Defence and the Free Market

[Scot Dutchy]

And you don't need multiple armies. You have multiple companies like Blackwater tendering to run the military for X years

Like privatising prisons which has been a great success.

[pErvinalia]

That's the point I am making.

[Scot Dutchy]

That's the point I am making.

That privatising the army would the same mess as privatising the prisons has turned out?

[pErvinalia]

Yes (or something equally or more disastrous). Are you not following what this thread is about??

[Scot Dutchy]

Yes (or something equally or more disastrous). Are you not following what this thread is about??

Of course I am but I cant see its purpose. It seems an odd point to try and make. There are certain services that should never be privatised and military forces should not be part of any privatisation although in Britain the urge to privatise everything is great.

[Forty Two]

Why is the free market not good enough for the defence of the nation.

Are you suggesting that it is? If not, why not?

Why is defence socialised?

It's not. Depending on the system of government, conceptually it means that the people delegated the authority to the government to provide for the common defense, or in a monarchical society, common defense is an inherent power of government.

In a free country, the common defense is provided for by the national government; however, there is no proscription on individuals providing for their own defense overall. There are, for example, things called "militia" in the US. So, there is no socialization in the sense that the government controls the means of production of defense services. It's more like the library, where the government is providing reading material to the public, but they aren't controlling the means of production of books (you still have private bookstores).

The law of war and the community of nations exist outside of any political or economic scheme, so we have 190-odd nations who claim to be be sovereign and not subject to the will of other nations. Each is conceptually a unit - an individual actor - and as such, as among each other, they prepare for defense against each other. As a practical matter, private individuals do not have the information or the resources to set a national policy for the common defense, so the task is allocated to the State.

The question of the military being "socialized" is the common misconception that anything done by the government is "socialized," which is not the case. Some countries have national police forces -- but, that doesn't mean they have "socialized law enforcement." It means they have law enforcement, which is not socialism. And, similarly, laws are made by governments/legislatures, and not private individuals -- does that mean we have "socialized legislatures?" Of course not.

If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Well, because the military is a thing that is used by a nation against other nations or external foes. So, the nation, under whatever authority it operates, determines who are its friends and who are its foes, and raises a military to fight the foes and defend the friends. It's not socialism, it's "the State" and "the government" doing its duty. We don't have a free market in governments or government policy. In the case of health, it's not a question of it being a choice between socialized health and completely free markets -- there's a middle choice - a free, but reasonably regulated market, coupled with a safety net. Same with education. We have public schools, but not 'socialized education' - people are free to go to private schools, and the government doesn't control the means of production of education. And, science - not sure where you're coming from there - but, if you had socialized science then you'd have the State being the only entity allowed to produce science, and private individuals not being able to science for profit. In today's world, we have science done by private corporations and individuals all the time, and also some government grants provided to fund areas of research, but the government doesn't control the means of sciencing.

The government does things that are in line with what governments are there for. In US and general western Enlightenment terms, governments exists to protect the individuals in society and their rights as human beings. It's not so much that people are prohibited from defending themselves, it's that governments are considered to be obliged to protect their citizens. I guess you could have an anarchic set-up where people simply freely organize into whatever groups they want and fund whatever militaries they want, but, the reason that isn't generally thought of as "good enough" should be rather obvious.

[Scot Dutchy]

Oh boy.

[pErvinalia]

Yes (or something equally or more disastrous). Are you not following what this thread is about??

Of course I am but I cant see its purpose. It seems an odd point to try and make. There are certain services that should never be privatised and military forces should not be part of any privatisation although in Britain the urge to privatise everything is great.

The point is to invite free marketeers to explain why the free market allegedly works for things like health, education and science, but not the military. The fact that the free market isn't employed in running the military is an admission that the free market doesn't actually lead to the best social outcome.

[Forty Two]

Yes. That's my point.

How would you create competition? Cant have two armies?

Maybe you could have multiple armies in a league, and have them fight it out every few years. The national champion gets to be "the army" until the next season, when the competing armies go head to head again. Las Vegas can lay odds, and the gambling proceeds can fund it.

[pErvinalia]

duplicate

[pErvinalia]

The question of the military being "socialized" is the common misconception that anything done by the government is "socialized," which is not the case. Some countries have national police forces -- but, that doesn't mean they have "socialized law enforcement." It means they have law enforcement, which is not socialism. And, similarly, laws are made by governments/legislatures, and not private individuals -- does that mean we have "socialized legislatures?" Of course not.

There is no competition in providing defence of the country like there is in providing for the health and education of the country. Why not?

If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Well, because the military is a thing that is used by a nation against other nations or external foes. So, the nation, under whatever authority it operates, determines who are its friends and who are its foes, and raises a military to fight the foes and defend the friends. It's not socialism, it's "the State" and "the government" doing its duty. We don't have a free market in governments or government policy. In the case of health, it's not a question of it being a choice between socialized health and completely free markets -- there's a middle choice - a free, but reasonably regulated market, coupled with a safety net. Same with education. We have public schools, but not 'socialized education' - people are free to go to private schools, and the government doesn't control the means of production of education. And, science - not sure where you're coming from there - but, if you had socialized science then you'd have the State being the only entity allowed to produce science, and private individuals not being able to science for profit. In today's world, we have science done by private corporations and individuals all the time, and also some government grants provided to fund areas of research, but the government doesn't control the means of sciencing.

As usual, you are missing the point. Why isn't the military a mixed system (or largely a free market) like science, education and health? Why is it 100% the government picking winners and losers?

The government does things that are in line with what governments are there for.

The question isn't about how things are. The question is about WHY they are as they are. If free(r) markets are supposed to be more efficient and lead to better social outcomes, then why isn't the same principle applied to the military?

[Scot Dutchy]

Yes (or something equally or more disastrous). Are you not following what this thread is about??

Of course I am but I cant see its purpose. It seems an odd point to try and make. There are certain services that should never be privatised and military forces should not be part of any privatisation although in Britain the urge to privatise everything is great.

The point is to invite free marketeers to explain why the free market allegedly works for things like health, education and science, but not the military. The fact that the free market isn't employed in running the military is an admission that the free market doesn't actually lead to the best social outcome.

Well privatisation in health and education does not work. Britain has proved that. From having one of the best health system in the world to one that hardly cranks along under the constant influence of the privatising of various internal systems. We have a so called privatised system but only the front end (the selling of insurance policies) is privatised the rest is under strict control of the governments inspectorate and at present still the best in Europe.

[pErvinalia]

Yes (or something equally or more disastrous). Are you not following what this thread is about??

Of course I am but I cant see its purpose. It seems an odd point to try and make. There are certain services that should never be privatised and military forces should not be part of any privatisation although in Britain the urge to privatise everything is great.

The point is to invite free marketeers to explain why the free market allegedly works for things like health, education and science, but not the military. The fact that the free market isn't employed in running the military is an admission that the free market doesn't actually lead to the best social outcome.

Well privatisation in health and education does not work.

You and I know that. But neoliberals have yet to work this out.

[Scot Dutchy]

That is very optimistic.

[Forty Two]

Yes (or something equally or more disastrous). Are you not following what this thread is about??

Of course I am but I cant see its purpose. It seems an odd point to try and make. There are certain services that should never be privatised and military forces should not be part of any privatisation although in Britain the urge to privatise everything is great.

The point is to invite free marketeers to explain why the free market allegedly works for things like health, education and science, but not the military. The fact that the free market isn't employed in running the military is an admission that the free market doesn't actually lead to the best social outcome.

there is a fundamental difference between free competition for profit in selling products and services, and a free competition for profit in invading and blowing up international foes.

The free market works in the commercial marketplace because there actually are individuals and entities which are doing business for a profit by serving customers. An army takes over territory and commandeers resources, and destroys what it doesn't take. It's not a service being sold to customers, nor is it a service that would conceptually be salable to customers. You can sell private security services (guard someone's house or business, etc), but it's hard to imagine how one can sell a service to guard common areas of a country to private citizens. What would be sold? Would there be a service provider coming to the house or calling me on the phone asking me to buy military services? Unless those services are to be supplied on my behalf personally, then what am I buying.

Conceptually, an individual customer wouldn't buy the services of "common defense." They can sell me "Forty Two defense" -- meaning, I call them into action when I need them or in accordance with a service plan provided to me. But, are they selling me, for the low low price of $99.95, the right to order them to invade another country? How is that possible, as a practical matter?

This is, in economics, the this comes under the theory of "public good." A public good is a category of things that are not amenable to private enterprise or free markets in that they are "non-excludable" and "non-rivalrous." That is, individuals cannot be, as a practical matter, excluded from their use and use by one individual does not reduce availability to others. And, this is an example of where the "free rider problem" comes into play. That is, individuals, who cannot effectively be excluded from receiving the benefit of national defense services, have the incentive not to pay for it. So, it's an illustration, in that sense of "market failure," which is why the government provides the service.