So you’ve got a band of mercenaries. Well, I just…I don’t think that’s gonna cut it.
Other then pretty uniforms…what is the difference?
Human nature is selfish. We are programmed to think of ourselves first. Ultimately that leads to property. Who owns what. And that’s best settled in a free market. But you need laws to prevent people from violating contracts. Who is going to enforce contracts in your decentralized region?
I think mercenaries tend to be cowards or tyrants. They either run from the first sign of battle or they take over the people they were supposed to protect. You can’t trust mercenaries. Well actually, are you going to be hiring mercenaries from inside your decentralized region or from outside?
Well I think you just answered your own question. The free-market
That is actually the very first article on that list I gave you. Happy reading.
Did you already forget? These objections aren’t new. You aren’t going to stumble me up with “But what about?”
I hadn’t planned on getting this far into this or attempting to convert you tonight. I’m calling it a night. The answer to all your questions are in the articles and books I’ve linked; you should start with Hoppe. Assuming you are genuinely seeking answers and not just obfuscating.
Yet we can trust ‘soldiers’? Are both not human? Are both not man?
Well I don’t think the free market has an ‘inside’ or ‘outside’.
See, the problem there is the ambivalent part. And by the way, good and evil aren’t how I think of humans. I just think we’re all selfish. And that’s not evil. Or good. It’s neutral.
Well, what I mean is…soldiers fighting for their own territory are going to have an interest in being loyal. Because to betray their homeland would result in the loss of their property. And if you’ve got your decentralized region but then there are other areas that are statist, are you not going to do business with any of them? What I’m saying is that as long as your mercenaries are from the same area they’re protecting, you’re probably ok, but then maybe you need a bigger army, and the only way to get more people is by hiring from elsewhere. But then you’ve got a problem of loyalty.
I’m sure my objections aren’t new, but what you’re advocating doesn’t make any sense to me. Anyways, I’ll read what you sent me.
And mercs fight for tangible money not abstract nationalist sentiments.
That is up to my personal discretion. Certainly I have no right to tell others who they can or can’t trade with.
Labor is just a means to an end. You’d be hardpressed to find someone who will work for a corporation simply because they are loyal to that institution. I think you are perhaps establishing a nirvana fallacy in which you look at the US military as this great organization swelling with nationalist pride then compare it to individuals who fight for whoever pays them and try to see fault.
You’ve been a good sport though. Don’t worry, you’ll be an anarchist soon enough [:P]
-
I’m just saying, I think the reality of your merc army is not going to be what you thought it was going to be. In other words, I personally do not want a merc army.
-
Ok, well, again, you’ve then got a problem of numbers. Because maybe the statist region can organize a bigger army and that would suck for you, theoretically.
-
I’m not saying anything about nirvana. Although nationalism is a big part of military morale. I’m saying, basically, that you’re going to have a hard time getting your mercs to do what you want them to do. Whereas, with my publicly funded army, I’m going to have an easier time. I don’t think think there is one reason for this, but many. The first being, as I’ve said, the knowledge that one’s reputation and property is at stake when you are fighting for your own country.
Maybe I will be. I dunno. I still think on the anarchy to total state dominance scale (1 to 10), I’ll still hover somewhere around 2 and 3.
Anyways, I think I’m gonna leave this one alone now. I just still think fighting Hitler was probably a good idea. Just saying. Ok I’m going to bed.
Yet you would trust a private surgeon with your life, no?
Fine, establish and sustain your own standing army.
That would assume the Socialists can even get productive enough to sustain cheese making abilities. Calculation on just that alone will be tough enough for them [:P]
Obviously if they enter a contractual agreement with me then they are willing to do what I am telling them to do as long as I explicitly state it.
See this is the nirvana fallacy. You are trying to establish that the public army is somehow devoid of any wrongs, flaws or mishaps. How can you say ‘Mercs are tough but soldiers can line up like a snap.’
While I myself have never experienced combat, I hardly think that what is running through the minds of soldiers ducking for cover is ‘man I hope my four bedroom is doing well.’ Plus you forget that a mercernary has to sustain their lifestyle through that profession. I would argue that they have stake in their battles for that is their source of income.
Jacob,
What would a mercenary arm become? Probably depends on the army, or even the squads, at some point you get into differentiating the employees themselves. That said, however, it’s probably preferable to have a collection of smaller bands that keep eachother in check than large monopolies that can turn at any second.
On the point of Hitler, however, it seems to me that it was disastrous for the millions he killed when the US entered the war. After all, what most people understand as the holocaust - the gas chambers and Auschwitz - didn’t begin until directly after the US entered the war, making it clear to Hitler that he wouldn’t win with a front on three sides.
“War is the Health of the State” - Randolph Bourne
“War**is** the State”- onebornfree
“War is a Racket” : Major General Smedley Butler