Topic: The legitimate purpose of military... - page 6. (Read 4961 times)

And yet the borderlands are where the trouble always starts...

The problem for the consumer is that there is some tacit level of cooperation between A and B.  Unless the security violation by A is above a certain threshold B will not be willing to incur the cost of dealing with it.  The territorial ambitions of China in the Philippine Sea is an excellent example of this.  Fishermen from the wrong security provider are experiencing losses due to theft by fishermen from the right security provider.  The various involved security providers are unwilling to escalate beyond a certain point.  Fishermen have reduced security.

No.  Have not read referenced book.  How does it explain the Parcel islands and Falkland Islands security situations?

Finally, a rational argument. After dealing with blablahblah and kokjo for weeks, you have no idea how welcome that is. Let's look at this incentive, shall we?

If B actively attempts to reduce your security, then that is an attack on you, and it would necessarily be defended by A. Both A and B have incentive to avoid this: War is expensive. So, all things being equal, and A and B acting rationally, this would not happen.

If B passively attempts to reduce your security, for instance, ignoring a break-in or mugging, they pass up an opportunity to prove themselves more capable of providing you security than A, to say nothing of the chance to present A with a bill for services rendered. So B, therefore, has incentive not to do that, either.

If anything, local competition would increase the security provided, not decrease.

Let me ask you, Have you read The Machinery of Freedom, by David D. Friedman? It covers this pretty well, and even the Illustrated summary hits most of the points. In brief: A and B have an agreement, beforehand, to deal with court C whenever a dispute occurs between a customer of A and a customer of B.

Two security organizations are competing for your business.  You pick A as your provider.  B now has an incentive to reduce your security (either actively or passively)  in order to show you the error of your choice. 

This is destabilizing at the interaction boundaries between security providers.

Even if both A and B don't act in a selfish manner (unlikely),  there is still an additional cost to determining whether A or B has jurisdiction when a security upset occurs. Even assuming they have an agreement in hand before the upset,  jurisdiction and extradition will add cost,  reduce effectiveness and generally reduce security provided to the consumer.

How, precisely, does local competition reduce security?

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

He clarifies:

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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.


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

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.

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

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

Basically an invasion force, not a defence force.

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.

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.

Do you understand that a natural monopoly is not enforced?

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.

And incidentally, they are security companies not military.

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?