Are there any studies on real cases of Private National Defense?
I have been reading a lot of essays on the subject but they don’t tell much. Perhaps there are some analysis on the use of mercenary forces and corsaries. Maybe even a book on the well extended use of private armies during the Middle Age and the Renaissance.
Check out Hoppe’s The Myth of National Defence and Democracy - The God that Failed (he lists a lot of sources dealing with medieval cities and the like in the latter.) Stringham’s Anarchy and the Law, Leoni’s The Enterprise of Law, Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom and articles by J. Peden on Ireland and van Notten on Somalia are all caste studies of private provision of law and order.
I am not talking about Police. I mean a real Army to defend against invaders, suffocate rebellions and maybe invading someone.
I want to relate the historical experience with the possibilities for border protection in our time.
Again, check the works I mentioned. They cover these topics. I think there are articles as well on the matter in the political philosophy reading list, but I haven’t really gone through them.
I think the real problem with a national defense army in the modern world is the provision of submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc. While I see it very feasible (indeed this is done in Switzerland) to have an armed and trained population, this does not account for the sinews of modern warfare. I’ve seen theories about how insurances could cover this, and although this may be true, a decentralised army fighting against a centralised one may be seriously disadvantaged.
I seriously doubt if an efficient army can be maintained without a state. Having said that, I am certain that efficient protection and security within the country can be achieved through private security agencies. So why can’t we have both? Let the government provide an army, but let the citizens be armed and trained, and let decentralised and numerous private defense agencies replace the police force. In such a situation, there is no way in which the government could impose its will on the people through use of the army, since the people on the home front would be very well protected.
But state controlled militaries are slow to respond to change and extremely un-cost effective. Since the private sector excells at everything else why would they not excel at building a military? Instead of being able to throw billions down the drain like current state militaries do a private military would have to be very cost effective and employ better strategic planners to better exploit their more limited resources.
Also a private decentralized military force would probably do better at repelling an occupying force through guerrilla tactics and basically running the invading state to the point where it isn’t worth wasting all the money and resources to try to hold on to that territory.
I have always thought that terrorists don’t overthrow governments because they are trying to get publicity and not to win a war. For example, would Argentina invade Uruguay and if I was in charge of the defense, I would simply order the Special Operations units to kill every single Argentinian politician, so there would be nobody to command the attack on my country and the army would be too busy managing the chaos in their home country to hold an occupational force here. I think the Mossad does something similar with Palestinian terrorist organizations called “targeted assasinations”.
I can imagine something like privateer permits (lettres de course) that allow mobsters to steal tanks, ships, planes and so from the enemy and to have my country as refuge.
The main problem I find is who would pay for the services and to which one of the military agencies. In the future, in a fully libertarian society, it would be fare that those who don’t want to fight the enemy (maybe want to give in) aren’t forced to support war effort.
However, I am talking here of the possibilities of doing something like that right now in our current world.
For example, wouldn’t it be more efficiente for Ukraine to use private military forces to repel a Russian attack rather than going down in a spiral as the statism and the armed forces grow to confront the menace?
Antoher example, Somaliland is in constant fear that their Somalian neighbours invade them and conduct a genocide (again). Why not allowing the presence of private armed forces that ask for voluntary contributions?
I am just throwing ideas.
If you’re wondering about border protection, just give free reign to the Minuteman Project or some similar group. They’d be more than willing to secure our borders at zero cost to the taxpayer.
Wehrmacht vs French army shows otherwise.
The problem of socialist calculation applies to war just like anything.
If I understand you correctly, then you would suggest that a private voluntary army could be formed by individuals concerned about the genocide in Darfur, for instance. The not-for-profit force could be formed and funded by volunteers. A 1-800 number could appear on your screen, and encourage you to send money to fund a charity-based, anti-genocide army. That makes a lot more sense than forcing the taxpayer to buy food and supplies that are in turn captured by those committing genocide in the first place.
It should be pointed out that helping the victims in Darfur has nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with charity. The people in Somalia or Darfur do not have the ability to defend themselves. They need help from caring individuals in a position of power. Governments of course do not belong in the charity business since they are not easy to hold accountable. If the charity does something you don’t like you can at least stop funding it. Government on the other hand can point a gun at you and say fund our inefficient, anti-genocide effort.
Armies aren’t for defense. Armies are invasion and occupation(sometimes domestic).
Why sit around trying to figure out how to maintain the status quo? Armies are not a virtue they are a curse.
Look at Iraq.
That’s yet another idea I have had. I have always wondered why the Catholic Church doesn’t reinstaurate the Templar Order to give militar protection to the missionaries in war zones. A lot of catholic priests armed to the teeth, funded voluntarily by catholics from all over the world would be much more effective tas pacifiers than the bureaucrats of the UN. I mean, that’s what the Templars used to do in the Middle Age. If you don’t like the name let’s call them the Catholic Foreign Legion.
Iraq is more than just decentralisation vs centralisation… but if you want to pin it on this topic - what do you think about employing “decentralised” Iraq insurgency’s tactics in defensive libertarian_no_country’s war?
For about a year they were actively trying to push Iraq into civil war, by means of random mass-murder of some of their “brothers in faith” from other Islamic sects.
They gladly risk civilian life if this may get them combat advantage.
Their agenda sanctifies all means.
If you cut off all immoral acts you’re back to any other partisan warfare. It may be a problem to invader. Though it’s extent depends moslty on invaders character. Policy of one villige burned for every sniped officer may end any insurgency if invader is savage enough to do it. It can hardly be considered defence, let alone effective defence!
To defeat serious invasion you’d need houndreds of jets, divisions of armour and infantry, tons of intelligence and system to tie it all - while on the other hand you need many tangled boundries to make this huge force submit to civilians. I think current model is good enough. Coup d’etat’s are not a risk in developed world, combination of military might and expected military power from alliances is enough to limit risk of conquest and it’s not so expensive - around 5% budget. Compared to social spending - peanuts.
(To partisan tactics supporters - check out youtube videos of AC130u in combat. You can counter such an overwhelming advantage of huge information net intel gathering + high-tech, extremaly expensive craft mission execution only by more military might or morally corrupt strategy. Hide between civilians and you won’t get smoked by a gunship, but individuals can’t ever match might of huge military machine, even with perfect morale.)
Edit: I disagree with myself
Edit 2: I think not for profit defense agencies would recieve funding from a free society and people wouldn’t trust a for profit organization for defense.
No doubt a private military would be more cost effective. However it still may not be a good idea. Private citizens with firearms for self defence are a very good idea, but for-profit organized mercenary forces are a bad idea as primary defense. History shows what happens when those that hire them can no longer afford to pay them what they want and the results aren’t good. Also, they’re generally less loyal (historically speaking) than regular forces.
I wouldn’t trust a not for profit defense company.
A “charity” defense organization would not be subject to market forces. It would end up being ideologically motivated rather than consumer orientied and would probably end up looking more like the Black Panthers or KKK than a legitimate, profit orinated company.
Though I don’t lose any sleep over it. For profit security firms would have the capital to keep any nonmarket organizations at bay.
Plus, by the time market anarchy is achieved there won’t be any lack of trust for market entities.
I think that a decentralised guerrilla fighting force would work very well against a centralised invasion. But is that really the kind of defense we want? To me, guerrila warfare is the last tactic the people should employ. The reason is simple. The invading, centralised army sees the guerrilla warfare as a virus, with only one solution - extermination. We’ve seen it in WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq. The Guerrillas always come out victorious, but at a huge cost in lives and property. All their wealth is destroyed, millions killed, thousands raped and tortured. I don’t really see this as a solution. Centralised armies are non-for profit, and often ideological. That makes them expensive and sometimes inefficient, but this is also where their danger lies. They will stop at nothing to reach their goals, no matter the cost.
The war in Iraq has cost the US about $3 trillion, and they’ve completely failed. During their presence, terrorism increased, the country is in civil war, and the price of oil has shot up (arguably something the oil lobbies wanted). By now, it would be reasonable to leave. It would have been sensible to leave years ago, but the way things are looking they’ll stay for a few years. Sure in the end the Iraqi Guerrilas and terrorists will win, but at what cost?
If you’re looking for a stable society, guerrila warfare hardly seems like a sensible solution. Usually it results in the destruction of a whole generation.
I would much prefer a “charity” orginization whose ideology is to protect liberty, an invading army would find it much easier to pay off a mercenary army than fight them.