to private mercenary companies for defense means.

Then go look at the British conquest of India to see a successful use of Mercenaries, or the opium wars both won by private military companies(British East India company) against much large counties.

[Bendira]

Moreover, this is what a normal corporation does without a private military force behind it. With one? Entire countries get invaded as venture capitalist takes on a whole new name, the UN starts recognizing WalMart as its own country...

IDK wtf your talking about when you reference the U.N. and WAL-MART. Countries already get invaded by corporations and are exploited. These corporations are called governments, and they do it with money they stole via taxation. Private corporations overthrowing governments overseas would be a massive investment risk, and if you know anything about economics, would most likely be impossible when you factor in the costs of goods having to rise to accomodate war efforts. The difference here being, private corporations have an incentive NOT to invade other countries (risky investment) wheras government steals all their money, so its not a risk at all. If they lose who cares, people died and they lost money. Oh well.

Even assuming that doesn't happen, there's nothing with quite a ring to it like paying a defense firm to not attack or assist in the invasion of another country. How would you feel if the TSA was paid by the Taliban to let some hijackers into your country, for example?

Plenty of money to be had in human suffering.

Lets put your example into a scenario without a government, and just private defense agencies. Lets say a terrorist organization pays an insurance company to allow them to blow up a single factory. First of all, the cost these terrorists would have to pay would have to be significantly higher than the cost of paying the victims families, as well as the insurance payout for the property itself. On top of this, the defense agency itself would come under scrutiny for not preventing an attack, hurting their business. Any collateral damage caused that may have damaged others property must be paid for out of insurance as well. On top of all of this, there is no nationalist brainwashing. Its all for money, not for some ideological fantasy. So keeping this information secret would be counter productive if you knew about it, especially since this insurance companies competitors would most likely be willing to pay A LOT of money for this information, to put their competitor out of business. Why would a private insurance company risk all this, and more that I didn't mention, for a single terrorist attack on a factory? Not to mention the criminal implications of this when the information is leaked.

So no, I don't think your scenario holds that much weight.

[Dyakovo]

Moreover, this is what a normal corporation does without a private military force behind it. With one? Entire countries get invaded as venture capitalist takes on a whole new name, the UN starts recognizing WalMart as its own country...

IDK wtf your talking about when you reference the U.N. and WAL-MART. Countries already get invaded by corporations and are exploited. These corporations are called governments.

A government is not a corporation.

the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

[Bendira]

A government is a corporation, only they obtain their profits through theft. A government operates defense, roads, medical services and other things that alternatively the free market would provide. So how the fuck isn't the government a corporation?

[Dyakovo]

A government is a corporation, only they obtain their profits through theft. A government operates defense, roads, medical services and other things that alternatively the free market would provide. So how the fuck isn't the government a corporation?

I already showed you "how the fuck isn't the government a corporation"

[Bendira]

A government is a corporation, only they obtain their profits through theft. A government operates defense, roads, medical services and other things that alternatively the free market would provide. So how the fuck isn't the government a corporation?

I already showed you "how the fuck isn't the government a corporation"

Actually, you posted two definitions.

[Vectrova]

Moreover, this is what a normal corporation does without a private military force behind it. With one? Entire countries get invaded as venture capitalist takes on a whole new name, the UN starts recognizing WalMart as its own country...

IDK wtf your talking about when you reference the U.N. and WAL-MART. Countries already get invaded by corporations and are exploited. These corporations are called governments, and they do it with money they stole via taxation. Private corporations overthrowing governments overseas would be a massive investment risk, and if you know anything about economics, would most likely be impossible when you factor in the costs of goods having to rise to accomodate war efforts. The difference here being, private corporations have an incentive NOT to invade other countries (risky investment) wheras government steals all their money, so its not a risk at all. If they lose who cares, people died and they lost money. Oh well.

... Wonderful. You're a tax-is-theft type, huh? I guess that kills discussion a bit.

Also, explain why they have such an aversion to risk when there's clearly profit to be had in war and takeover (e.x. Blackwater, oil companies supplying the military).

Even assuming that doesn't happen, there's nothing with quite a ring to it like paying a defense firm to not attack or assist in the invasion of another country. How would you feel if the TSA was paid by the Taliban to let some hijackers into your country, for example?

Plenty of money to be had in human suffering.

Lets put your example into a scenario without a government, and just private defense agencies. Lets say a terrorist organization pays an insurance company to allow them to blow up a single factory. First of all, the cost these terrorists would have to pay would have to be significantly higher than the cost of paying the victims families1, as well as the insurance payout for the property itself. On top of this, the defense agency itself would come under scrutiny for not preventing an attack2, hurting their business. Any collateral damage caused that may have damaged others property must be paid for out of insurance as well3. On top of all of this, there is no nationalist brainwashing. Its all for money, not for some ideological fantasy. So keeping this information secret would be counter productive if you knew about it4, especially since this insurance companies competitors would most likely be willing to pay A LOT of money for this information, to put their competitor out of business. Why would a private insurance company risk all this, and more that I didn't mention, for a single terrorist attack on a factory5? Not to mention the criminal implications of this when the information is leaked.

So no, I don't think your scenario holds that much weight.

[/quote]

In order...

1 is implying the organization wouldn't pay them more than enough to ease monetary concerns. There is no reason to think so.

2 can be redirected towards competitors interfering with the insurance company's job (although how INSURANCE stops a terrorist attack is beyond me). Misinformation campaigns tend to work well with no unbiased sources, making it hard to prove their company was the one who even allowed it - or if their customers just paid a little bit more, it wouldn't have happened.

3 relates to 1, but with the addition condition that it must be proven the insurance company is liable for the damage.

4 is ludicrous. Why on earth wouldn't you hide dealing with terrorists if it netted you a tidy profit? It makes you wealthy and makes your company seem necessary to defend against further attacks.

5 seems to think an organization wouldn't attack multiple times instead of just once. Also crazy, because you may as well hit a bunch of places all at once for the most devastating effect if it is at all feasible (see also: most recent terrorist attacks, esp. 9/11).

So, unfounded assumptions when trying to understand a scenario leads to a self-confirming idea. No real surprise there.

[Dyakovo]

I already showed you "how the fuck isn't the government a corporation"

Actually, you posted two definitions.

Yup. In this case it would be the same thing.

[The Lone Alliance]

How does any anarchist society have the ability to prevent aggression from happening? Seriously, how? Do you think the private defense firms won't ruthlessly pursue profit no matter who gets hurt?

Tell me what "profits" there are to be made when you are hurting people?

Ask career criminals.

[Dyakovo]

Tell me what "profits" there are to be made when you are hurting people?

Ask career criminals.

Or, as I pointed out earlier, learn some history.