|
I know how everyone adores
my opinions, so I have drawn up an outline of my anarcho-capitalist military
theory.
1. Militias do not
work as a PRIMARY means of defense. (They are incorporated into the overall
theory, as voluntary logistical militias and bands of armed men who can
disrupt supply lines.
2. A new warrior class will be formed. Those are the people who are habitually
violent and in the modern age, stoop to criminality when in former ages,
they were heroes. Insurance companies can offer an alternative choice
to prison: Serve in our brigade, and make money and be a decent person
doing it. Since most of us don't believe in the death penalty (I do, but
that is a different matter) this makes sense for violent people. Also,
people who want to be soldiers (face it, there are many young romantic
boys out there, and kids who are lost without someone to tell them what
to do). The most elite of these warriors and the ones who have the best
qualities, after time served in Private Defense Brigades (coming to an
insurance company near you!) can either stay there, or attempt to become
part of a military order (described later).
3. A new officer class will also be formed. There are a few bright young
people (myself included), upon whom the thrill of leading troops into
battle has not worn off on. They are smart, dedicated, and brave. As long
as there is a market for something (officers) there will be candidates,
it is not unreasonable that a good amount of them would surface.
4. The new Knighthoods will surface. Anyone who has researched the Knights
Templar, the Teutonic Knights, the Knights of St. George, the knights
of St. John, or the brotherhood of the sword, knows that they were unique
in history. Young noblemen and even commoners and bourgeoisie who wished
to live a life dedicated to their ideal had an outlet for it. The Knights
Templar, and the Teutonic Order especially were private military forces.
The Templars took donations (which rich companies would probably provide
for the new knighthood, in addition to private citizens) and had their
own banking system. They were dependent upon this for their livelihoods.
But enough of this
– how are they applicable today? An elite military force dedicated not
to a leader, but to an ideal (to borrow from a favorite market anarchist
saying, there's no government like no government, and some others,
like honour, pride etc).
5. A minority to do the dirty work, while the majority can go about their
business. The numbers that this requires is not large. In a Market country
of 200 million, about 500,000 (about 40 divisions, including air forces
and elite teams) would provide the entire defense needed. (This is not
including the amount of logistical potential needed to sustain combat
over long periods, or the potential needed to sustain a retaliatory attack,
if the investors warrant it. To liberate the enslaved populace of a neighboring
land IS a noble goal, but only if you aren't crushing your own people
do so, i.e., if the investors will pay for it, and only if).
6. As to navies, Privateers can do all the naval dirty work, while some
sea trading companies can provide the bigger hardware needed to confront
any seaborne foe. I can imagine the level of technology that a Market
Anarchist society would get to in a short amount of time, so submersible
commerce raiders, miniature nuclear torpedoes, etc. could be available
to privateers at low cost. They would then be able to tackle a carrier
or battleship in no time. A Private Marine force or even a Private Defensive
navy could also be formed and built if the need and market arises.
7. Cost effectiveness. Since the number of troops needed is lower than
in a militia, and the number of heavy weapons needed is also reduced,
people do not have to spend much on defense (I don't mean a gun, or even
a hundred guns, or, hell, even anti-tank rockets. I mean people don't
have to spend money on howitzers and helicopters for the use in their
defense.) And since the investors do not want their money squandered,
they have every inclination and right to make sure there are no $800 dollar
hammers.
8. Leadership - Leadership would be a snap for the military orders and
insurance company brigades. They would all most likely have one big pool
of investors, who could pick the most competent officers. It would be
very much like modern leadership systems, without the freeloading democratic
garbage put into it. Why change something that works well? We are no better
than liberals or "dynamists" are if we say "just to change it".
9. Can't they get all the guns and take over? Not at all is this the case.
Modern militaries have governments who own all the necessary resources.
In a market anarchist system, all the resources necessary to keep an army
running would be in different hands. The army can terrorize the population
for about ten minutes if it wanted to take over, then they wouldn't have
enough (voluntarily given, remember) supplies to do much more. Retribution
would be a bitch, so "it ain't gonna happen."
10. There is often
the excuse that "why would companies find it in their interest to pay
someone else to defend them, when they could do it themselves." I find
this kind of argument to be the most idiotic and most common one made
by those within the market anarchist movement. People hire people to fix
their air conditioners and refrigerators. Professionals are hired to build
houses and buildings. Why wouldn't they be hired to die, so you don't
have to?
11. Militias are useful.
They can provide "common soldiers" to hold lines and free up more elite
soldiers (probably from the Knighthoods) for the more troubled sectors
and counter-offensives. As logistical militia, the truck drivers, railroads,
and transport ships could (and would, if their homeland was being invaded)
volunteer their services to serve as a highly effective, professional,
transport service.
As I have said before,
all if this is a prelude to the much larger and more comprehensive whole.
Its arguments are fairly useful to anyone who has to put up with the old
Statist line of "but anarchists couldn't defend themselves against invasions."
June
10, 2002
discuss
this article in the forum!
|
