Replies

The problem with hiring a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called mercenaries) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as wages will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as tribute. History, especially ancient history, shows many examples of this.

The problem with electing a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called the government) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as payment will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as taxes. History, especially modern history, shows many examples of this.

Hank

That's almost clever.

But you make absolutely no provision for issues of size and inertia. One thing that prevents a military coup in America is that it's just too big, hence the practical impossibility of a "defensive agency" taking control. If you want to see this neo-feudal theory in practice, move to some gang-controlled portion of one of our large cities. In the absence of a controlling authority, a society where protection and retribution are the the responsibility of mercenary bands will come to look much like Bosnia.

If meting out justice were in the hands of private Condottieri how do you handle disputes between rival "defensive agencies" (I believe the name used in Somalia is "warlords.")? A court system? Financed by whom? With rulings enforced by whom? How about binding arbitration? Any arbitration whose enforcement is not backed up by the threat of a superior level of force is binding in name only.

And one more thing . . .

In law enforcement and the military, there are certain economies of scale. It takes one guard for one prisoner, but it also takes one guard for perhaps ten prisoners. Similarly, if defensive points are widely separated, each such point will require its own garrison, its own lines of communication and supply, and its own support (such as artillery). Consequently, if society were to break into little enclaves, each owning its own defensive/retributive agency, there would actually be MORE armed functionaries and the military/police presence would be even greater.

And eventually, I can foresee alliances among these Free Companies in order to implement economies of scale and scope. So, in time, we would re-build the nation-states on the basis, initially, of alliances of mercenary bands. In other words, we would re-enact the late medieval to Renaissance period and end up back where we were in the first place - big nation, small police force.

There are many, many things wrong with our current establishment, but returning to A.D. 1400 may not be the answer. I rather like 1787 myself.