The legitimate purpose of military...

[Stardust]

Military private or governmental will always do abuses, because the training and the discipline is dehumanizing. Probably the best solution is to replace them with robots. Still even so they can be ordered to kill and pillage, and if private it is kinda hard to have measures to prevent that (a private corporation is entitled to secrets). Lets not forget that in ancient times many armies were funded privately, and we know how "well" that worked.

OTOH if the people are armed (and have robots if possible), can serve as a deterrent against invasion, and eliminates the need of a military.

This idea of protecting escrow or free trade is nonsense, in my country they only exist to protect against foreign invasion.

[myrkul]

You ignored the important question.

Do you know the difference between a natural monopoly and an enforced one?

[hawkeye]

Military private or governmental will always do abuses, because the training and the discipline is dehumanizing. Probably the best solution is to replace them with robots. Still even so they can be ordered to kill and pillage, and if private it is kinda hard to have measures to prevent that (a private corporation is entitled to secrets). Lets not forget that in ancient times many armies were funded privately, and we know how "well" that worked.

OTOH if the people are armed (and have robots if possible), can serve as a deterrent against invasion, and eliminates the need of a military.

This idea of protecting escrow or free trade is nonsense, in my country they only exist to protect against foreign invasion.

I can't imagine anything worse than the US govt basically having an army of terminators.  God, that sends chills up my spine. 

Don't be surprised when they get put them onto your own streets in order to protect you either.  I'm sure that will end well.

[hawkeye]

You ignored the important question.

Do you know the difference between a natural monopoly and an enforced one?

Yes, I do.

You still haven't explained why you think a private military would somehow magically avoid profitable endeavours. They are Capitalists. I thought you loved Capitalism and all that it entails. If turning their back on their 'customers' and looting some foreign land is more profitable than keeping their corporate logo squeaky clean, then they will do it.

1.  When was the last time that a foreign invasion was profitable?  They look like huge money sinks to me.
2.  If it turns it's back on it's customers, why would they continue to be it's customers?

[hawkeye]

And incidentally, they are security companies not military.

[myrkul]

I can't imagine anything worse than the US govt basically having an army of terminators. 

I believe he meant the average person, rather than the military. But yes, if you thought the drones were bad, "terminators" would be even worse.

You ignored the important question.

Do you know the difference between a natural monopoly and an enforced one?

Yes, I do.

Do you understand that a natural monopoly is not enforced?

You still haven't explained why you think a private military would somehow magically avoid profitable endeavours. They are Capitalists. I thought you loved Capitalism and all that it entails. If turning their back on their 'customers' and looting some foreign land is more profitable than keeping their corporate logo squeaky clean, then they will do it.

I've explained to you that it would not be more profitable. They would expend materiel and manpower, lose customers, and piss off every other organization extant, in other words, they would become a criminal organization, forced to take those risky operations in order to continue. They would be effectively declaring war against everyone else. Historically, organizations that have done that have not fared well.

[myrkul]

And incidentally, they are security companies not military.

Honestly, the difference is mostly semantic.

Defense firm, security company, private military, they all mean the same thing: Privately funded force of armed men, subject to market forces.

[hawkeye]

And incidentally, they are security companies not military.

Honestly, the difference is mostly semantic.

Defense firm, security company, private military, they all mean the same thing: Privately funded force of armed men, subject to market forces.

They are unlikely to require massive divisions of tanks, aircraft carriers, battleships, tactical nukes, etc...

Basically an invasion force, not a defence force.

[myrkul]

And incidentally, they are security companies not military.

Honestly, the difference is mostly semantic.

Defense firm, security company, private military, they all mean the same thing: Privately funded force of armed men, subject to market forces.

They are unlikely to require massive divisions of tanks, aircraft carriers, battleships, tactical nukes, etc...

True. And modern defensive militaries don't require those things, either.

[TomUnderSea]

And incidentally, they are security companies
They are unlikely to require massive divisions of tanks, aircraft carriers, battleships, tactical nukes, etc...

Basically an invasion force, not a defence force.

Multinational anti piracy force

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/saf-takes-over-command-multinational-anti-piracy-task-force-20130307


If you think this is better handled by private companies read about the Dutch East India Trading Company.

[myrkul]

You still haven't explained why you think a private military would somehow magically avoid profitable endeavours. They are Capitalists. I thought you loved Capitalism and all that it entails. If turning their back on their 'customers' and looting some foreign land is more profitable than keeping their corporate logo squeaky clean, then they will do it.

I've explained to you that it would not be more profitable.

Now it's my turn to sarcastically call you 'genius' -- how the hell would you know this for a fact? You think market forces somehow didn't apply when e.g.: the US military decided to attack Iraq or Afghanistan? You think the US government was somehow pointing a gun at the military head and saying "attack them or we will taser you!" ?

The US military is funded by taxation, and therefore not affected by the market forces that would affect a private military force. And yes, the government essentially does have a gun to the head of the military's leadership. Remember that the President is the Commander in Chief.

They would expend materiel [WTF??]...

If you're going to cut and paste the same old crap without revising your opinion, at least do a spell-check! Says Myrkul: "I have been programmed to like the An-Cap ideology. All other ideologies are inferior. I have not been programmed to 'think'."

There's a reason I used that word....

ma·te·ri·el 
/məˌti(ə)rēˈel/
Noun
Military materials and equipment.

[myrkul]

Look, if you want to joke, please go to off-topic. This is Politics & Society.

[myrkul]

Look, if you want to joke, please go to off-topic. This is Politics & Society.

You're the 'joker'.

Proof that the US military is funded by taxation, and verify that the POTUS really does wield power over the military (more-so than the power he wields over e.g.: Apple Computer's operations) or fuck off out of my thread.

Tsk.... Profanity again... I'm not getting under your skin am I? Maybe you should take a break.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States

[myrkul]

Look, if you want to joke, please go to off-topic. This is Politics & Society.

You're the 'joker'.

Proof that the US military is funded by taxation, and verify that the POTUS really does wield power over the military (more-so than the power he wields over e.g.: Apple Computer's operations) or fuck off out of my thread.

Tsk.... Profanity again... I'm not getting under your skin am I? Maybe you should take a break.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States

A claim along the lines of "the US military is actually a private institution" would be a conspiracy theory. Of course you're not going to find a breakdown of income from the Iraq war -- whether positive or negative -- especially not on Wikipedia. The official budget is unlikely to include any 'income' at all -- it's officially a public institution. In your haste to defend the 'honour' of theoretical private security/military/militia, ironically you came out strongly in defence of your government's honesty!

So, it is your contention that the US military is clandestinely profiting from the Afghanistan war? Perhaps through opium sales?

[Jobe7]

Myrkul,

I really must commend how you manage to keep explaining the same things over and over to people (sometimes the same people), you have the patience of a saint

[myrkul]

Myrkul,

I really must commend how you manage to keep explaining the same things over and over to people (sometimes the same people), you have the patience of a saint

To be honest, I'm not actually explaining it to them. I'm explaining it to anyone else who comes along. The people who are not yet calcified.

As such, I actually need them to disagree with me, and the more illogical their arguments, the better. I could make the case myself, but it's much easier to make my points when I have clowns like blablahblah and kokjo to make my points look even more logical and intelligent by comparison.

[myrkul]

Just to make sure I've fully grasped blablahblah's revolutionary concepts, let me sum up:

He states that the legitimate purpose (presumably the only legitimate purpose) of a military force is:

Escrow to protect international trade and co-operation.

He clarifies:

...there must be some way to ensure that voluntary trade is predominantly honest. Potential losses provoked by breaches of trust must outweigh any [potential] 'gains' from cheating one's customer or supplier.

My theory is that -- generally speaking -- any cheating or provocation should be kept below the threshold for any side to try and recoup financial losses. Attempting to recoup financial losses with military force might not be effective, but the potential ought to be a deterrent to prevent cheating in the first place.

Basically, he's stating that in order to promote honest trade, a broken deal should come with at least the potential for a bloodied nose. Perhaps you could even take the losses back by force. He admits this would be inefficient, but better than nothing.

He's elsewhere compared the world's governments to people in an AnCap society... I'd say they're more like large organizations, rather than individuals, but with the caveat that they're criminal organizations, with violently enforced monopolies, he's actually not far off the mark. So, let's set aside the criminal, monopolistic nature of these organizations for a moment, and pretend they're normal companies, each with a mercenary force to make sure that any agreements they make stick.

As he's previously stated, the (only) legitimate, ie, not criminal, use of these forces is to enforce the business deals that the companies make. I agree. Making an unprovoked attack on, as he puts it, "soft targets," would not be within that legitimate use. Nor, in fact, would any offensive use be within legitimate bounds. The only legitimate uses of such a force, therefore, would be to defend against such offensive strikes, and to "claw back" any business losses resulting from a broken deal.

Unfortunately, Military forces are not used in this manner. They are, the world over, and throughout history, used in offensive territory and resource grabs. So, blablahblah, you have made a powerful argument against the world's governments. They are almost all using their military in an illegitimate manner. The US is, of course, the worst offender, but at one time or another, virtually every country has been guilty of it.

I'm glad you've finally seen the light, blablahblah, and realized that the governments of the world are acting criminally.

[TomUnderSea]

I think you have missed the point that totally separate from any deal enforcement, a military force is needed to protect people and property from theft.  Whether that force is "military ", "militia ", "police " or the local street gang; there has always been a market for providing security.

The nature of the provided resource "security " is a natural monopoly since local competition reduces security and larger providers increase service levels.

For a real world example look at the past twenty years in Somalia.

[myrkul]

He's elsewhere compared the world's governments to people in an AnCap society... I'd say they're more like large organizations, rather than individuals, but with the caveat that they're criminal organizations,

So if a government commits a 'crime' they go to government jail? Some über-judge sentences them and giant policemen put them in 'gov-cuffs'?

Silly collectivist. A government is not a person. If the mafia commits a crime, does it go to mafia jail? Do giant policemen put it in "mafia-cuffs"?

...with violently enforced monopolies,

You never miss an opportunity to propagandise how bad governments are, but you haven't actually disputed the key point that their external world is Anarchic.

Because I agree. Unless, of course, you count the UN as a governing body. It seems to do a very poor job of it, though, since it allows their criminal activities to continue.

As he's previously stated, the (only) legitimate, ie, not criminal, use of these forces is to enforce the business deals that the companies make. I agree. Making an unprovoked attack on, as he puts it, "soft targets," would not be within that legitimate use. Nor, in fact, would any offensive use be within legitimate bounds. The only legitimate uses of such a force, therefore, would be to defend against such offensive strikes, and to "claw back" any business losses resulting from a broken deal.

Unfortunately, Military forces are not used in this manner. They are, the world over, and throughout history, used in offensive territory and resource grabs. So, blablahblah, you have made a powerful argument against the world's governments. They are almost all using their military in an illegitimate manner. The US is, of course, the worst offender, but at one time or another, virtually every country has been guilty of it.

The point you haven't answered is: what's a viable alternative? Where are those neutral and fair arbitrators you promised? It seems that peaceful negotiation only works until it doesn't, and that military might directly correlates with a country's negotiating power.

You seem to miss the point that I agreed with you. The militaries can and should be used in the manner you suggested. The problem is, they aren't.

Incidentally, when it comes to gun rights, surely you don't have a double standard? If governments living in an Anarchic world use their armies to commit abuses, and that's bad (yet kind-of unstoppable when it does happen due to the lack of higher authorities saying "oy, stop that!") then why are you trying to promote the same sort of thing at a lower level among mere humans?

Interestingly enough, if you give the means to defend themselves to the "mere humans," then you find that the criminal organizations (as well as individual criminals) are less able to commit those abuses.

[myrkul]

The nature of the provided resource "security " is a natural monopoly since local competition reduces security and larger providers increase service levels.

How, precisely, does local competition reduce security?