"Actually not--but it sounded like it, because I referred to a "Contractor". My point was to argue that defense is both excludable and rivalrous, and hence doesn't meet the definition of a public good. For the sake of that argument, there has to be a hypothetical provider, which I referred to as a contractor. I did not intend to imply that the ideal national defense would involve rival "private army" companies, for example."
My mistake. But in my defense, those from the Von Mises Institute, and I thought you were familiar with their writings, argue that defense should be privitized. If you feel the need for defense, then you should pay for it is a common argument from them and you seem to be making that argument in the rest of your post.
My argument with this is not theoretical in the sense of 'public good'. Nor does it involve such terms as "excludable and rivalrous". My argument is much more pragmatic (as are almost all my arguments against libertarians) is that it simply doesn't work.
" but Lexington and Concord were fought by all volunteers, who trained voluntarily, and whose unit of organization was local rather than central. "
And, quite frankly, we got our butts kicked there as we did at almost all the early battles in the Revolutionary war. It was not until we trained a professional army (Monmouth and later) that we had some successes.
"If we posit a well-armed militia with no commanders, and no other defense measures, we still get a surprisingly robust picture: any would-be invader faces the reality that victory will be incomplete until the last man is killed. This raises the cost of invasion prohibitively high in any rational scenario."
No, this not a 'robust picture' in any sense of the word. It is only a recipe for defeat. A very bloody and complete defeat. No matter how well trained the individual, individuals lose when they face well trained units performing in concert under a centralized plan.
But, just for the sake of argument, what constitutes a well trained and well armed individual? Who determines how the individual will be trained and what level of training is sufficient? How is discipline enforced?
"Not that private armament is all we would have. Your critique of the libertarian position assumes that we're dealing with armies, and the only interesting question is who commands them."
No, the only interesting questions are which army will win and what is the best way to organize that army in order to win.
"Under privatization, aspects of defense would become separate specialties with their own markets. Rather than taxing Illinoisans to protect the shoreline from air-raids, for example, some sort of early-warning system would be maintained and paid for by those defended."
So each area would have it's own separate air defense system? Coordinated how? This is a critical issue. Concentration is another principle of war allowing where the large concentrations of force are focused upon an isolated segment of the opposing force leading to it's quick defeat. The system you just described would be rapidly and decisively overwhelmed by a coordinated attack. Even if you have 500 men and I have only 100, I will defeat all 500 if you allow me to concentrate my 100 upon your 500 ten men at a time.
"It would probably have dual-use, and raise some revenue by subcontracting to meteorologists, for example."
Such arguments quickly lead to a force optimized to produce revenue rather than win battles.
"Anti-terrorist measures would be handled less by the military and more by domestic security agencies.
Contractors?
"For example, today many utilities are vulnerable to attack. A combination of insurance carriers and security contractors would mitigate those risks for their own purposes, and the results would be better than today."
That the results would be better is an assumption and has not been proven.
"Airport security would be very different than today, and 9/11 style attacks would be considerably less likely. Various "military" functions would be assumed instead by plain-old security guards, insurance companies, and other providers."
Airport security was provided by contractors prior to 9/11 so how is it likely that 9/11 style attacks would be made less 'likely' by reverting to the system in place at that time?
"The one thing we almost certainly wouldn't have, though, is an expeditionary force. Kind of a shame, really; we'd have difficulty invading foreign nations without an expeditionary force..."
So you think we'd be more safe at home if we fought all our wars within our own homeland. Funny, I prefer to fight in the other guys back yard. Collateral damage is a bitch.
"As I illustrated above, a football team is a bad analogy."
No, you haven't demonstrated any thing remotely like that.
'We aren't dealing with such a monoculture. More realistically, we'll have many separate industries: one providing protection from lone gunmen or suicide bombers; another protecting from fire (and incidentally, incendiary attacks); another selling arms to citizens; another providing personnel screening; etc."
And exactly how is this different from my analogy where one contractor provides a defensive safety and another a linebacker?
"It's unclear to me who would handle heavy-lifting such as aircraft or missiles, but that's for the market to figure out--I'm not in charge."
The market has decided. Those things are best done at the national level.
"The likeliest scenario I can see is that many security companies will pool their resources to hire a missile-defense company, in exactly the same way that most insurance companies today actually insure their insurance policies with reinsurers."
And many other companies would select a different company and there's that nasty issue of coordination again. BTW, who authorizes one of these companies to open fire? Are the subscribers liable? Who would sign up for such a policy with such unlimited liability?
Rational-choice theory shows exactly why defense can't be privatized; in a market of many private companies, no particular company will gain more then it'd have to spend on a strategic nuclear deterrent, nor will any company be willing to spend the costs of organizing everybody else. Nuclear submarines are very expensive and not very profitable...
That's a rational argument, which I mostly agree with. Humans are such pathetic animals that, if you could make the state vanish tomorrow, they would immediately start resurrecting it to their own detriment. Those of us who love freedom are in such a tiny minority that we wouldn't stand a chance of survival; Galt's Gulch would be annihilated quickly.
What's distressing is the circularity of the argument: in effect, we (probably) need to be defended by a state, precisely because we need to be defended from states. We need them because we can't get rid of them. If we could get rid of them, we also wouldn't need them. My head hurts.
And, quite frankly, we got our butts kicked there as we did at almost all the early battles in the Revolutionary war.
True! I'm surprised you're the first person to point out that we lost that battle, after I cited it so many times! If the US fit my earlier description--namely, everyone armed to the teeth and willing to fight to the death--then the Brits would probably have lost eventually, but casualties would have been far higher than they actually were. But, if the population were small enough, and the Brits determined enough, then they would have simply exterminated the colonists and started over. That's the flaw in the libertarian position: it only works if there's a critical mass of humanity behind it.
But, just for the sake of argument, what constitutes a well trained and well armed individual?
For this discussion, it suffices if a person is willing to fight to the death with his teeth. Weapons are a bonus, since they increase the kill ratio, but 300 million people squatting, ghandi-like, and refusing to obey, would also be OK with me. The flaw in my theory is that humans don't work that way. Kill a few, and the rest will obey like the sheep they are. Privatized defense requires a critical mass willing to take responsibility for, and command of, their own lives.
So each area would have it's own separate air defense system? Coordinated how?
How did so many railroads manage to coordinate their use of the rails? Should trains have been colliding all over the place? That's actually not a very hard problem for a market to solve. People coordinate all the time, because it's in their best interests.
No, you haven't demonstrated any thing remotely like that.
I said "illustrated," not "demonstrated." As a mathematician, I'm accutely aware of the difference. But let me clarify. When you speak of many companies all providing linebackers, you're suggesting that the defense is nothing but a giant linebacker. It isn't. There are infinitely many threats out there. Luckily, most of them are unlikely, and many have only minor consequences. Defense is about addressing the totality of those threats in the most efficient manner possible.
The government does this very inefficiently, on the whole. After 9/11, their idea of protecting airports was to fill them with men carrying M16s. We know that those men were essentially useless; he threat was in the air, not in the terminal, and people flew with pocket knives, etc., right under their noses. I know I did (by accident, I assure you). But smart terrorists wouldn't be interested in planes right then; they'd be interested in bridges, power-plants, etc. The military solution is to scramble those same men, with their rifles, to the power plants... right after an attack on a power plant calls their attention to it.
The army, in general, can only throw bodies, bullets or bombs at a problem. That's incredibly inefficient, except perhaps in a conventional pitched battle for territory. It's a horrible way to find a needle in a haystack.
Which brings us back to my point: the market is not a monoculture; the military is. The market can chip away at various pieces of the problem separately. For example, if the government promised to do nothing to rebuild damaged infrastructure, power companies would suddenly find their insurance increasing. To get those insurance rates down, they would deploy measures to convince the insurer that the risk is lower. What measures? The army can only come up with one or two options, mostly involving lots of boots all around the plant. The insurers and insureds can come up with lots of measures. Maybe armed guards, yes. Or maybe anti-navigation devices to fool missiles. Or a moat full of crocodiles to deter illicit entry. Maybe electric fences. Maybe they'd buy up adjacent land and create a security zone, fill it with landmines, and shoot at anyone crossing the land. Maybe they'd move parts of the installation underground, or reinforce other parts. Best of all, their efforts would be (more or less) commensurate with actual risk, unlike the ridiculous shows of force around our airports in September of 2001.
Contractors?
No, I should have been more clear: terrorism itself is not a law-enforcement problem, but the terrorist himself is similar to other trespassers. If I have Pinkertons guarding my place with orders to shoot if necessary, they can shoot a hairy arab as easily as a hopped-up junkie or an industrial spy. Parts of the problem can be offloaded to security providers that aren't military in character at all. I'm not talking about private armies here.
The market has decided. Those things are best done at the national level.
This is the second time you've pretended that "the free market has decided" something, when in fact no free market has ever been tried. When airport security was privatized, I don't remember any market process producing that result. Do you?
And many other companies would select a different company and there's that nasty issue of coordination again. BTW, who authorizes one of these companies to open fire?
You'd find it very interesting to learn more about the railroad industry. It's not the only one, but it's got one of the more highly-developed systems for inter-provider cooperation. Railroads even use each-other's cars all the time! You'd be amazed.
As for "when to open fire", that's in general quite easy. If you aren't on my land, I have no jurisdiction. If you are, I do. Someone who passes my no trespassing sign will be shot. If adjacent property owners choose to band together, there are some economies of scale to be had. For example, if everyone in town, including the owner of the roads, agrees, then we can put gates on the roads into town, and staff them with Pinkertons. Anyone who enters the town without permission would be shot on sight.