Can the Free Market Wage War?
Interventionism addresses a topic that I have found nowhere else in Mises: his analysis of how a free society should wage war. What is the alternative to total war with total state control? Mises's response will surprise no one: he favors reliance on the free market. To support his view that a market economy can effectively wage modern war, Mises advances a surprising claim about the early part of World War II. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (55)
roy
actually, more than WWII, Mises' own experience in WWI and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's military successes against the Russians is a good example of a free market war industry proving much more efficient, flexible and powerful than a nationalized/interventionist war machine....
Published: August 14, 2009 9:06 AM
David Janello
The issue of war is critical and largely unexamined by Austrian economics.
The Athenian Empire financed its military operations during the Peloppenesian Wars by silver coinage from its treasury. When the silver supplies from the treasury were exhausted, military operations were curtailed or ceased. Naval operations required expensive warships and highly trained trireme crews, all paid for with hard currency.
Contrast the Athenian approach with the German approach in World War I:
The German Reich forcibly conscripted a large army at below market wages;
The Reich raised funds through sale of war bonds to domestic and foreign buyers, on which it defaulted;
The Reich and its successor, the Weimar Republic, imposed a hyperinflation tax of 100% on all liquid that remained the war, above and beyond the taxes paid by the citizenry during the war.
When building a war infrastructure, nation-states with effective tax rates of 100% -- inflationist, communist-socialist, and fascist -- have a significant military advantage over capitalist states, especially democratic capitalist states with more or less sound money, that cannot impose a 100% tax rate.
The theme of 100% tax rate regimes challenging much larger, richer enemies runs throughout 20th century military history. The Axis powers were able to invade and conquer much larger and wealthier rivals. The Soviet Union was able to stalemate the Western powers for over 50 years with a much weaker economy. The Great American Inflation was in large part driven by a geopolitical need to raise taxation above what was possible in a partial democracy.
Published: August 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Barry Loberfeld
Do we have to fight any of the State's wars?
Published: August 14, 2009 10:44 AM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Although Mises has valuable arguments in regards to economics, his analysis of the fall of France as presented in this article is completely fallacious. Ultimately, the procurement system in a national army is not capitalistic, because the army is owned by the State. It is not subject to "profit and loss", because a "loss" could mean the dismemberment of said army.
The problem was not that the French government nationalized the arms industry and refused to allow the production of war-winning weapons. The problem was that the French general command was unwilling to modernize its doctrine by incorporating advances in mechanized strategy. Furthermore, French B Divisions were understrength in key heavy weaponry, including anti-tank artillery, which made them susceptible to being overran (the German breakthrough at Sedan was made against B divisions).
What the factory produces is irrelevant if the State does not want to procure those armaments. This was not because the French wanted to cap war profits, at all costs, but because they did not see the value in mechanization, and because they had focused their attention on static defenses.
That said, French factories produced a lot of high quality ordnance prior to the war. For example, apart from the lack of a radio, French tanks were considered superior quality to that of the Germans (which were generally under-armored and under-armed). German tanks found it difficult to knock-out their French adversaries, except in large groups. The major German advantage was not in technology, but in tactics and their use of tanks in tight formations, instead of spreading them out.
In any case, this is a website that deals with economics and not warfare, so I don't want to get too much into the topic. But, when it comes to war some libertarian theories are definitely flawed.
Published: August 14, 2009 11:15 AM
Russ
Jonathan Finegold Catalán wrote:
"...when it comes to war some libertarian theories are definitely flawed."
Agreed. I used to be very attracted to anarcho-capitalist theory, but war was the one problem that I could never convince myself could be handled without a heirarchical command structure like the State. War is *the* hard problem for anarcho-capitalists. And once I convinced myself that an anarcho-capitalist society could not defend itself in times of war, I started to take a good, hard look at other aspects of the theory, such as the theory of PDAs, and found them lacking as well.
Published: August 14, 2009 12:16 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Russ,
I wrote down some thoughts of mine on why I think that government is inevitable (here: http://www.economicthought.net/2009/07/inevitability-of-government/ ). I generally agree with you, although I don't think that fighting a defensive war requires a State. On the other hand, I believe that catastrophes like war naturally catalyze a movement towards a State, because the majority of people prefer to have a sense of guaranteed protection which they are "not paying for" (I mean this in the sense that it is a hidden cost, paid through taxes, and more expensive than it would be privately... but, guaranteed nonetheless).
Or otherwise, people will band together in some sort of militia, which in a defensive war of large scale for require most able bodied men in any given society, which will create a natural military hierarchy, which may translate post-war into a government of some type.
The anonymous comment on that blog post I linked to makes a point that I guess what I believe is that it is impossible to set up some "underlying code of ethics" that the majority of people will respect in times of catastrophe.
Published: August 14, 2009 12:28 PM
Russ
Jonathan Finegold Catalán wrote:
"...the majority of people prefer to have a sense of guaranteed protection which they are "not paying for""
I think that the majority of people realize that they are paying for their protection, but believe (correctly, in my opinion) that they are getting more than they are sacrificing, at least up to a certain point of size of government. The metaphor that I prefer is that of a vaccine; government may make me a little sick, but it protects me from the full-blown disease. And I'm not sure that a modern economy would be possible any other way; a modern economy involves specialization. The government is the organization that specializes in defense, and allows others to specialize in something else without constantly having to protect themselves as well.
"The anonymous comment on that blog post I linked to makes a point that I guess what I believe is that it is impossible to set up some "underlying code of ethics" that the majority of people will respect in times of catastrophe. "
I'm not sure what the poster meant. But I believe that it is not even possible to have a whole society share a single "underlying code of ethics" in times of *peace*. Look at the cultural divide in the US. Some believe that socialism is a moral duty. Others believe that socialism is a travesty of justice. This is why I can't buy into a system of PDAs that would all enforce a single set of libertarian law. There's no way that all PDAs would agree to enforce the same laws. This leaves the theory of PDAs enforcing competing legal theories in the same geographic area (what Ayn Rand called "competing governments"). For the same reason, I can't see PDAs with competing legal codes always playing nice with one another. Once upon a time I believed that this could work; mainly, I think, because I *wanted* to believe it could work. Now, I can't. Take, for instance, the example of a Rothbardian PDA and a Shari'a PDA. How could these two possibly agree to a third, adjudicating PDA? Ancap is a utopia, and it's as realistic as every utopia has ever been.
Published: August 14, 2009 2:09 PM
2nd Amendment
Russ,
"The government is the organization that specializes in defense,"
Yup, when it comes to killing and looting, the government is the best !
But then, if the government specialises in defense, who will defend us from the government ?
Published: August 14, 2009 3:10 PM
2nd Amendment
Free market capitalism is already waging a counter-war against the drug war.
All those who buy drugs on the street fund the "war" machine of druglords.
Druglords in Mexico are already waging war against their own government and against the US government and they are winning this war.
Governments should stop the war on drugs.
Published: August 14, 2009 3:18 PM
Russ
2nd Amendment wrote:
"Yup, when it comes to killing and looting, the government is the best !"
I know you were being flippant when you wrote that, but yes, since the givernment specializes in defense, it is pretty good at it. Much better than I would be, against an army, a cadre of terrorists, or even a street gang.
"But then, if the government specialises in defense, who will defend us from the government?"
Aye, there's the rub. I don't deny that this is *the* big problem of political theory. I just don't agree that ancap is a way around the problem. My preferred solution would be a real federalism, where the United States were 50 nations instead of just one, and every state in the US had real autonomy. That way we could have a sort of competition in legal systems, banking systems, etc., and people could vote with their feet. Unfortunately, this might also be unworkable in practice. After all, the US under the Articles of Confederation only lasted, what, 6 year between Yorktown and the Constitutional Convention, because the states would not honor their commitments to pay off the war debt? So loose federations seem not to provide the strength in numbers that is the purpose of such a federation. And a more tightly coupled federation, it seems, inevitably becomes not a federation at all but a monolithic state, e.g. the federation under the Constitution lasted only 73 years before it was made abundantly apparent that the concept of "imperium in imperio" was only a legal fiction.
I wish I had a solution to the problem of the one versus the many. Unfortunately, I do not. Perhaps Jefferson's solution is the only one: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Published: August 14, 2009 3:49 PM
Borislav
Jonathan Finegold Catalán is right. French generals were disaster.
Published: August 14, 2009 4:01 PM
2nd Amendment
Russ,
"but yes, since the givernment specializes in defense, it is pretty good at it."
Actually, the military's procurement and logistic department is a real nightmare, worse than the postal office, one size fits nobody kind of scheme.
Most efficient developments of the government is done by private contractors developping fighter planes and latest technology.
I'm sorry but if the government could not extort tax money by force, it would be good at NOTHING.
Published: August 14, 2009 4:23 PM
2nd Amendment
"I just don't agree that ancap is a way around the problem."
Larry page just bought some fighter jets !
In anarcap, everybody could buy first grade military equipment, tanks, fighter planes etc.
Everybody would be watching behind his shoulder and watching each other very closely.
Forces would be much more at equilibrium.
Of course there would be town fights, fire fights etc. But given the 100,000,000 death tolls of wars during the 20th century and countless deads at the hands of government warfare, it is very difficult to imagine that civilian ownership of military equipment and private armies would make more deads than the government.
Smaller armies with more equal forces and a greater burden of responsibility on individuals.
I believe that if civilians could buy all the weapons they want, we would have more peace and prosperity in the world.
Remember, God made man, Sam Colt man him equal.
Published: August 14, 2009 4:27 PM
2nd Amendment
Russ,
"My preferred solution would be a real federalism, where the United States were 50 nations instead of just one,"
And my preferred solution would be a real sovereignty where the United States were 300,000,000 sovereign individuals instead of one nation under God.
Published: August 14, 2009 4:30 PM
fakename
I think that ancap would be able to provide legal,and military services more efficiently than the gov. could. I've heard that there are logistics problems in the military and what about our poor supply lines in iraq and afghanistan, apparently they have been in trouble since the start of the war and yet the market finds no trouble supplying the needs of billions of chinese. Not to mention the expensive campaigns, bombings, etc. that no corporation would ever risk and we have a lot of squandered wealth. The market could easily win a war and if it couldn't it would reach a profitable and businessmanlike surrender to the enemy either way ensuring profits to the people.
Published: August 14, 2009 4:39 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
2nd Amendment,
I agree with you that a private defense contractor will always be more efficient than a State run military. The advantage the State has, however, is that it can tax money to act as a counterweight to their inherent inefficiency. As a result of money, the State can afford weapons which are not necessarily efficient to field.
It is doubtful, for example, whether or not the F-22 would have been developed in a world with no government. In the weapons which are efficient, including small-arms and lightly armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, et cetera), there has actually been a pretty fast paced evolution of capabilities. Where development has been more constricted is generally areas in which the only client is the state, which includes most heavy weaponry, such as high tech military aircraft and tanks. It simply would not be in a company's best interests to have a large fleet of advance aircraft, especially in a world where major world-scale conflicts are unlikely to happen.
Besides, more than efficiency, these heavy weapons were built to provide an image. I am in the works to write an article on the subject, for for example, the majority of tank designs were terribly poor and inefficient during the Cold War. But, the reasons why the Soviet Union designed such beasts such as the IS-III and the T-10, post-war, was to provide an image of military might. These two designs in particular, were rather poor. In fact, the lighter T-55 was superior in many different ways. U.S. tanks were particularly poor until the advent of the M1, and even then, the only reason why it has a semblance of superiority is because the fall of the Soviet Union precluded them from producing something better (which was already being designed, under the designation "Molot").
These designs are, individually, inefficient, expensive and largely procured for national image. However, taxation allows government to squander large amounts of money on large amounts of heavy weaponry, ultimately making them a powerful force. I don't think that a private defense company would ever build the willingness or the ability to form these types of armed forces.
Published: August 14, 2009 4:46 PM
Floyd
The Defense Dept is not efficient at all. When you say the government is "good" at war I suppose thats pretty subjective. There is nothing efficient about the way we wage war, possibly new technologies will change that some day.
I think the people in a free market could defend themselves against invasion but they'd not be really good at wars of conquest unless things were just so bad it was a life or death thing. That would be called an "incentive".
Is it: The Volcano is going to blow, lets all go to the next island. More likely we'd pay for staying at the next island.
Published: August 14, 2009 5:03 PM
Nicolas
"I used to be very attracted to anarcho-capitalist theory, but war was the one problem that I could never convince myself could be handled without a heirarchical command structure like the State".
I don't agree. In the Middle Ages mercenary outfits were common. In Italy for example, the condottieris were the dominant military force.
Even the East India Company was a private company (heavily supported by the state agreed, although in some occasions it rebelled against government policies), had an army of more of 200,000 men in its peak.
Published: August 14, 2009 6:24 PM
Russ
Nicolas wrote:
"I don't agree. In the Middle Ages mercenary outfits were common. In Italy for example, the condottieris were the dominant military force."
I'm not familiar with the condottieri, but mercenaries fighting for pay for a king is not exactly what anarchocapitalism is all about. Multiple kings in the same geographical area, with mercenary armies, all getting along nice would be what ancap envisions. Also, I'm not saying that military people shouldn't get paid. Conscription is stupid enough by itself.
"Even the East India Company was a private company (heavily supported by the state agreed, although in some occasions it rebelled against government policies), had an army of more of 200,000 men in its peak."
It also had more or less a monopoly in its area of operations, did it not? I would say it was a de facto state. It certainly was not a PDA in the Rothbardian sense.
2nd Amendment wrote:
"Remember, God made man, Sam Colt man him equal."
I'm not against people having the right to keep and bear arms. But when the Americans fought the British for Independence, it was the Continental Army that did the heavy lifting, not the militias. Even then, without the help of the French, we might not have won.
"And my preferred solution would be a real sovereignty where the United States were 300,000,000 sovereign individuals instead of one nation under God."
OK, this would be my preferred solution, too, except for the one little caveat that I think it's a pipe dream that won't work. Big groups tend to beat small groups; that simple fact is what it comes down to. A big group can even beat a collection of small groups that are bigger as a whole than the big group, if the big group fights as a unit, and the small groups do not. The first rule of warfare is divide and conquer. The second rule is probably to concentrate your strength on the enemy's weak spot. You can't do that if your side consists of umpteen independent armies under different leadership, with different goals and different plans.
Published: August 14, 2009 8:07 PM
peace on earth
Can The Free Market Wage War? That question starts with with a false premise; that the warfare state should be imitated by market institutions, if at all possible. But military institutions are the chief danger to our lives and liberties. Wherever there are military institutions, there will be taxes, there will be conscription, there will be weapon testing, there will be arms races, there will be territorial disputes, and there will be coups and assassinations. Pacifist and revolutionary activity will be suppressed. Labor rights will be violated. The commanding heights of industry will be consolidated. Religion will be used to justify hatred rather than ameliorate it. Virtues will be forbidden, and vice applauded. Good will be regarded as evil, and evil will be seen as good. This is guaranteed.
These atrocities will take place, because a war machine cannot sustain itself any other way. If the enemy is conscripting soldiers, confiscating supplies, brainwashing the youth, etc., then the enemy has the advantage; and "our side" must use the exact same tactics to level the playing field. War is a contest to be more ruthless, more relentless, and more evil than the opposition; and the winning side gets to write the laws.
That war is wrong is obvious; but this dogmatic assertion will not stop somebody from waging war if they are provoked. What is needed is a pragmatic assertion that world peace is beneficial for all, and that any advantage that could possibly be found from winning a war could be obtained from other means. And eliminating the scourge of war is incumbent upon civilized men everywhere.
World peace can be realized when hatred, greed, and xenophobia are eradicated, and when we realize that any injustice can be resisted, and any dispute settled, without recourse to violence. The Albert Einstein Institution publicizes some very useful information about "waging peace"; using activism and nonviolent resistance to defy an armed adversary. Such tactics have been used to win India's independence from British imperialism, and have been used in "color revolutions" around the world.
aeinstein.org
Published: August 14, 2009 8:22 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Peace on earth wrote 'The Albert Einstein Institution publicizes some very useful information about "waging peace"; using activism and nonviolent resistance to defy an armed adversary. Such tactics have been used to win India's independence from British imperialism...'
That's nonsense, actually, though it fits in very well with a certain kind of anticolonialist historical revisionism. Britain actually wanted to make India independent on the Dominion model that would have kept it contributing to the imperial structure, which was why Dyarchy was brought in as a transition to self rule. That process was accelerated and didn't lead to that outcome - but not because of anything that Gandhi and his ilk did, rather because of the cost of the Pyrrhic Victories of both world wars. What Gandhi et al achieved, which was very real, was positioning their lot to take best advantage of independence - but they did nothing to produce it. If anything, they would have been better off delaying it so that enough viability could have been grown to avoid partition; that would have given them even more.
Published: August 15, 2009 1:35 AM
Guerilla
21 comments and not a single mention of Guerilla warfare. But in fact, that is the most important factor for a decentralised military. In a guerilla war, all of the state's aggressive tactics cease to function. The typical tactical air and artillery strikes: where to strike them when there is no central command?
Tanks: what the hell do you do with them when there is no specific area to blitz.
Setting up base, taking over existing bureaucratic system: this is a big one, without an existing system of taxation and bureaucratic command, the invaders have little to actually have control over other than going house to house to collect taxes.
All the while, little attack groups, supported by populus, can commence fast guerilla strikes, and the invaders can do little about it due to intelligence information being nearly impossible to get, as there is no bureaucratic system to get it from.
Published: August 15, 2009 9:08 AM
Flix
second that. guerilla warfare negates all the economies of scale and size advantage of national militaries... and if there's something that the market excels at is decentralized coordination.
If the world's most powerful country has trouble overcoming 3rd world guerrilla forces in Afgh-Pak... imagine what waging a guerrilla war against an advanced country (switzerland?) would be like...
Published: August 15, 2009 11:41 AM
Flix
read "The ungoverned" by Vernor Vinge or "Minerva" by B. Murphy for ideas about what ancap defense against state aggression would look like.
------------
still, even in a traditional state warfare scenario... a free market is infinitely more efficient at supplying military goods than a centralized bureaucracy... history is littered with examples.
Published: August 15, 2009 11:47 AM
Russ
Guerilla wrote:
"21 comments and not a single mention of Guerilla warfare."
Actually, I did mention the militias in the War for Independence, which were pretty much guerilla groups.
Flix wrote:
"second that. guerilla warfare negates all the economies of scale and size advantage of national militaries... and if there's something that the market excels at is decentralized coordination."
Hmmm, let's see what I could do against capitalist guerilla warfare in the US if I were an evil statist overlord.... I know! I'd use my air force to destroy the country's power plants, refineries and tank farms. No power, no capitalist production. No power, no telecommunications, no decentralized coordination. No power, no agribusiness, no food distribution, no eating! Guerillas would be too busy fighting off their own fellow citizens who wanted to cannibalize them to fight me! Then if there were little knots of resistance left, I'd just firebomb whole counties and let God sort 'em out.
Mwahahaha!!!!! Mwahahaha!!!!! Mwahahaha!!!!!
Seriously, though, the idea of fighting a modern technological military force with guerillas is crazy, unless you don't mind living like a rat in a tunnel for years. Even Vietnam isn't a really good example for the pro-guerilla side, because, let's face it, the guerillas didn't beat the US in Vietnam, the US beat the US in Vietnam.
Published: August 15, 2009 12:38 PM
guerrilla
"I'd use my air force to destroy the country's power plants, refineries and tank farms."
SAM sites.
plus... it'd have to be a big, big air force to take out all US power plants, not to mention all the rest.
seriously, it's been tried (Kosovo? Iraq?) and doesn't even work when it's David v. Goliath.
Published: August 15, 2009 3:50 PM
Russ
@Guerilla:
You're dreaming. Guerilla warfare is used as a strategy of last resort, and that is for a reason. What country do you know that has a decent economy that has a policy of relying only on guerilla warfare for defense? There are none, because it's insane!
Published: August 15, 2009 4:35 PM
2nd Amendment
" Big groups tend to beat small groups; "
That's because small groups are cowards and never fight to the last !
And if you study history, you will find that Alexander the great waged a big war with a small group over extremely large groups.
You will find that Oda Nobunaga won terrific battles against very large groups even though he commanded only a smaller group.
Gengis Khan had a minuscule army compared to the Chineese and the Persians, that did not stop him from winning.
No matter how big or small your group is, the ones with the biggest balls win !
Published: August 15, 2009 5:12 PM
Russ
2nd Amendment wrote:
"No matter how big or small your group is, the ones with the biggest balls win!"
You live in a freakin' dream world.
Yeah, sometimes smaller groups win, but the reason these victories are so celebrated is precisely because they're uncommon. Besides, when small groups win against large groups, it's usually because the small group has good leadership, good discipline, and all are fighting according to one battle plan, not because they're just out there doing their own thing.
Published: August 15, 2009 5:39 PM
Curt Howland
Wars of conquest are hideously, unbelievably expensive. They can only be maintained by heavy taxation.
Governments are not "efficient" at war, they just have more money to throw away.
Governments are not "efficient" at defense from the standpoint of people, because the government's priority is ALWAYS the continuation of the government, not the people.
In a voluntary society as Americans generally view it, self defense is a personal matter. There WILL be individuals, spread around and unknown, who have anti-aircraft weapons. There WILL be people with good-for-a-mile-long-shot .50-cal rifles. There WILL be stealth hunters because there are already people who hunt deer and turkeys.
There will be private defensive agencies all over the place, ready to defend their clients. There will be private individuals ready to defend their homes. Because the one overwhelming fact being overlooked by the "governments are good at war" folks is that any "war" fought by a voluntary society will be defensive. There just isn't the ability to tax to support any kind of "conventional" offensive war.
And let's not forget that any leader who ordered such an attack would be a target of opportunity, large bounties on his head. Without laws against that sort of thing, it is exactly the kind of response I would contribute to: Limited, targeted, and specific to the individual responsible rather than spreading destruction upon people who have done me no harm.
Wouldn't you?
Published: August 16, 2009 1:58 AM
P.M.Lawrence
2nd Amendment wrote "Gengis Khan had a minuscule army compared to the Chineese [sic] and the Persians, that did not stop him from winning."
Actually, along with everything else he had going for him, he had numbers too (by then). That was because he could draw on far more trained men proportionally, even though he had a smaller initial base (and see below). Also, the Mongols didn't conquer the southern half of China until generations later, for which they also had the resources of the northern half.
Curt Howland wrote "Wars of conquest are hideously, unbelievably expensive. They can only be maintained by heavy taxation."
Historically, that is simply not true in general. Whether it is depends on the state of the Art of War and various other things, and also the willingness to use other methods if they are available. At various times it has in fact been practical to "make war feed on war". Such successful conquests include those of the Normans, the Mongols, the Spanish Reconquista, the Turks, Tamurlaine, Napoleon and arguably others more recent if you define what they did as conquest.
One can easily see a generational Reconquista approach defeating and destroying the USA, if it only once got a start.
Published: August 16, 2009 3:15 AM
Gil
"Wars of conquest are hideously, unbelievably expensive. They can only be maintained by heavy taxation." C. Howland
General Sun Tzu forewarns military leaders against relying on taxation and instead the military should fund themselves through the spoils of the losers:
"The skilful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished."
Besides wars of conquest must be affordable because they have actually occurred.
"Governments are not 'efficient' at defense from the standpoint of people, because the government's priority is ALWAYS the continuation of the government, not the people."
Why would governments want to lose their taxpayers?
"There will be private defensive agencies all over the place, ready to defend their clients."
Why not call a spade a spade and use the common term: 'mercenaries'. Besides do you think you and your friends could afford their services or outbid the invaders?
"There WILL, There WILL, There WILL, . . ."
Are one you of 'them'? Are you hoping such people will come to your aid in a time of invasion? Do deers and turkeys prepare people against soldiers who actually have guns and are shooting back at you?
"And let's not forget that any leader who ordered such an attack would be a target of opportunity, large bounties on his head."
Hmmmm . . .:
"Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, US government officials named bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death.[3][106] On 13 July 2007, this figure was doubled to $50 million.[107]" - Wiki
Published: August 16, 2009 6:25 AM
Curt Howland
Gil,
"wars of conquest must be affordable because they have actually occurred."
So do big screen TVs, but that doesn't make them cheap.
Let's see. Which is cheaper to attack, a generally armed population, with no central "government" to take out or negotiate with, or a disarmed population with a central government made up of politicians and bureaucrats who want to live?
"Why would governments want to lose their taxpayers?"
Why would politicians and bureaucrats want to lose their lives, when they can order someone else to die instead?
You would do well to review the concept of "Public Choice".
"Why not call a spade a spade and use the common term: 'mercenaries'.(sic)"
If that's what you like, go ahead. I also like the use of the terms "bail bondsmen" and "bountyhunters". I'm also looking forward to seeing the implementation of Jim Bell's _Assassination Politics_.
It's easy to nay-say what might happen, since our shared experience has always been under the burden of government. The free market, in comparison has always been an environment of innovation and the commoditization of "luxuries", I believe the same thing will happen with defense, once defense is finally pried from the claws of the monopoly on coercion.
"Are one you of 'them'?"
Yes. Aren't you? Will you let your neighbors be rounded up, making sure to paint the attacker's flag on your door in the vain hope they'll pass you over? Stand by while others martial to the defense of their homes and communities against armed invasion?
Some neighbor.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude than the
animated contest of freedom, go from
us in peace. We ask not your counsels
or arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your
chains sit lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that you were our
countrymen!"
---Samuel Adams
"and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death."
You neglect to note that it was also illegal for Americans to collect the reward, thus excluding the most motivated of possible bounty hunters.
Published: August 16, 2009 10:34 AM
Michael A. Clem
Government's not good at defense--they're good at attack and destruction. Wars are generally fought by governments, not smaller groups or private organizations. Even where there's "gang warfare" it is still on a much smaller and more limited scale than governmental wars. And as has already been pointed out, a truly anarchistic society is extremely decentralized, providing less of a target for governments to attack and making it harder for them to conquer and keep.
None of this is to say that anarcho-capitalism is a utopia. However defense, like any other service, involves the utilization of scarce resources, and nothing utilizes scarce resources better than a free market. Defense isn't about the ability to wage war, but about the variety of means to deter and discourage attacks and provide peace and security, including the use of unilateral free trade. So when thinking about defense, it's important to not have tunnel-vision, or to think purely in terms of military defense.
Published: August 16, 2009 4:27 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Curt Howland wrote 'Let's see. Which is cheaper to attack, a generally armed population, with no central "government" to take out or negotiate with, or a disarmed population with a central government made up of politicians and bureaucrats who want to live?'
It could be either, depending on the resources and methods available. If there were no central organisation to attack but the attackers were willing and able to destroy infrastructure, they could very easily employ the methods of havoc and chevauchee to defeat a generally armed population in detail, pausing as necessary to restock cleared areas that were no longer at risk and start drawing resources from them. That, after all, is just precisely what the Spanish did in the Reconquista.
Published: August 16, 2009 7:10 PM
ostralion
Firstly, Free-market capitalism is not waging a war on drugs, as an earlier comment claimed. Taxing government is doing that, because politicians like being busybodies.
A good solution occurs in More's Utopia. If Utopia is warred on by a neighbour, these perfect people hire assassins to kill the leaders of the other side, reasoning that the least killed, the better, and that new leaders might be more agreeable, if anyone dared to be a leader!
Published: August 16, 2009 7:45 PM
Ostralion
Sorry, I misread a comment by 2nd Amendment on the war on drugs, but the rest of my article makes sense!
Published: August 16, 2009 9:14 PM
randy
ancap war would also have one big pro... less collateral damage.
..compare how targeted and specific mob assassinations are to US assassination-by-airstrike.... not to mention that nuking is out of the question when you live 2 blocks away from the rival gang.
Published: August 16, 2009 11:46 PM
Gil
Then again Anarchtopia's so decentralised that militia forces don't link up because as far as they are concerned it's not their fight. The invaders might be pleased to find that the area is alreadly divided.
Of course, the talk of a private leader getting assassinated as soon he gets out of hand is bunk as few tyrants have ever been deposed from within rather most live out their days to old age or are toppled by another power.
Published: August 17, 2009 12:13 AM
Gil
To P.M. Lawrence:
T'was interesting to read up of the definition of 'chevauchee'. As an aside you always seem to write interesting posts that provide good food for thought. ;)
Published: August 17, 2009 12:17 AM
Ostralion
Thanks, Gil! You inadvertently raised another point- get a third power to wage war on the aggressor!
Published: August 17, 2009 12:48 AM
Gil
"You inadvertently raised another point- get a third power to wage war on the aggressor!" - Ostralion.
Huh??
Published: August 17, 2009 2:46 AM
wesleybruce
Civil defence.
war is often a creature of the state or vis versa
However historically civil defence is often a very much private game. Government often have to be told to 'rely not on chariots' but to 'build up the walls of the city'. Often defences arise without any government intervention. The London underground in the Blitz comes to mind. A libertarian society would lean a lot more towards defences: Bunkers, hardened communications, body armour, camouflage of critical infrastructure and decoys over the power to strike out. Where that strike capacity was needed a modern libertarian defence agency/security company would favour the pin point power of GPS micro munitions over tanks, Tasers over had guns and robotics over troops. Even the highly statist US air-force is now training more drone pilots than aircraft pilots. A free society is not an armed rabble or an unarmed flock of lambs but a society of fortresses built with art and subtlety.
Published: August 17, 2009 8:07 AM
2nd Amendment
Russ,
"Yeah, sometimes smaller groups win, but the reason these victories are so celebrated is precisely because they're uncommon."
You're the one living in a dream world if you can't realize that each and every country is made of a very small group with weapons controlling a very vast disarmed group.
Look at the population of the USA, 300,000,000
Look at the US military 1,200,000
If you sum up all the military, police and government personel together, they form a very minuscule group compared to the masses.
Same thing in each and every country.
Look at how the police and military are crazy and enthousiastically risk their lives everyday just to show who's boss.
Look at how the masses comply by fear.
Now you know that the small group always control the large group.
The most persecuted group is the wage slave who must pay taxes and comply with all the endless laws and regulation.
This group has got to be 50 to 100 times more numerous than our ruling elite, yet are being bullied by a very small group claiming ownership of the country.
Published: August 17, 2009 8:27 AM
Gil
2A, you meant: "The most persecuted group is the tax slave who must pay taxes and comply with all the endless laws and regulation", didn't you?
But why do you choose that moniker 2A? Do you believe your right to own guns is reliant on a certain piece of paper or it is a natural right, period?
Published: August 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Vanmind
What about the Soviets? They didn't exactly bow down to the Nazis. Was their perseverance due to more of a "throw bodies at them" approach rather than a technology/production approach? I know they received some charitable war machinery from America in the war's early years, but that couldn't have been the deciding factor.
Published: August 17, 2009 11:44 AM
andere
Vanmind.,
except for Stalingrad, where they waged a veritable guerrilla, soviets used traditional tactics mostly.
the really interesting example is Switzerland. They shot down nazi AND allied planes, and still managed to show a strong enough deterrent to stop being invaded twice. I think the swiss example is the best one for how an advanced nation prepares for defensive-only war: lots of bunkers, lots of riflemen, lots of AA and the will to completely decentralize defense so that there is no HQ to capture, no center that can surrender...
of course this was still done from a national military perspective, but the tactics look to me very much like what an ungoverned territory would use...
Published: August 17, 2009 12:56 PM
Ostralion
Gil, the novel, 'Utopia', had a land, Utopia, with other imaginery lands around it. When one nation got greedy for all the gold in Utopia, the Utopians preferred to kill just the leaders, or to stir up other troubles for the would-be offender.
As for switzerland, the country was just lucky that the Nazies didn't want living room in the mountains! The swizz had to be very circumspect in their behaviour, none the less.
Published: August 17, 2009 7:32 PM
Gil
Ostralion:
fantasy, schmantasy.
One thing with Switzerland is its central authority with compulsory militia service. This is different from the voluntary random militia forces envisioned by certain theorists.
Published: August 17, 2009 9:10 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Gil, the Swiss system is compulsory for most practical purposes, but unlike (say) the way US taxes are compulsory, the compulsion doesn't escalate indefinitely. As I recall, a Swiss citizen who doesn't go along gets a jail term and loses certain civil rights - but there are Swiss out and about who did that. You wouldn't find that with people who don't pay US taxes.
Published: August 17, 2009 9:47 PM
Guisan
"As for switzerland, the country was just lucky that the Nazies didn't want living room in the mountains! "
actually they did, plus they wanted the gold too. Hitler felt that if Napoleon could take over the swiss, so could he and had several invasion plans drawn up and one almost executed (it was delayed because of Operation Barbarrossa.) "Operation Tannenbaum". So please refrain from posting in complete ignorance.
As to the Reduit strategy being used as a model by anarchists.. obviously it's speculation, however it doesn't seem that big a leap.
Published: August 17, 2009 11:46 PM
last knight
"amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics"
"nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam"
The modern war machine requires constant, expensive supplies. Except for limited, surprise attacks and a few other exceptions, the war will always be won by the strongest economy with the shortest supply routes. Whatever the political system...
Published: August 18, 2009 12:17 AM
Flix
All this talk of guerrilla warfare and nobody talks about a present, real world example! As I mentioned before... just look at Afghanistan! The most powerful military in the world is bleeding to death and losing. Ignore the msm headlines and talk to soldiers on the ground: they take the ground and a week after they've left they lose it again. They beat the insurgents, only to see them regroup. They spend money on reconstruction, only to see it end up in the hands of their enemies... Nato forces are now driving supply convoys over the Russian route! That's an extra 2000 miles because their supply lines over Pakistan keep getting ambushed. The more I study it the more I realize why Afg is the graveyard of Empires... Machiavello said it a long time ago, it is not the same conquering and holding an unified, centralized country (like Persia) to a decentralized territory without one government (Italy)... that will boil over in constant rebellion.
Published: August 18, 2009 2:34 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Last Knight wrote "The modern war machine requires constant, expensive supplies. Except for limited, surprise attacks and a few other exceptions, the war will always be won by the strongest economy with the shortest supply routes. Whatever the political system... "
The first sentence is accurate, but the rest is wrong (in fact a non sequitur) - because Last Knight confused "modern" with "all future". The key things have changed in the past, and may well be different enough in the future for that reasoning not to apply.
Published: August 18, 2009 3:10 AM
Guerilla
"You're dreaming. Guerilla warfare is used as a strategy of last resort, and that is for a reason. What country do you know that has a decent economy that has a policy of relying only on guerilla warfare for defense? There are none, because it's insane!"
There are none, because it is not useful for the state. Central political power needs central military power to provide propaganda, a sens of security to inhabitants, even though behind the curtains the army is a pathetic aged useless money drain that wouldnt stand a chance against any invader(ie baltic states).
Published: August 18, 2009 10:36 AM