What exactly would a "privatized" military look like?
Would there be a big company called General Military, that would sell military services?
Who would buy these services? How would they be paid for?
What would happen if the company got a better deal from another country?
Say China says "We'll double what the US is paying you", is that it, are we defeated at the bargaining table?

I find the idea of heavily armed "private" armies a little discomforting, especially in a world where no one else has much in the way of firepower.
What happens if the leadership of the private military decide that they would rather run the country, who would defend the country against them?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

The protection of citizen's freedom and security are the primary purpose of government. Anyone for the privitization of our methods of defense is a boob.

I'm saying if we were to privatize defense NOW, not in 1776, then we would be screwed. Nutjob anarcho-capitalists advocate such privatization. Unless they can change history or wipe the memory of the rest of the world, such privatization would lead to our downfall.

__________________

Exactly. I want to be protected by my government and have my needs provided by my government, not some money-hungry corporation. I have no say in how the corporation is run. There is no telling when a corporation might collapse. I should NEVER have to pay someone for a need so basic as living. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to. I cannot think of any good thing that could come from privatization of something like defense. Some people are insane.

__________________

What would be accomplished by wiping the US into oblivion if we privatized everything? The reason we're hated now is because of our power. Memories or no, the main reason to attack another nation is because it is a threat. If the US is not a threat, then there's no reason to attack. Al Qaeda has a habit of going after the most powerful in its path.

Besides, none of this addresses the fact that nuclear weapons have never been used outside of two occasions. Those who have them realize the vast destructive potential they possess. And given that the US invaded two countries and overthrew their governments over a non-nuclear attack that killed 3,000 people, it's not bloody likely that the rest of the world would take kindly to anyone using nuclear weapons againt anyone else.

Do you honestly think we would not be attacked if our army was disbanded? If so you are living in a very strange fantasy indeed. Changing things now does not alter our past in any way.

__________________

Say we reduced our military by 90%, still more than adequate to repulse an attack on the homeland, but not enough to interfere in the affairs of others halfway around the world, what would we have to fear?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Sure, that might work, but if we privatized the defense industry we wouldn't have an army.

__________________

What an interesting question! No, I would be opposed to the idea. My first objection is that at present government (I'm not locating this response, it's in the abstract, geographically speaking) owns the military and can tell it what to do (please let's not get hung up about the nature of government). If it was a private corporation providing military services there is no way known that a contract can be written which covers every contingency. The corporation would find ways of wriggling out of its obligations for sure.

My other objection is that the corporation is driven by only one thing - the need to make profit. I would assume that the model being thought of is that government negotiates a fee for service after contract negotiations. The fee is received. How does the corporation make a profit like this? It makes sure that its costs are lower than the fee received, doesn't it? So it cuts its costs, guess what, first thing to go is maintenance. Let's keep those planes flying eh? We don't want them falling out of the sky on us.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Why are you asking me that question when I've already answered it? If you aren't going to offer anything else substantive to the conversation, it seems rather silly to expect me to respond differently. Feigned incredulity is a real conversation stopper.

I didn't repeat myself. In your response you said...
I explained that changing something now does not effect the past. My question to you now is: Why do you think we wouldn't be attacked if we were to privatize defense right now?

__________________

The fact is, we might be attacked. But the attacker will be faced with several problems. First, even after the conquoring is successful, the conqueorer will be faced with guerrilla warfare. This can be seen currently in Iraq. America has won the war, that is, America has toppled the government. The trouble comes from the guerrillas that take shots at "our boys" from windows. America is having a mighty difficult time in Iraq. The same happened in Vietnam and Korea. Americans did this during the Revolutiuion.

The second problem is that there is no existing state to topple. In order to conquer "America" the attacker would have to have armies stationed all over the "US." Further, when the conquerer has conquered "America", giving orders to the conquered people will be diffucilt because there is no existing state to serve as a conduit between the conquered and the conquerer.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

So, basically, you'd be willing to see America reduced to a state similar to that of Iraq, with ubiquitous street violence and guerilla warfare, just so you could have privitized defense? Very interesting.

__________________

If the US was completly prvitized, it would not be like Iraq. Iraq already had a very strong system of government in place. While the US toppled the existing government, held elections, and new people became the government, the fact is, replacing one government with another is not the same as replacing no government with a government. It is diffivult to convey orders this way. This was my second point, but obviously you did not read that.

I do not think that the US will become like Iraq for any sustained period of time for the reason I just mentioned. If another country attacks, it will be met with heavy resistance. Sure, it might get a little rough, but not as rough as the current world situation. At most, the conquering army would be able to conquer a small portion of the American area. Right now, the rights of all Americans are violated daily. We have already been conquered.

So, basically, you'd be willing to see America continuously attack poor third world countries, have millitary basses all around the world, committ the most brazen acts of terrorism, divert valuable resources from the market, and enslave its citizens, just so you can feel a little more safe? Very intersting.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

As I said before:

"The reason we're hated now is because of our power. Memories or no, the main reason to attack another nation is because it is a threat. If the US is not a threat, then there's no reason to attack. Al Qaeda has a habit of going after the most powerful in its path."