Replies

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.

Privatization of national defense = hiring mercenaries.

That might be true if big central armies are the cornerstone of defence, but that isn't necessarily true. One approach to national defense is to arm everyone in the place, and let foreigners decide for themselves whether they really want a massively bloody confrontation with tens of millions of causalties, or whether they'd rather just engage in free trade.

Another possibility is all-volunteer local militias. This is actually the same as the previous option, with the addition of a few officers.

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

As I said before: it's not that I'm so sure defense can be privatized, but rather that I distrust the casual assumption that it can't be. After all, such a thing hasn't been properly tried in the last 10,000 years. We always think there's only one way to do things, when one way is the only one we know.

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.

I'll grant that no "private army" could beat the USMC, because no private army could convince people to give them hundreds of billions of dollars--which, of course, the US military is given out of the spoils of tax theft. However, it isn't necessary to do the best possible job; a good enough job will do. The down side of the US military's superiority is that it's also the world's best tool for oppressing the populace, and sooner or later the day will come that it's used for that purpose.

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shooter; -- no rational libertarian would try to tell you that the USMC will ever be used to suppress US civilians.

Pacifist's may have such nightmares , but the reality of an armed population and our Constituonal contracts principles, - like Posse Comitatus , -- will serve to prevent such acts.