Alternately, the smarter non-subscriber simply picks up the phone and inquires about local conditions via the people with whom he is planning to visit, who presumably have a vested interest in his safe passage. That and a $0.50 expenditure on the newspaper in order to discover the hot spots between "A" and "B", so that one may avoid them, seems like it should facilitate travel without the necessity of a private army.
What are you paying for now?
Quite so. Of course, you will have given me the ability to opt out, which I don't have now, so in that sense, this plan realizes no additional tangible benefits, but does introduce one currently non-existent problem. Or, if you're like me, the "problem" is, in fact, a benefit in and of itself, insofar as I get to save money on defense, and you don't.
Event he US military, inefficient as it is, does far more stuff than you'd imagine. They ship a lot of supplies to a lot of places. And with those great-big nuclear wessels of theirs, they can supply a surprising amount of distilled water in emergency areas. Private defenses, similarly, would involve much more than a bunch of guys with rifles.
Really? It seems to me that to provide similar benefits, private armies will require similar resources to what the military has now, meaning you'll be paying pretty much what you are now. On the other hand, perhaps privatization will result in greater efficiency and streamlining. Of course, we should keep in mind that those savings will be offset, at least in part, by all the folks like me, who aren't going to pay any more as soon as they don't have to. So you get to pick up your tab, and mine too.
If that's a reliable way to travel, then presumably the service of providing travel advisories would be cheap, or else nobody would bother supplying them at all. However, I'd point out that the folks you're phoning only know the local conditions at their end of your trip. There could be quite a few miles in between, about which you and they know little.
Of course, you will have given me the ability to opt out, which I don't have now, so in that sense, this plan realizes no additional tangible benefits, but does introduce one currently non-existent problem.
...namely, the free-rider problem. That's a powerful rejoinder, but the problem is that you're assuming ceteris paribus when that isn't justified. For example, you're assuming that both plans give comparable protection at comparable cost; it's possible that privatization would give worse protection at higher costs, or better protection at lower cost (as is more likely), or better protection at higher cost, or worse protection but lower cost. If the resulting defense is far superior, a minor free-rider problem might be a small price to pay.
Really? It seems to me that to provide similar benefits, private armies will require similar resources to what the military has now...
On the contrary, if there were such a thing as a "private army," it wouldn't remotely provide the same services as it does now. The market encourages specialization and division of labor; the government prefers vertically-integrated, state-controlled enterprise. Today the army isn't just solders; it's also FedEx, US Air, IBM, Sysco Food Services, Hilton Hotels, GM, AAMCO, tech school, and a host of other things rolled into one.
Under privatization, deliveries would start being done by delivery services, probably ones that already exist. Computers would be built in the computer industry. Accommodations would be provided by other third-party vendors. Food, likewise. Engineering services, ditto. Transportation, the same. Each of those things would be provided, better and cheaper, by its own segment of the market, and competition would apply to all of those factors separately, as well as to defense in the aggregate.
Instead of sending the Abraham Lincoln to provide tsunami relief, Wal*Mart would ship supplies via FedEx, and it would absolutely, positively, be there overnight.