Thanks for your well-thought-out response.
You are correct in yoru assessment of the socialism of the military: it does function within a larger context of economic freedom. However, so do all other systems. The capitalist system we employ itself developed in the context of economic freedom — the distributist model that preceded it. When the property of crofter, church, and aristocrat was expropriated by the early capitalists, the organic structure and distributed capital of the medieval economy was replaced by the imposed structures and concentrated capital of the mercantilists. The invisible Hand of God was slapped aside, to be replaced by the invisible hand of capitalist rational self-interest (and, later, the iron hand of the socialist State).
And of course it is important to note that other militaries than our own can and do function outside the context of economic freedom. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army owns its own farms, flocks, factories, and foundries, yet exists within the context of China’s state-directed capitalist economy.
You are also correct about the inefficiencies of the military economy. However, it must be noted that “military socialism” (for lack of a better term) is literally designed to survive under combat conditions; though the military’s command economy may be sluggish, it is extremely robust. Our capitalist system is flexible but fragile, and could be shattered like an egg by one well-placed, well-timed act of terrorism; on the other hand, the U.S Army could concievably survive the destruction of the United States itself.
I’m not arguing in favor of command economies here; I myself am an advocate of medieval distributist economics. I’m merely pointing out that command economies can be viable given certain initial conditions.
Our capitalist system is flexible but fragile, and could be shattered like an egg by one well-placed, well-timed act of terrorism; on the other hand, the U.S Army could conceivably survive the destruction of the United States itself.
Excellent point.
I'm not making claims of overwhelming excellence for "capitalism," either. A free-market system does, however, have intrinsically a much greater economic potential, productive of generally greater prosperity, than a command system. Obviously, as the Popes mention, material prosperity is not the end of our existence, and to imagine that it is causes us great harm.