Replies

As a practical matter, I think plain common sense indicates that 'national defense' is not something that can be addressed individually. It is collective by it's nature.

I have healthy respect for the possibility that you're right on that score. Having grown up more-or-less and originalist, I would for most have my life have agreed wholeheartedly. Today I agree halfheartedly; I think that the subject is worthy of discussion, precisely because privatization of some or all of defense has never honestly been tried in history. Historically, the defensive army is the tool of the dictator, who uses it not only to defend, but but also to control his subjects.

When a prosperous Murray's home is invaded (or tax withheld from his paycheck) to take his property and redistribute it to his less prosperous (lazier, stupider, unlucky) neighbor so as to make the two more equal, then the real problem arises!

Agreed.

Privatization of national defense = hiring mercenaries.

Dress it up how you like, hiring a group for pay to defend a nation won't work. When the bullet hits the bone, the hired help can't be trusted. They'll run or worse, change sides. There is no loyalty, they're not fighting for themselves. Its just the $$ and when that runs out, so do the unpaid mercenaries.

Why did the Greeks always post their mercenaries front and center? So they would bear the brunt of the battle and, so they couldn't run away!

Now, if you mean by defense privatization having Halliburton run the mess halls, well, maybe. But you won't find any wing-tipped execu-warriors around when the fit hits the Shan. They'll be running for cover with the Sri Lankan server boys they hire for $3 a day.

While I sympathize with the Libertarian distrust of government, national defense has to stay in gov't hands.

Believe me, I'd love to take my family, the dog, guns, truck, move up to 'Ruby Ridge' and flip Osama a bird and tell him 'come get me you ragheaded motherf'er' but somehow I think the USMC would do a better job.