Privatise the Military (2 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

- just like all the main ideologies, whether they consider classnessness, racial purity or whatever as their own nirvana - theyve all inflicted horrors against humans and ended in tragedy. Neoloberalism is no different.

The thing is, those things you listed, and things like them, are a result of lack of freedom : /

you're kidding me right?

Hospitals? Only because we have socialised healthcare, which is stupid.

letting someone spend it only on stuff that benefits themselves (which is what they'd do/

No. The people whoearn most are people who own businesss or work high up in businesses. They also happen to pay the highest taxes.

If they payed the same tax RATE as everyone else, they would have more money to either expand their business (and CREATE MORE JOBS OMFG), or invest it in various other ventures (which helps make Australia a better place).

would only mean that people who earn less, and need the most help, are the ones who get the least help

People who earn the least spend the most on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. Maybe if they were less foolish with their money they wouldn't need so much help.

 

[cromulence Inc]

If we hired Mr T we wouldn't even need a army, ya dig!!

 

[loquasagacious]

No because PMCs are fucking evil incarnate.

Seriously though pmc = / = privatised military

 

[Iron]

The thing is, those things you listed, and things like them, are a result of lack of freedom : /

.

They all promised some form of earthly paradise in which men would be happy because they would be liberated from their oppressions, like jews, wealthy ruling classes, gender roles (kami), taxes...
Theyre all mirages that men can piss their life away on. Meanwhile, they neglect living in the here and now; being content and at peace with what they have, loving those around them for what they are, rather than what they may offer or become, taking full personal responsibility for their actions and omissions - in short, leading the sort of full and rich life in the present which Christ revealed as the true path

 

[Sprangler]

Oh. Does the military not do this already, or something?

The PMC's hire high quality, experienced soldiers, mainly from special forces. There are no weak links and no basic training, they are used for specific jobs, which makes them more effective than a regular army.

Why not?

I know the advantages of a privatized military would be great. but I don't think it would be a good idea, mainly because of accountability, and I don't like the idea of CEO's and banking elites starting wars.

 

[css]

Why bother?
It's not going to solve any problems, just create more.

Don't fix something that isnt even broken.

 

[SylviaB]

and I don't like the idea of CEO's and banking elites starting wars.

well they wouldn't have the power to make those sort of decisions decisions, and they wouldn't get paid on the basis of number of kills.

 

[Graney]

I just typed out 500 words on this subject, which just got wiped.

Basically, private insurance companies, who have an interest in protecting against losses, will invest in military spending.

All major corporations, who perceive they benefit substantially from protecting themselves against losses caused by war, will choose to invest with insurance companies that fund the development of private defense agencies.

There is no danger of a single investor or corporation (foreign or domestic) engaging in a war of conquest. Doing so would require them to fight against the combined resources of every other national and foreign investor who has an interest in maintaining peace.

The private defence agencies have strong incentive to prevent losses by not working for employers who wish to engage in aggressive action. Organisations that fund or engage in aggressive conflict will also find themselves faced with severe ostracism by the wider business community. They will find it difficult or impossible to gain services such as water, electricity and insurance.

It should be much more efficient and cheaper.

 

[loquasagacious]

Hate it when that happens, ctrl+z can be a life saver though.

I suppose there are really three concepts being discussed:

1. Increased use of PMC's
2. A complete laissez faire approach where the state no longer has a monopoly on the legal use of force
3. The outsourcing of the Governments military services to a contracted organisation(s)

Of these 1 really seems besides the point and prone to degenerate into discussions of Iraq, the only issue in my opinion with PMC's currently is accountability - that is a symptom of their contracts not the actual concept of a PMC. For ease of definitions I will henceforth refer to Military Service Organisations or MSO's when talking about the outsourcing of the entire military function.

2. Is an interesting concept which introduces ideas of user-pays defence, insurance companies and the like. It however faces many of the same limitations which number 3 does.

In my opinion there are several issues to be considered:

• Funding: The initial setup costs would be monumental - buying aircraft carriers, submarines, fighter jets, tanks and other hardware is not a cheap exercise and they can not be bought off the shelf. However an MSO would need to have these available on short notice to allow service delivery to commence rapidly. E.g. you want to select an MSO, pay them and have their services available very rapidly - not in fifteen years time.
  
  Solved. Vertical integration with hardware suppliers. MSO's could lease hardware from the suppliers or another organisation to spread the capital cost over the life of the hardware and therefore better match hardware cost to the revenue it generated. Alternately hardware suppliers could expand into the MSO space by acquiring PMCs. For example Boeing could purchase Blackwater, now Boeing produces hardware and then hires it and the operators to countries.
  
  
• Logistics: How could an MSO guarantee a continuing supply of spare parts, ammunition and other consumables? If for example production of these was occurring in the USA and for whatever reason the US Government disapproved of an engagement an MSO was undertaking they could cut off it's supply lines. Admittedly this is a problem currently where few states are autarky's capable of sustaining a war effort independently.
  
  Unresolved: Issue now and an issue with MSOs. Would an MSO take action against a country which attempted to interdict it's supply lines and would this be legitimate?
  
  
• Relocation costs: A military base is a significant investment and asset in and of itself however it can not be readily moved or relocated. If an MSO lost a contract with a country where would they go? Pack up their tanks, planes and supplies, hop on a boat and go where? There might be a gap in contracts.
  
  Partially Resolved: It would seem that bases and other immovable assets should pass between countries (or a third party) and MSOs, e.g. on commencement of a contract they are sold to MSOs and on completion or termination they are sold back. When experiencing a gap in contracts an MSO would demobilise staff/soldiers and mothball hardware/supplies.
  
  But where would the mothballing occur? A warehousing company could offer the service however this would render an MSO very vulnerable. They would have an army but no guns, ships or planes. The company (and the country they are residing in) could seize the hardware and the MSO could be powerless to respond.
  
  
• Home-base: Partly to resolve the above issue and partly to resolve where recruitment and other corporate functions would occur I imagine that MSO's would have a 'home-base'. Their international headquarters and super-base. A location housing the corporate side of the company and also serving as a warehouse and global base of operations. But the question is where? Where would or could such a headquarters exist? An issue exacerbated by the size of this HQ - and the requirement to defend it.
  
  Partially resolved: realistically we are almost talking about a country which is a net exporter of military services. A corporate sovereign state which imported hardware/raw materials/people and exported armies, navies and airforces. Most states have an army, this army would have a state. One we will for arguments sake assume that they purchase off the previous owners and is now recognised by the global community. Would such a state be represented on the UN? Would that state ever conduct war in it's own name and not the name of a contracting state?
  
  
• Centralisation: A key cost saving on an MSO would be in economies of scale and scope where a large MSO would provide services to multiple states. What happens if two or more of the states want to wage war on each other? Would an MSO fight itself, seems a bit bad for esprit de corps.....
  
  Unresolved.
  

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I just typed out 500 words on this subject, which just got wiped.

Basically, private insurance companies, who have an interest in protecting against losses, will invest in military spending.

All major corporations, who perceive they benefit substantially from protecting themselves against losses caused by war, will choose to invest with insurance companies that fund the development of private defense agencies.

There is no danger of a single investor or corporation (foreign or domestic) engaging in a war of conquest. Doing so would require them to fight against the combined resources of every other national and foreign investor who has an interest in maintaining peace.

The private defence agencies have strong incentive to prevent losses by not working for employers who wish to engage in aggressive action. Organisations that fund or engage in aggressive conflict will also find themselves faced with severe ostracism by the wider business community. They will find it difficult or impossible to gain services such as water, electricity and insurance.

It should be much more efficient and cheaper.

That shouldn't happen in Firefox. Worst case scenario: ctrl+z brings it back, even in quick reply.

 

[SylviaB]

Dear Iron,

1. Curiously, why is the CS quote so funny?

because C.S. Lewis is a batshit insane Christian.

 

[Iron]

CS was a big fat Christian, yeh, and I have to assume that the quote has a whiff of 'God bothering' to it.
-
God is love.
-
Fuck off.

 

[Iron]

because C.S. Lewis is a batshit insane Christian.

He was one of the most sane and rational Christians of the 20th c, even for a prot, you ignorant peon

 

[SylviaB]

He was one of the most sane and rational Christians of the 20th c, even for a prot, you ignorant peon

LOL gosh, calm down.

I meant in terms of fervency.

 

[loquasagacious]

No.
Privatisation = profits = wars instigated for no reason.
Tax payers will suffer while they, the private owners, will profit.

It would be hard though for companies to profit from war simply because it would increase their costs so dramatically.

In peace-time the company would have a host of fixed costs around garrisoning and training soldiers, storage/maintenance/upgrades of equipment. War introduces massive new variable costs: transport cost, accelerated use of consumables/ammo, replacement cost of killed/destroyed personnel and equipment.

The MSO business model therefore couldn't support MSO initiated wars without passing the costs on to governments. This means Governments are in a position of approving or denying the invoice and therefore wars could not be initiated solely by an MSO.

 

[Freedom_]

outsourcing =/= privatization.

 

[loquasagacious]

outsourcing =/= privatization.

In the context that no suitable company exists to which military services could be outsourced this would necessitate privatisation of the existing military organisation.

 

[Empyrean444]

It would be hard though for companies to profit from war simply because it would increase their costs so dramatically.

In peace-time the company would have a host of fixed costs around garrisoning and training soldiers, storage/maintenance/upgrades of equipment. War introduces massive new variable costs: transport cost, accelerated use of consumables/ammo, replacement cost of killed/destroyed personnel and equipment.

The MSO business model therefore couldn't support MSO initiated wars without passing the costs on to governments. This means Governments are in a position of approving or denying the invoice and therefore wars could not be initiated solely by an MSO.

I would disagree on this point, because if the spoils of such a war were great enough (the worth/potential of whatever they were to attempt to take by means of war and arms) then the help of the govt may very well not be needed (for example, reducing/suspending payment of wages until the war were over). In this case, they are essentially free to do as they wish. Moreoverm their armed forces could be used to similar ends without mass mobilisation (ie more as a paramiltary or in limited guerrilla /skirmish operations). In these cases, the costs of war -because of the reduced scale - would not be so great as to require govt aid. And even if we go by the assumption that the MSO would need govt support to start a war, then why bother to give it to them in the first place? I would be highly sceptical that private companies - even though they might make it a little more economically efficient - would actually improve the quality of the armed forces.

 

[Uncle]

have private miltary copration controled by one person and new nationalist party be estalbish

 

[CMCDragonkai]

There quite a few problems with privatizing something as controversial as the military.

a) Mercenaries are not recognized as lawful combatants under UN Protocol Additional GC 1977. In such a case, in the countries that recognize the UN protocol, they will be subject to domestic laws. Their actions will be considered crimes, not acts of war. This means they can be thrown into prison, executed... etc etc, they will not be a prisoner of war.

b) PMCs will not be directly controlled from the governmental system we elect. Sure we might have partnerships and agreements, but we lose many political 'checks' in the system of decisions. This makes war crimes ambiguous, accountability is lost in the system of money. Remember there is a reason bureaucracy exists, its so that no one person or organisation gets too much power.

c) Another fundamental use of the military, is that they are ultimately controlled by civilians. If privatizing happens to an entire military force, we may be shareholders, but we do not control them, we have no idea what they might be doing, what they are hiding from us. Of course, this analogous to any totalitarian military dictatorship where civilians are always in the dark, but I'm coming from republican standpoint. This all raises another problem, to what laws and regulations (torture policy, civilian casualty policy, rules of engagement... etc) do the PMCs follow? If its a domestic PMC it will may follow the laws of the country, but what about an international PMC? Where it has bases everywhere and is willing to hire out guns and bombs to any country with the largest bid.

d) How far are we willing to privatize military applications, where will it stop? Can you be comfortable with nuclear arsenal being controlled by a bunch of men/women driven by profit?

e) It's very dangerous, it's dangerous to government itself, if the entire military is privatized, it could very easily turn its back on its own country, very easy to do in times of chaos. It could even subtly do it, as PMCs get more and more powerful, as if to control the entire military, they will demand to be part of the government's foreign policy. (And why the heck not? If I control every single tank, aircraft, bomb, soldier, I should be able to control the foreign policy of my country.)

f) What happens when the economy goes down? Does the PMC go take out a loan, retrench its staff or even worse start selling its assets to keep afloat? Do we have to bail out the PMC if somehow it managed to get bankrupt, what happens when we're in war and it managed to get bankrupt? Whats stopping another country buying out our PMC if we did not bail them out? We will have no military at all....

Lastly, its dis-honorable, but hey.. we've already thrown that out of the window, while we're at it. Let's privatize the government, and the legal system too. We can have a monetary anarchist country. Constitutional laws will be made by the highest bidder.

One quote I remember off a movie called Crimson Tide, the captain said: "We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it." However I was thinking that in their isolated situation, their definitely not practicing democracy however the military in general is ultimately controlled by a democratically elected leader. If we privatize the entire military, we lose that distinction don't we?

Having the ability to call up a private military organisation is a great political tool, but giving your entire military away to a PMC is just going too far in my opinion. More information can be found here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3396.htm