So a few of us here at work got to talking about private security companies and the supposed unique dangers of using them. I replied with my usual sarcastic retort, "Yeah...because national troops NEVER commit atrocities, right?" Nevertheless, it seems to be the accepted view that these PSCs are more likely to be aggressive than government troops. But it got me thinking, has anyone actually kept statistics on this? Such as, how many atrocities per soldier typically occur for both? Maybe it's too early in the game to have numbers. But I figured I'd ask you guys if you know of any since I'm sure you run into this argument a lot when debating. I'd be curious to know. Thanks in advance!
Are we counting the drug war here?
like, I dont have statistics for you, but I can demonstrate moral hazard. Moral hazard occurs whenever a party is shielded from the necessary negative effects of his (mis)action. When agents of the state abuse their powers, the only punitive action must come from the state itself. Tax receipts are not affected, or when they are, taxes are adjusted. When agents of an open-market firm abuse their powers or abilities, the brand and reputation suffers. This leads to a decrease gross income.
Yes, this is kind of what I was getting at. It's not like there aren't consequences for the PSC if their troops get out of hand. They have a reputation to uphold. Somehow people got it into their head that "mercenaries," as they're branded, are more violent than government troops. Maybe they are, I don't know. But has anyone actually proved it? To me it just sounds like speculation and hearsay. I'm not saying they don't commit crimes. They're human. But so are government troops.
here are some statistics
That looks interesting. Thanks!