Private National Defense

Juan:

It was not Great Britain, but the british gov't using resources stolen from the productive brits. And the whole 'balance of power' doctrine was bogus. It wa just an excuse for the military oligarchy to justify their 'jobs' and their crimes.

I agree with your assessment in regard to the situation in the British Empire after mid-19th century, starting with Bejamin Disraeli's administration.  The pro-Corn Law Disraeli literally started the Empire aspect of "British Empire."  Before that point however, the maintenance of a navy and a policy of balance of power towards the Continent was a very cost-effective way of avoiding having a large standing army.  Compared to the large draft standing armies on the Continent, Britain was able to get away with a volunteer army until the 20th century.  Considering the human tendency to consolidate all political entities in the name of "unification," and thereby inevitably introduce a monopolistic and despotic regime, some degree of counter-measure (preferrably private funded initiatives) is necessary; the less costly the better.  Not necessarily ideal, but a "better" solution among what is feasible.  Getting invaded and occupied (by Louise XIV, and then later Germany) like the Netherlands doesn't exactly help the cause of freedom.  

Ok, here goes another idea.

What if private civil companies agree to have a military potential in as much projects as they can? For example:

• Telecom companies always spy potential enemies.
  
• Shipowners design their ships so they can be equipped with armor and guns at call.
  
• Security agencies provide their men with military training.
• Air carriers prepare their planes to also be bombers or to carry troops or maybe even fighter planes.
  

This would sure mean an extra cost in the commercial structure, but I don't think that would be more than what states charge us for regular armies. As design in private business tends to be cost effective, there wouldn't be so many millions lost in research and development.

The idea came to me studying piracy. It was pretty common for pirates to capture a commercial vessel and transform it into a war ship by adding cannons and armor. Perhaps in modern days we could turn a container cargo ship into an aircraft carrier. I am not a Naval Engineer, but I think that would be possible.

I know I am jumping into this a little late, but I do not think nations/states should be allowed to have militaries.  I just do not think there is any reason whatsoever to have them.  They give reason to other nations to invade.  They end up being used to invade other nations, which is completely unjustifiable.  And they never really make the world "safer".  Free market trade makes the world safe.  Who wants to attack people they trade with?  Look at China.  Now that we trade with them, there is no more talk of one attacking the other.

I cannot think of one time in the history of the U.S. that we needed them.  If we would have had open trade during WWII with all nations, and if we were not aiding Japan's "enemies", than we probably never would have been attacked.

 The Civil War was a joke.  States should be able to secede for whatever reason they wish.

As to the revolutionary war, we were not a "nation" yet, so...

gussosa:

The statists have achieved their ultimate goal and they all are one enormous state.

 

 

Ronald Reagen said if we don't "confront" the Soviet Union we would "condemn them to a thousand years of darkness". The Soviet Union dissolved in his lifetime.

Only statists(like Ronny) believe in the myth of the total state. Empires are failing at an ever increasing rate.

Well, I live in South America, and the possibility of being invaded by a country that just wants to plunder you is very real. Just look at the recent conflict between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Colombia is the only liberal country in South America, aside from Chile. They need the armed forces to control the terrorists and the threat of the neighbouring commies. Of course they could make something like Wyatt's Torch, burning all the Colombian in Venezuela and closing the trade (that would starve Venezuela in weeks) but Colombians have nowhere to run. Chavez would invade Colombia, set a totalitarian state... and then what?

Free trade does not guarantee freedom.

Taiwan trades with China and they fear the threat of invasion anyway. It is a very real possibility. I don't care if all Venezuelans die of hunger. They voted for Chavez and they must deal with the consequences. However, I do care if Chavez invades Colombia and condemns Colombians to hunger and slavery. 

Spideynw:

Who wants to attack people they trade with?

 

Some nut case called Hugo Chavez would love to attack Colombia and USA, respectively his best supplier and his best customer.

Earlier in time, another commie sociopat called Juan Domingo Peron wanted to attack Uruguay. Argentina has made several attempts to conquer Chile and Uruguay. Hell, they even tried to make war with the UK! And that's like a mosquito trying to kill an elephant.

China wants to attack Taiwan (but first is trying to use politics) and really attacked an innocent country like Tibet. 

These are just the examples that come to my mind now. 

Some nut case called Hugo Chavez would love to attack Colombia and USA, respectively his best supplier and his best customer.

Why does Chavez want to attack his best customer? It can't be because he perceives US interventionism as a threat? Nah, can't be that...

 

--Len. 

I believe Len is right here, in that, Hugo Chavez is concerned that the US will do to Venezuela what they did to Iraq i.e. claim the country is filled with terrorists and WMDs, then invade and steal the oil. 

You are only as free as the most powerful person or entity allows you to be.  If some powerful nation is ruled by tyrannts, then you had better be ready to do more than trade with them.   

gussosa:

Just look at the recent conflict between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Colombia is the only liberal country in South America, aside from Chile.

Sorry about nitpicking, but to say that Colombia is liberal (and I suppose that you actually mean libertarian), is rather inacurate. Chile is perhaps more free-market oriented, but I don't think it qualifies as really libertarian either.

gussosa:

Some nut case called Hugo Chavez would love to attack Colombia and USA, respectively his best supplier and his best customer.

Can Chavez be as stupid as to believe that he will gain anything by atacking the US ? I doubt it.

Juan:

Sorry about nitpicking, but to say that Colombia is liberal (and I suppose that you actually mean libertarian), is rather inacurate. Chile is perhaps more free-market oriented, but I don't think it qualifies as really libertarian either.

 

No, I mean liberal in the classic sense of the word, in an Adam Smith sense.

Just look at the reforms made by the Uribe administration. 

And I did mention Chile as liberal too. I mentioned both as the only liberal countries here. 

Juan:

Can Chavez be as stupid as to believe that he will gain anything by atacking the US ? I doubt it.

 

But probably he would launch the attack if it wasn't for the US Armed Forces. 

Colombia and Chile are not 'liberal' in the Adam Smith sense (libertarian...)

They are just a bit less regulated than the rest of the region.

gussosa:

Juan:

Can Chavez be as stupid as to believe that he will gain anything by atacking the US ? I doubt it.

 

But probably he would launch the attack if it wasn't for the US Armed Forces. 

Actually just the opposite.  As Len already mentioned, he probably feels threatened by U.S. interventionism, which is specifically tied to U.S. armed forces.

There is no reason to believe anyone would attack the United States if we did not have an army anyways, given the proliferation of guns among private citizens, and especially if we were to have open trade with everyone in the world and if we were to quit giving out military aid.