I’m not complaining, I just think it’s silly to talk about privatizing the military. This is obviously not a discussion of fact, it’s an argument about predictions. No one is willing to test this little hypothesis to prove that it would actually work but then it’s supposed to be taken as fact because some philosophical or economic theory says it must be so. Some people might buy it, but I don’t.
This is an opinion, not an argument, and it is of even lesser value than a historicist argument.
Yours is as much an opinion as mine is except more people are likely to agree with my opinion than yours. This doesn’t make me right but it does mean that the political will to see the disbandment of the military and the institution of a private exchange for military services just isn’t there.
But they do ask questions sometimes, and they don’t always follow orders. Further, why would they follow the order to attack a place for which there was no justification, manufactured or otherwise? And if we go with your definition of a mercenary and expand it some, we find that carpet cleaners and auto mechanics are mercenaries.
Constitutionally, I believe it must be.
That is irrelevant. We are not pursuing a transformation of the political system, but its abolition.
Let’s say for a little saturday afternoon mental exercise that we imagine that I have lots of money and I’m trying to build a massive military force on the private military exchange to take over Washington DC. Now, am I going to hire soldiers that disobey me? No. Am I going to hire soldiers who ask questions other than “what do you need us to do?” No. The military is a weapon, it doesn’t look for justification, it just gets pointed at people like a gun and then fired when the person behind the trigger decides to fire.
Also, carpet cleaners and auto mechanics are not soldiers. A mercenary is a soldier who works for private gain.
Ok, well then you’re talking about revolution. And that still requires political will. You’ll need a better argument to convince people like me. Or you’ll avoid trying to convince people like me and instead talk to other people who want to see a private military. And then you’ll wage a coup. Or whatever.
Well, I think you’re gonna need like 218 votes in the house and 60 in the senate to get it passed. Could happen I suppose.
Why do you persist in your wrong-headed thinking that private military = mercenaries? Do you not understand the parallel between private military and carpet cleaners? Hint: private military DOES NOT MEAN “only one person gets to use it”.
I agree, some people will be able to buy protection. But some people will be able to buy a LOT more than others. Herein lies the problem. From a strategic point of view, numbers matter. If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you’re gonna have a problem.
Also, it should be pointed out that carpet cleaners do not get paid to carry guns, they get paid to clean carpets.
And only you have this idiotic notion that it would be Person A has 10 soldiers and Person B has 10,000. A much more logical standpoint would be insurance-based and/or contract with an agency itself.
It should be noted that carpet cleaners are contracted with at times. So where is the difference?
I think it would make more sense for private military contractors to go to the richest men in the world and offer their services. I don’t understand why they’d go through the trouble of setting up an insurance company or even a private agency when they can just get everything paid for by a few very wealthy men.
I mean that’s what I’d do.
Carpet cleaners are not paid to kill people.
I think it makes more sense to offer it to everyone. And it’s irrelevant that carpet cleaners aren’t paid to kill people. Kill your Hollywood view.
Well, this is why we need an experiment to find out what would really happen. Otherwise, we’ll be arguing forever over nothing. I want to see this experiment done.
Consider the praxeological component.
I understand there’s a philosophical argument to be made for privatizing military. And I’m sure it’s a good one. But ultimately, the goal is to privatize the military and to do that there will have to be a political action taken. In my opinion, that will take a better argument than “well, this philosophy says it will work.” We need real data to show people.
Can we admit this is a “worst case” outcome? If so, it’s qualitatively no different than the current set-up.
There is no reason to believe this would ever be possible.
It’s logically possible, but metaphysically improbable.