Private National Defense

Are there any studies on real cases of Private National Defense?

I have been reading a lot of essays on the subject but they don't tell much. Perhaps there are some analysis on the use of mercenary forces and corsaries. Maybe even a book on the well extended use of private armies during the Middle Age and the Renaissance.

Check out Hoppe's The Myth of National Defence and Democracy - The God that Failed (he lists a lot of sources dealing with medieval cities and the like in the latter.) Stringham's Anarchy and the Law, Leoni's The Enterprise of Law, Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom and articles by J. Peden on Ireland and van Notten on Somalia are all caste studies of private provision of law and order. 

I am not talking about Police. I mean a real Army to defend against invaders, suffocate rebellions and maybe invading someone.

I want to relate the historical experience with the possibilities for border protection in our time. 

Again, check the works I mentioned. They cover these topics. I think there are articles as well on the matter in the political philosophy reading list, but I haven't really gone through them.

I think the real problem with a national defense army in the modern world is the provision of submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc. While I see it very feasible (indeed this is done in Switzerland) to have an armed and trained population, this does not account for the sinews of modern warfare. I've seen theories about how insurances could cover this, and although this may be true, a decentralised army fighting against a centralised one may be seriously disadvantaged.

I seriously doubt if an efficient army can be maintained without a state. Having said that, I am certain that efficient protection and security within the country can be achieved through private security agencies. So why can't we have both? Let the government provide an army, but let the citizens be armed and trained, and let decentralised and numerous private defense agencies replace the police force. In such a situation, there is no way in which the government could impose its will on the people through use of the army, since the people on the home front would be very well protected.

Fred Furash:

a decentralised army fighting against a centralised one may be seriously disadvantaged.

But state controlled militaries are slow to respond to change and extremely un-cost effective. Since the private sector excells at everything else why would they not excel at building a military? Instead of being able to throw billions down the drain like current state militaries do a private military would have to be very cost effective and employ better strategic planners to better exploit their more limited resources.

Also a private decentralized military force would probably do better at repelling an occupying force through guerrilla tactics and basically running the invading state to the point where it isn't worth wasting all the money and resources to try to hold on to that territory.

I have always thought that terrorists don't overthrow governments because they are trying to get publicity and not to win a war. For example, would Argentina invade Uruguay and if I was in charge of the defense, I would simply order the Special Operations units to kill every single Argentinian politician, so there would be nobody to command the attack on my country and the army would be too busy managing the chaos in their home country to hold an occupational force here. I think the Mossad does something similar with Palestinian terrorist organizations called "targeted assasinations".

I can imagine something like privateer permits (lettres de course) that allow mobsters to steal tanks, ships, planes and so from the enemy and to have my country as refuge.

The main problem I find is who would pay for the services and to which one of the military agencies. In the future, in a fully libertarian society, it would be fare that those who don't want to fight the enemy (maybe want to give in) aren't forced to support war effort.

However, I am talking here of the possibilities of doing something like that right now in our current world. 

For example, wouldn't it be more efficiente for Ukraine to use private military forces to repel a Russian attack rather than going down in a spiral as the statism and the armed forces grow to confront the menace?

Antoher example, Somaliland is in constant fear that their Somalian neighbours invade them and conduct a genocide (again). Why not allowing the presence of private armed forces that ask for voluntary contributions?

I am just throwing ideas. 

gussosa:

I am not talking about Police. I mean a real Army to defend against invaders, suffocate rebellions and maybe invading someone.

I want to relate the historical experience with the possibilities for border protection in our time. 

 

If you're wondering about border protection, just give free reign to the Minuteman Project or some similar group. They'd be more than willing to secure our borders at zero cost to the taxpayer. 

Fred Furash:

a decentralised army fighting against a centralised one may be seriously disadvantaged.

 

Wehrmacht vs French army shows otherwise. 

The problem of socialist calculation applies to war just like anything.

240 BC

If I understand you correctly, then you would suggest that a private voluntary army could be formed by individuals concerned about the genocide in Darfur, for instance.  The not-for-profit force could be formed and funded by volunteers.  A 1-800 number could appear on your screen, and encourage you to send money to fund a charity-based, anti-genocide army.  That makes a lot more sense than forcing the taxpayer to buy food and supplies that are in turn captured by those committing genocide in the first place.

It should be pointed out that helping the victims in Darfur has nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with charity.  The people in Somalia or Darfur do not have the ability to defend themselves.  They need help from caring individuals in a position of power.  Governments of course do not belong in the charity business since they are not easy to hold accountable.  If the charity does something you don't like you can at least stop funding it.  Government on the other hand can point a gun at you and say fund our inefficient, anti-genocide effort.

Armies aren't for defense. Armies are invasion and occupation(sometimes domestic).

Why sit around trying to figure out how to maintain the status quo? Armies are not a virtue they are a curse.

 

Stranger:

Fred Furash:

a decentralised army fighting against a centralised one may be seriously disadvantaged.

 

Wehrmacht vs French army shows otherwise. 

The problem of socialist calculation applies to war just like anything.

Look at Iraq.

GoRonPaul:

If I understand you correctly, then you would suggest that a private voluntary army could be formed by individuals concerned about the genocide in Darfur, for instance.  The not-for-profit force could be formed and funded by volunteers.  A 1-800 number could appear on your screen, and encourage you to send money to fund a charity-based, anti-genocide army. 

 

That's yet another idea I have had. I have always wondered why the Catholic Church doesn't reinstaurate the Templar Order to give militar protection to the missionaries in war zones. A lot of catholic priests armed to the teeth, funded voluntarily by catholics from all over the world would be much more effective tas pacifiers than the bureaucrats of the UN. I mean, that's what the Templars used to do in the Middle Age. If you don't like the name let's call them the Catholic Foreign Legion.

Iraq is more than just decentralisation vs centralisation... but if you want to pin it on this topic - what do you think about employing "decentralised" Iraq insurgency's tactics in defensive libertarian_no_country's war? For about a year they were actively trying to push Iraq into civil war, by means of random mass-murder of some of their "brothers in faith" from other Islamic sects. They gladly risk civilian life if this may get them combat advantage. Their agenda sanctifies all means. If you cut off all immoral acts you're back to any other partisan warfare. It may be a problem to invader. Though it's extent depends moslty on invaders character. Policy of one villige burned for every sniped officer may end any insurgency if invader is savage enough to do it. It can hardly be considered defence, let alone effective defence! --- To defeat serious invasion you'd need houndreds of jets, divisions of armour and infantry, tons of intelligence and system to tie it all - while on the other hand you need many tangled boundries to make this huge force submit to civilians. I think current model is good enough. Coup d'etat's are not a risk in developed world, combination of military might and expected military power from alliances is enough to limit risk of conquest and it's not so expensive - around 5% budget. Compared to social spending - peanuts. (To partisan tactics supporters - check out youtube videos of AC130u in combat. You can counter such an overwhelming advantage of huge information net intel gathering + high-tech, extremaly expensive craft mission execution only by more military might or morally corrupt strategy. Hide between civilians and you won't get smoked by a gunship, but individuals can't ever match might of huge military machine, even with perfect morale.)

BWF89:

Fred Furash:

a decentralised army fighting against a centralised one may be seriously disadvantaged.

But state controlled militaries are slow to respond to change and extremely un-cost effective. Since the private sector excells at everything else why would they not excel at building a military? Instead of being able to throw billions down the drain like current state militaries do a private military would have to be very cost effective and employ better strategic planners to better exploit their more limited resources.

Also a private decentralized military force would probably do better at repelling an occupying force through guerrilla tactics and basically running the invading state to the point where it isn't worth wasting all the money and resources to try to hold on to that territory.

Edit: I disagree with myself

Edit 2: I think not for profit defense agencies would recieve funding from a free society and people wouldn't trust a for profit organization for defense.

No doubt a private military would be more cost effective. However it still may not be a good idea. Private citizens with firearms for self defence are a very good idea, but for-profit organized mercenary forces are a bad idea as primary defense. History shows what happens when those that hire them can no longer afford to pay them what they want and the results aren't good. Also, they're generally less loyal (historically speaking) than regular forces.

ChaseCola:

Edit 2: I think not for profit defense agencies would recieve funding from a free society and people wouldn't trust a for profit organization for defense.

 

I wouldn't trust a not for profit defense company.

A "charity" defense organization would not be subject to market forces. It would end up being ideologically motivated rather than consumer orientied and would probably end up looking more like the Black Panthers or KKK than a legitimate, profit orinated company.

Though I don't lose any sleep over it. For profit security firms would have the capital to keep any nonmarket organizations at bay.

Plus, by the time market anarchy is achieved there won't be any lack of trust for market entities. 

JonBostwick:

Look at Iraq.

 

I think that a decentralised guerrilla fighting force would work very well against a centralised invasion. But is that really the kind of defense we want? To me, guerrila warfare is the last tactic the people should employ. The reason is simple. The invading, centralised army sees the guerrilla warfare as a virus, with only one solution - extermination. We've seen it in WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq. The Guerrillas always come out victorious, but at a huge cost in lives and property. All their wealth is destroyed, millions killed, thousands raped and tortured. I don't really see this as a solution. Centralised armies are non-for profit, and often ideological. That makes them expensive and sometimes inefficient, but this is also where their danger lies. They will stop at nothing to reach their goals, no matter the cost.

The war in Iraq has cost the US about $3 trillion, and they've completely failed. During their presence, terrorism increased, the country is in civil war, and the price of oil has shot up (arguably something the oil lobbies wanted). By now, it would be reasonable to leave. It would have been sensible to leave years ago, but the way things are looking they'll stay for a few years. Sure in the end the Iraqi Guerrilas and terrorists will win, but at what cost?

If you're looking for a stable society, guerrila warfare hardly seems like a sensible solution. Usually it results in the destruction of a whole generation. 

JonBostwick:

ChaseCola:

Edit 2: I think not for profit defense agencies would recieve funding from a free society and people wouldn't trust a for profit organization for defense.

 

 It would end up being ideologically motivated rather than consumer orientied and would probably end up looking more like the Black Panthers or KKK than a legitimate, profit orinated company.

I would much prefer a "charity" orginization whose ideology is to protect liberty, an invading army would find it much easier to pay off a mercenary army than fight them.

ChaseCola:

JonBostwick:

ChaseCola:

Edit 2: I think not for profit defense agencies would recieve funding from a free society and people wouldn't trust a for profit organization for defense.

 

 It would end up being ideologically motivated rather than consumer orientied and would probably end up looking more like the Black Panthers or KKK than a legitimate, profit orinated company.

 

I would much prefer a "charity" orginization whose ideology is to protect liberty, an invading army would find it much easier to pay off a mercenary army than fight them.

 

I don't see why it would be impossible for all of the following to exist side-by-side: citizen militias, private mercenaries, insurance-protection firms (not necessarily the same thing as private mercenaries), not-for-profit security organizations (not sure how well these would work though). All able-bodied men and women, and even most who are not, ought to be encouraged to learn self-defense (martial arts and weaponry) to a basic minimum level in an anarchist society. That's one of the bedrocks of maintaining a free and flourishing society.

 

Your misteaken. There were numerous times where partisan tactics failed. But they aren't that spectacular. If Goliath triumpfs it's not a hot story. Vietnam will be wildly popular becouse huge USA got beaten by 3rd rate country with only as much strategical advantage as jungle terrain and commies support. Poland had many uprisings while it was divided by Prussia, Austria and Russia. It also rised while occupied by III Reich. All these attempts failed. Guys undertaking them were pretty well motivated to try 10th uprising after 9 failed ones. Thinking about Polish history I do find an example of won uprising, when some polish noble took over Russia. But their military force was limited (they succeeded due to exceptional power of polish cavalery at the time, but ... after all they were bunch of nobles with private forces trying to plant ruler in big country) and uprising forced them to flee. (Russians had recently made a movie about it... seems it bothers them to be conquered by bunch of Polish nobles after all these years.) And "They will stop at nothing to reach their goals, no matter the cost." is hardly at the point. It's partisans that are motivated more and taking any costs. Military withdraws after costs seem to be above gains from actual conquest. They also have many regulations. Are those to unable them coup de etat, or restrain them from slaughtering civilians - they always limit their power. Partisans can overcome disadvantage in power by precisely "not stoping, no matter the cost" and sometimes this means not only cost to insurgents, but ordinary civilians too. --- About private military: Biggest problem is not buying out mercenaries by the other side. It's mercenaries taking over. Solution to the problem of conquest needs to make cost of conquest unberable to potential enemies, while being close to 100% coup de etat proof for decades.

Ancient historians as Niccolo Macchiavelli tell (but don´t narrate) that the rely on mercenaries was disastrous for the countries of Medieval Europe. After the war was over, they would become gangsters, raiding the country and terrorizing the people. That was the reason why regular militias were preferred later, even considering they were much more expensive to keep. 

However, these were mercenaries used in invasion wars. Perhaps if we use not one, but several agencies (like 14 on earth warfare, 5 on air, 9 on sea) they would control each other and the competition would keep the fees low. A criminal one would be crushed by the others, just to keep their contracts, and no one would be powerful enough to overcome the others and there be always tempted with the idea of taking it all instead of just charging a fee. 

I thought The Myth of National Defence deals with mercenaries and the like?

Vedran Vuk spoke on this issue if anyone is interested: http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=72

He makes a good points on the vast resources (through available surpluses and reinsurance) and the advantages of insurance-based defense (the biggest being that the attacking country doesn't really know who to attack, since an insurance company is rarely just domestic and reinsurance companies could be all over the world).

Orwell:

If you're wondering about border protection, just give free reign to the Minuteman Project or some similar group. They'd be more than willing to secure our borders at zero cost to the taxpayer. 

IMHO, if they are given a free reign of the borders, they'd soon get into the drug and human smuggling business, simply because such enterprises would be far more profitable.  I'm actually not entirely against auctioning off sections of the border to private owners.

Peterus:

check out youtube videos of AC130u in combat

AC130U may be an awesome weapon against infantry barracks and tank parks, its effectiveness against light infantry mixed in built-up areas full of civilians is questionable.  We (the US) has only about a couple dozen AC130 gunships, and each one cost over $80 million.  A Stinger missile, which can take down an AC130, costs only about $30k; that's with General Dynamics manufacturing it, not exactly a company known for low production cost.

The "Civl War" in Iraq is a pathetic attempt at centralization . . . each side were/are fighting in a scramble to get ready to take over the country and have exclusive control over the oil resources after the US exits.  Both Sunnis and Shiites are postering "anti-American" credentials for post-American propaganda value while in reality busy killing each other.  Such is typical of a country/culture steeped in centralization (after all, Bagdad was the seat of historical Caliphate).  What little decentralized "resistence" that has shown has certainly proved far more effective than Saddam's centralized armies.

The most effective strategy for conquest has always been inducing surrender.  In a guerilla war that has no "king" to catch and force surrender, hunting down all the pieces on the table becomes a much more expensive exercise.

gussosa:

I have always wondered why the Catholic Church doesn't reinstaurate the Templar Order

Kinda hard to do after the Pope had connived with the King of France (Frankish heavy calvary being the primary source of templar knights) to kill the Grand Master and loot the Knights' financial fortunes (accummulated from being the banker and insurance insurance underwriter for the pilgrims).  That, and the other branch of the fighting monks (the Teutonic Knights in the Northern Crusade) met disasterous military defeat while trying to loot new convert Christians (by claiming they were not really Christians); kinda hard to recover from that when the organization's primary capital is the myth of divine invincibility.

 

How can you logically talk about privatization of national defence? The customer is not a private economic actor, but the State. That's the equivalent to arguing that tax collection should be privatized. A privatized tax agency working on a for profit basis is no more a free-market entity as a private army that does the defence service for the state. The payment for both STILL comes from the taxpayer, that is: not from a free market interaction. Hence, you are not privatizing, you are outsourcing.

It IS, however, possible to privatize Security – but that's a different can of worms. It would NOT be national security, and it would not be national defense. It would be private security and private defense.

Of course, I may be totally of the rocker here, but... that's what I think. Where did I go wrong?

 

dietwald:

How can you logically talk about privatization of national defence? The customer is not a private economic actor, but the State. That's the equivalent to arguing that tax collection should be privatized. A privatized tax agency working on a for profit basis is no more a free-market entity as a private army that does the defence service for the state. The payment for both STILL comes from the taxpayer, that is: not from a free market interaction. Hence, you are not privatizing, you are outsourcing.

Imagine this possible future.  The statists have achieved their ultimate goal and they all are one enormous state. Meanwhile, the liberals have radicalized and all of them are libertarians, and have setup a small country without state in the middle of the ocean. The socialist country is getting worse and worse, while the libertarians flourish. How much time do you think it will take for the Socialist Pangea to launch a crusade to "free" the islanders from the "tiranny of corporations".

You will need armed forces. So you quickly switch to a Republican/Monarchic government (thrashing your values) or find a way to defend your country using private companies.

The defense of such an island is quite simple: give the big bosses of Pangea free vacation trips and free villas on the island.  In fact, that's how places like Switzerland survived Nazi Germany, and Hongkong survived Communist China.  Switzerland was surrounded by axis powers on all sides, yet why would the axis invade it if they can derive all the possible benefit of occupying Switzerland already through trade?  Likewise, HK was not militarily defensible (heck, a surrender can be induced in 72hrs by cutting off water supply from the mainland), yet if the big corrupt bosses can derive more personal benefit from having a free HK than an occupied HK, why would they want to invade?

That's the key to understand, "national defense" is first and foremost the defense of the ruling class special privilegs. Nationalism is just a handy tool in recruiting cheap cannon fodders.  While racist extermination campaigns did take place on rare occasions (e.g. Nazi Germany against Russia, and US against Indian tribes/"nations"), the historical success rate of those were extremely low and when they were successful the pre-war condition must have been so-lopsided as to make any talks of military defense strategy quite meaningless.  Most wars are "decapitation" campaigns, where an existing power elite is replaced by a new power elite to take advantage of and exploit the racket.   Having a decentralized society makes it a lot less appealing to any would-be "ursurper"/invader.  Machiavilli had some treatise on this in his book "the Prince," where he stated that a nation living under tyranny is the easiest and most profitable to conquer because the the people there are used to being subjugated and exploited, whereas a free people is probably not worth the hassle of holding them down.

JimS:

The defense of such an island is quite simple: give the big bosses of Pangea free vacation trips and free villas on the island.  In fact, that's how places like Switzerland survived Nazi Germany, and Hongkong survived Communist China. 

 Nobody invaded Switzerland because the swiss had such a good defence. The mountains were carved into castles, the Germans new it would be better to leave them alone. Hong Kong on the other hand is still going to be under communist control in 2040, all they have to do is wait. The "international community" would not be happy if China invaded Hong Kong. I think if the Marine Corps or Navy ect. was transfered into a charity defense organization people would be more than willingto pay the price. People like having the most powerful military in the world.(at least I do)

ChaseCola:

Nobody invaded Switzerland because the Swiss had such a good defence.  The mountains were carved into castles

80+% of swiss population live in lowlands that are easily invaded.  The moutain redoubts did not even stop Julius Caesar from conquring the Helvetians (Swiss) . . . how can they possibly hold out against dynamite and flame-throwers?  Switzerland wasn't invaded because there was nothing to be gained for the Axis to invade Switzerland.

Likewise, China could have invaded HK in any of the 50 years before the British lease experiation.  It wasn't invaded because even the most despotic leaders realize that they can personally derive benefit from free trade with the outside world.  The despots just don't want their subjects benefit from such trade at the risk of losing their political control.

 I wouldn't bet on free trade for that. The socialist mind has a strong tendency to kill the goose of the golden eggs.

Also, giving free villas and that sort of thing would be bribing. If you bribe a bully to not hurt you, it is actually paying protection, and from that to old-fashioned tribute is only one step. So, you end up being a colony of Pangea.

gussosa:

I wouldn't bet on free trade for that. The socialist mind has a strong tendency to kill the goose of the golden eggs.

Also, giving free villas and that sort of thing would be bribing. If you bribe a bully to not hurt you, it is actually paying protection, and from that to old-fashioned tribute is only one step. So, you end up being a colony of Pangea.

The dictator's own interest, those of his minions, and the interest of the "nation" of Pangea are all separate issues.  The libertarian island would simply be a playground for all-comers . . . be they local libertarians, the dictator of Pangea and his representatives or "corrupt" officials from Pangea who are on assignment from the dictator but are in reality transacting for their own benefit.   Situations like this happens all the time throughout the world history.  Even today, Iran is trying to set up a free-trade island right off its own shore; the North Korean dictator has a taste for fine import wines and cars even as he advocates austerity and self-sufficiency for "his people."  "National interest" are the dictator's own interest are two separate issues, the former is only a propaganda cover to further the latter. 

In any case, military defense of a tiny island agains the entire rest of the world is quite infeasible anyway.

JimS:

In any case, military defense of a tiny island agains the entire rest of the world is quite infeasible anyway.

 

Not if you have far better technology. 

If we are already talking about sci-fi here, let's say they have sub-orbital bomber planes and elite marines, but we have some Damocles satellites and the capacity to teleport troops at any time to any place. If the dictator ever tries to give the order to invade,  we blast the house while he is still talking on the phone.

gussosa:

Not if you have far better technology. 

If the island does have far better military technology, it would not have allowed the rest of the world to consolidate into Pangea.  Just look at the British history in our own time line vis-a-vis European continent.  

 Why would we mess with them?

 Why would Great Britain declare war on Europe to prevent them from becoming the European Union?

Please explain. 

gussosa:

Why would we mess with them?

 Why would Great Britain declare war on Europe to prevent them from becoming the European Union?

Great Britain did not co-exist with European Union.  Great Britain ended in 1945, after warring itself to exhaustion preventing unification of Europe under Germany through force of arms.  By the time the latest attempt at unifying Europe came around in the 1970's, United Kingdom was in no position to prevent anything from happening as it had long lost the technological and financial edge over continental states like Germany and France.  When Great Britain existed, and was technologically and financially superior to continental Europe, it did all it could to play the game of "balance of power" on the European continent . . . the purpose was obviously to prevent the consolidation on the continent.  In a lot of ways, that's the role of the US after Great Britain gradually shrank into United Kingdom after WWI. 

" When Great Britain existed, and was technologically and financially superior to continental Europe, it did all it could to play the game of "balance of power" on the European continent . . . the purpose was obviously to prevent the consolidation on the continent."

It was not Great Britain, but the british gov't using resources stolen from the productive brits. And the whole 'balance of power' doctrine was bogus. It wa just an excuse for the military oligarchy to justify their 'jobs' and their crimes.