I thought that I would take the time to address National Defense, and my views on the military.
I believe in a strong military for defense, but not one that is capable of policing the world. We currently spend $600 billion or more a year in order to do this. It is bankrupting this country, and siphoning off capital and resources that could be used to grow the American economy.
The media loves to use the word "defense" in order to justify this insane level of spending. We all know that this is propaganda. Having military bases in Germany and South Korea at this point in time don't keep us safe. It's just a way to plunder tax payers, and enrich military contractors. Not to mention the fact that our allies are freeloading of of us.
I have currently read the works from some of my favorite libertarian and anarcho capitalist thinkers in order to get some ideas on this.
 |
| Robert Murphy |
 |
| David Friedman |
 |
| Murray Rothbard |
Below, I will address some basic fundamentals, and common objections to these ideas.
Like most an-cap solutions, these ideas most likely seem peculiar to the average person, but that's because of the way we have been educated. I think that upon philosophical evaluation, they make a lot of sense.
How could defense be funded?
Under an anarcho capitalist system, there would most likely be insurance agencies that could protect property and people for a fee. If you read my blog about how a privatized police force (or more accurately, police forces) would work, this draws from those exact same principles.
National defense, like police protection, isn't some set, fixed amount of good. Under this economic system, it would be determined by what people in the market wanted and were willing to pay for. Heavily populated areas would be defended by more forces and defenses, which would be easier to fund through the higher levels of commerce in these places.
Most of the reason that our current "defense" is so expensive, is because we spend so much on offensive military weaponry, and the government has no incentive to control costs. (Like in all other areas that the government spends money!) I heard somewhere, that the Pentagon pays about $600 for a toilet seat. A jet fighter costs a few million dollars, because the price isn't determined by supply and demand in the market, but by whatever the government is willing to spend. A business tries doing that, and they'll go under.
The sort of system that I envision, would be more about actual defense. Think of protection against burglary, such as alarms, locks, and attack dogs, but on a much larger scale.
Under our current system, it's determined primarily by political influence, (notably the Military Industrial Complex) and only sort of by what we actually need to be safe. Something like the War in Afghanistan was justified in my view because we were attacked first.
As with the police insurance agencies, various competitive agencies would try to give the most for the lowest price. There would most likely be numerous agencies, all competing with each other. If one agency offers to protect the average person and their property (when all is said and done) for $5,000, someone else can come along and offer to do it for $4,000. If the latter organization is made up of smart businessmen, they can do it and earn a handsome profit in the process.
The agencies could hire various consultants who would advise them on what companies to buy from, how to defend particular areas, how to control costs, etc. Research would be determined by what people are willing to pay for it, not by how much of our hard earned money the government is willing to spend.
The agencies would have an economic incentive to make sure that no harm comes to the object that they are being paid to defend: A company is willing to pay to protect a ship carrying its goods across the ocean from pirates, a city wants to protect itself from airplane attacks (whether it be bombers or suicide hijackers), and people living along a border want their homes to be protected from attacks from across the border (whether they be drug cartels, or a foreign invasion).
Wars typically run at a huge loss: The Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone have cost us over $4 trillion dollars. Clearly, we haven't gained anywhere near that much back in terms of wealth. And "we the people" didn't have any say in controlling that amount of spending. And we're still currently paying off debt from the Civil War, and both World Wars.
What about the "free rider" problem?
For those that don't know, this is one of the common justifications for functions of government. It suggests that an idea couldn't be done by private means, because some people will refuse to pay for it, thus forcing others to front the whole cost.
An example: A valley with five different farmers in it has a dam that prevents the local river from flooding onto their fields. The dam is damaged by a natural disaster, and needs to be repaired. The farmers get together, and decide to pay to have the dam repaired. Four of the five farmers are fine with paying, but the fifth objects. He knows that even if he refuses to pay, the others will pick up the difference, because saving their crops is the top priority. The first four are angry, but ultimately agree to pay the whole fee. They decide that getting the dam repaired is more important than losing their crops to the flooding river. The fifth farmer is the "free rider".
The reason that this wouldn't be as much of an issue, is because that the major aspects of defense would be most likely paid for by large firms. They would lose most in the event of an attack.
The owner of a shopping mall wouldn't want for someone to bomb his building because of the obvious loss to rebuild it, but also if his shopping center became known as a dangerous place, he would lose customers. The owner of a skyscraper could pay an agency to put a SAM (Surface to Air Missile) system in the structure which could emerge if a rogue plane flies overhead. A few businesses could collude, and pay for an agency for a missile defense shield over the city, because they know that they would all be wiped out in the event of a missile strike.
If the individual wanted more personal protection, he could pay for police service as described in my other blog.
"Wouldn't the agencies become warlords and take over the country?"
This I think is probably the main objection to the system that I am describing, and I think can be answered more easily than people think.
Libertarians and anarchists are often mocked and told "Hey, why don't you guys move to Somalia if you want to live with little to no government?".
There is a major flaw with this argument: Somalia didn't gradually dismantle various sections of its government gradually, the way David Friedman and the others above want the United States to do. Somalia had a Marxist government that became economically unstable and collapsed. Generals and high ranking officials took over different parts of the country in the ensuing chaos.
I think another argument to this is demonstrated by the history behind the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 8 to the Constitution .
The Second Amendment says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm all for the right to bear arms. Check out my blog if you want to hear my thoughts on that. People should have every right to protect their lives and property.
I also liked the idea that Dr. Friedman had, of high school classes offering some sort of military training. Not special forces training, but how to fire and reload a weapon, and how to defend yourself.
Paintball and first person shooter video games are already immensely popular, so this wouldn't be that hard to implement.
Article 1, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power.. To provide for organizing arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (Article 1, Section 8)
It is important to understand the context in which this was drafted.
The Founding Fathers knew history, and this was written in lieu of the English Civil Wars in the previous century.
 |
| Oliver Cromwell |
This taught the Founders two things: A national army is needed for defense, but a national army could seize power if in the wrong hands.
This was the compromise of the Second Amendment. There would be a standing army as well as numerous militias, operating at state and local levels.
In the case of a full scale enemy invasion, the militias could band together with the standing army in order to repel the invaders.
The militias outnumbered the professional soldiers something like 300 to 1. The idea was that if a general in the army or the President tried to use the army to become a military dictator, the militias would easily be able to wipe them out. The fear of this prevented any military leader or the President from trying to seize absolute power.
Conversely, the militias were made up of various groups all differing in views and goals, so it was very unlikely that they would band together to try and seize power as well.
This system worked, because early in America's history there were no attempted coups, and only one foreign invasion (The War of 1812) which was repelled. The reason we got away from this system was because of the aftermath of the Civil War, which the central government use to increase and solidify its power.
The point of me saying all this, is that there would be multiple agencies of competing interests. It would be unlikely for one to seize power, since more than likely, the others would prevent it. In the same way that militias kept the army in check.
"What do we do if someone like Hitler invades us?"
Well, there's a serious obvious problem with this argument.
Hitler's armies easily overran several militarized countries including France, Poland, Belgium, Holland, etc.
It would also be likely that in the event of an invasion, competing agencies over a geographical area would band together to keep out an invader, just as countries will form alliances to protect another. Nobody wants to be taken over and ruled by a military dictator. That, and if a foreign power takes over, these agencies could likely go out of business.
France and Britain have historically hated each other, but were willing to band together in both World Wars.
"Stand united, or die divided."
"If they're defeated, we're next."
I would also argue that since under this sort of economy, the country would be vastly wealthier, it would be easier to purchase high tech, powerful defenses.
"Wouldn't one of the agencies become so large that it could form a new government?"
It's not impossible, but less likely.
Since there would be multiple agencies competing for market share, citizens would have a chance to change agencies if they saw that one was gaining lots of market share, and was becoming too powerful.
The citizens could choose to patronize another one, and the existing firm would lose money and have to scale back. Or in the extreme case, shut its doors entirely.
If an agency chose to wage war on a group of its customers, those citizens could pay another agency to protect them. A rival agency would see this as a chance to swoop in a make a handsome profit. The war mongering agency would go bankrupt, and not have the means to continue to wage the war without the funding that it previously had. The warmongers would be "biting the hand that feeds them."
And since there wouldn't be government imposed restraints on firms, nothing could stop new firms from emerging if someone saw the opportunity.
I can also argue that there would be numerous agencies providing different types of national defense.
More than one could provide tanks, more than one would provide air defense, more than one could provide anti aircraft defense, etc. The competition would do a better job of keeping them in check, just as countries of roughly equal military might would be afraid to go to war. Like the US and the former Soviet Union.
For example, Tank Producer A probably wouldn't try to go to war, because Attack Helicopter Producer A could wipe them out. If Helicopter Producer A tried to attack a city, Attack Helicopter Producer B would wipe them out. The company that won would have new customers, and if the company that got defeated were even still around, they would be bankrupt and ruined.
"Mutually assured destruction." as it's called. This is why we never fought the Soviet Union outright.
People worry about private enterprise becoming too powerful and oppressive, but in an anarcho capitalist society, that would be easier than it is now: Stop buying their goods/services.
If you study actually history (not the comic book version of history that they teach in school), you learn this:
No monopoly has existed without government involvement.
How to stop government from expanding its power and becoming oppressive is one of the greatest questions of political science.
Perfect example: The history of the United States
"Wouldn't agencies band together and form a government?"
Again, possible, but I don't think likely.
Historically, mergers on a massive level have failed. (You can read my blog about "Libertarian alternatives to government regulations" where I explain the reasons for that.)
I could easily see the same happening here. These agencies would be competing for business, and thus it would be hard to get them to agree on the same terms. As happened in the "merger movement" in the early Twentieth century, many of these cartel arrangements would most likely break down.
Certain members would more than likely "chisel" on the agreement, or break the agreement established by the cartel. This is because different firms operate at different levels of efficiency, and some can charge lower prices and still make a profit. A successful firm could charge lower prices and/or offer a better product, and put the others out of business. Merging with the less efficient firm is simply a drain.
"Wouldn't we have to worry about agencies constantly being at war with each other?"
It wouldn't make sense for this to happen. Just think back to the earlier points:
- War is run at a loss, not a profit. The agencies wouldn't have the means to fund long time, large scale assaults, it would be unlikely for them to be loaned the money to do so the way our governments have.
- If an agency wages war (i.e. spends its customers money on things that go against their wishes) the patrons can choose another agency for service, and put that one out of business.
- It wouldn't make sense for privately employed soldiers to gun down potential customers, as well as friends and family of current customers. If my agency kills one of my uncles, I'm going to reconsider who I pay to protect me.
- Wars fought in a tight geographical space would destroy the wealth that funds these enterprises. It was easier for us to blast Germany back to the Stone Age, because our citizens weren't living there, and we didn't have to (but did via the Marshall Plan) pay to rebuild it to get on with our lives once the war was over. New York and Boston wouldn't likely go to war, since they do have businesses that work with each other, contain businesses owned by the same companies, and have many other common ties.
For example, my old boss Daniel Boulud has restaurants in NYC and one in Boston. If any got destroyed in the fighting between the cities, he would change insurance coverage. Or perhaps a better example: McDonalds has restaurants everywhere. They wouldn't be too happy if they had to pay to rebuild them. The shareholders of McDonalds stock wouldn't be happy either.
- This sort of ties into the point above, but different groups with commercial ties would be less likely to go to war. As I wrote above, France and Britain have hated each other historically. However, since they formed a trade agreement in the 1840's they have been at peace since, and have even worked together. Some people have said that's one of the main reasons that we wouldn't go to war with China. They send most of their exports here, and they hold part of our National Debt. We both would lose out big time if the other got destroyed.
"What about nuclear weapons and other WMD's?"
It's less likely that a society like this would have nuclear weapons, however if the people wanted one (just as a deterrent) various businesses could pay an insurance agency to hold one in a silo.
And again, it's unlikely that we have to worry about one agency using one on another. This perhaps more so than with any other kind of weaponry.
Would it be in New York's best interest to nuke Trenton?
"What do we do if we have to invade somebody?"
An anarcho capitalist is just generally against foreign intervention, except possibly as a means of retaliation.
There is one way of handling this that I could think of: Make the foreign aggressor hand over anyone responsible for the attack. If they refuse, an insurance agency could call for a one time donation to fund an expeditionary force to invade a country, blast the government back to the Stone Age, and arrest any war criminals. Rebuilding the country would fall on the initial aggressors, as punishment for not turning over the people that started the war.
The people and the agency could sign an agreement saying that the expeditionary force would disband itself once their task is completed. There would be no more 5+ years of military occupation. That's not our job.
"How would intelligence agencies work?"
They could be included in the defense insurance coverage, or could exist as separate entities themselves.
I could foresee them working very similarly to the private police agencies. The fees would pay for agents to dig up information, and there would be an incentive to please the customer. For example, privately hired agents could be offered contracts with pay based on risk assessment and difficulty. (similar to bounty hunters) There could be bonuses paid out to agents that went above and beyond the call of duty.
There could also be "counter spies" that would be paid to keep clients' assets secret and secure.
Conclusion
This is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that any libertarian/an cap thinker has to answer, but I think it makes sense once broken down.
Any feedback on this would be great. Always looking to learn more!
-STK
