Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

I am aware of the Swiss military tradition.

[ QUOTE ]
The terrain of Switzerland is also a factor in the calculation. They are surrounded by natural fortification (the Alps).

[/ QUOTE ]
As are we (the Pacific and Atlantic oceans).

[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion I have come to is that I generally agree with you, with the caveat that a small, well off group who has access to the latest in weapons technology have lately found it easier to defend themselves against large numbers. However, in AC world, it would be -ev to engage in gun battles, so no one would bother to arm themselves because they could better spend the resources on something else. Therefore, this arguement is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the extent to which we are armed (including companies that might exist to provide "professional" protection would be determined by the amount of threat perceived by the populace. When the world is, for the most part, peaceful, there probably would be less arms and more during more dangerous times.

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, in AC world, it would be -ev to engage in gun battles, so no one would bother to arm themselves because they could better spend the resources on something else. Therefore, this arguement is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this follows for many reasons. Gun battles are expensive because of the human toll for the most part. The actual guns and ammo are not cost prohibitive. Besids this many people gain benefits from owning a gun without having to engage in a gunfight. Hunting, skeet shooting, and firing ranges are all popular. As well as psycological benefits of security and the overall power feeling that comes with owning a gun (so i hear).

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

[ QUOTE ]
Post office DOES NOT EQUAL military. Apples vs. Oranges.

A little less obfuscation and a little more addressing of my actual arguement would be nice. I thought you were supposed to be smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, there is one very, very important difference between a market service and a government service (because yes, there are services that the government provides). A market service costs nothing to the consumer until he decides to use it; a government service must charge the consumer before anyone can even figure out whether it's worth having. All government services must harm the consumer before he can even decide whether it's of any use to him, and the usual coupling of a monopoly destroys the incentives to provide a good service.

Now the problem is, there are some things that simply can't practically be privatized. We can readily privatize land, but it is much harder to privatize a river (as one's property is constantly flowing into another's). In theory we could privatize the air we breath with some kind of large transparent dome and an advanced filtration system (which would solve the air pollution problems since everyone would just be polluting their own air), but obviously we don't have anywhere near the resources to do this.

Similarly, we do not currently have the resources to provide completely private security, designed to serve the jurisdictions of individual residences; we have to socialise protection.

But to what degree? The military of the Federal government was created at a time when there was a very salient threat of British warships on the horizon, and a lack of the communications technology we have today; a practical defense, at that time, required a central, executive authority to coordinate defensive attacks. We could not afford the time it took to communicate with different generals of different colonies. Yet today, communication is instant, and we are able to ally with other countries in ways we couldn't before.

The question is, are we at a point where individual states can now be responsible for their own protection? Many of our states are the size of European countries that have their own militaries, and we have no threats of civil war.

Can we jump to militaries being fully privatized? No, but we can decentralize them, and I think it's absolutely necessary. No one should be rewarding an organization that is capable of losing 2.3 trillion dollars with more money to waste.

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

hmk,

I was going to tell you good thread, and then you make this post. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] This post sucks. Try making it again, but right.

PS. I know this is harsh, but you can take it. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

There, I removed the part where I ssaid I was a [censored] genius [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I can't rewrite it atm, i'm entering the canis zone. (mmmmm cookies)

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, we do not currently have the resources to provide completely private security, designed to serve the jurisdictions of individual residences; we have to socialise protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a joke?

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

All right boro, what exactly do you take issue with? That some things are more difficult to privatize than others, or that the early federalization of the military in America was unnecessary even given the circumstances?

Re: Freedom in spite of government
 

I wrote a big long reply and it got eaten. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I am pissed and it is almost 5am. You figure it out.