Well if Mutually Assured Destruction is highly effective, that somewhat undermines your arguments that only states could afford reasonable defense forces since all a private security firm would really need is a few nuclear weapons.
A private security firm does not to me see sufficient to deter a state. For example lets say allodial title was given to BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Fortescue and other companies operating in the Pilbarra. How could they possibily defend against a major chinese incursion (hostile takeover if you will)?
By hiring a private security firm? The largest of these would seem highly unlikely to be able to confront a power the size of China. Existing PMC's are active providing infantry, special forces, light helicopters, charter flights, drone pilots, etc. They aren't operating/providing naval forces, heavy armour, air superiority etc.
And without the rent-seeking military-industrial complex of a state how could they? M1's cost $6m each, JSF's cost $83m each, a nimitz class costs upwards of $4.5b, a Virginia class costs $2.8b, Minuteman III icbm's from $7m, etc etc.
In a world with a blend of AC and states, it would seem that the latter could beat the crap out of the former.
Most countries could not confront a power the size of China or the USA. By your logic that defense forces need to be large to be effective, all small nations are also just as vulnerable as areas of a comparable size patrolled by private security firms. Once again your logic seems to suggest that the best way to ensure security is through world government. Even the Australian military could not defeat China on its own (an invasion may be difficult because of China's poor naval capacity) but China could easily blow this country to smithereens. Similarly Australia could quite easily be invaded by the USA or Russia.
Your logic seems to suggest that bigger is better in terms of defence. I would strongly disagree. The question is not whether a potential attacker has the strength to invade, because powers like China, Russia and the USA have the strength to invade most countries, yet they don't.
The question is whether the benefits of invasion exceed the costs. If countries are broken down into smaller units (eg smaller states or areas patrolled by private security firms), sure each unit becomes easier to invade, but because each unit now contains less resources, the pay off for invading it is also proportionally reduced. Therefore, the cost benefit equation for the invader remains about the same.
In your example, if BHP has a bunch of anti aircraft guns, bombs and capability to "salt the earth" and destroy the resources if defeat is imminent, the payoffs for a potential invader would look pretty poor. For instance BHP might make it known that it has the technology to irradiate the minerals in its mine if invasion is imminent. Sure the Chinese army could still defeat them, but why would they bother if doing so cost more than the resources they would get from doing so?
Remember, private security forces can (and almost certainly would) contract with each other. So BHP could share information with Rio Tinto and other security firms, and other firms that may have anti-aircraft guns may agree to shoot down planes headed for BHP's territory.
Your ramblings about "herd strength" and the benefits of centralized planning when it comes to defense seem to run contrary to everything else you say about central planning.
Time and time again we see complex systems like the internet being co-ordinated efficiently by free markets using contracts with little or no central planning.
Similarly, its not hard to see how incompetent the centrally planned military is. Look at the moronic tactics used in the trenches in WW2 that lead to hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths to gain a few meters of territory, or the ANZACS needlessly slaughtered at Gallipoli. Look how much the USA has spent in Vietnam and today in the middle east, only to still be fighting a decade later. Generals and politicians commanding a war from their ivory towers is a terrible idea, and smaller localized firms working together co-operatively would almost certainly be more efficient at providing defense, just like they are more efficient than the government at everything else.
If you're going to stick to your arguments about herd strength (but deny a belief in world government) what would you say is the optimal size for a nation? Should Australia merge with New Zealand?
See the kind of cost of entry costs which I mention above. Logistic capabilities required for a local police force are low. Those required for a serious defensive capability are not.
Sure, thats why the small firm can contract with a larger firm, or pool its resources with other smaller firms to purchase or rent access to big ticket items. It exactly like the way most businesses operate today. Most telephone companies don't own satellites and under sea cables, but they are still able to operate by renting access to this infrastructure. Most airlines don't own international airports ect.
The same applies to what you said about aircraft carriers and fighter jets, not that they are really needed for legitimate defense.
me said:
If it was as simple as just targeting the assets you want the US military would have just done that. Obviously you have to secure ALOT more land than just the resources you want to take, otherwise insurgents will surround you and attack you. Oil wells and pipelines are particularly easy to attack and sabotage.
US objectives in Iraq are broader than oil and therefore required an occcupation. Furthermore public opinion would not have supported a blatant resources grab. A self-funded PMC does not need to concern itself with public opinion as much as a state.
Ok, I agree about the US objectives, but it does not undermine my main point here which I have bolded. You may not have to secure a whole country to extract resources, but you still have to secure more than simply the resource rich areas.
Either you are a troll, or you fail at free-market libertarianism.
The state, in order to conduct its necessary business, needs to use some sort of document format. Even the most minimal of states would have to at least write the law code down somewhere.
The document format that the state uses affects the citizens of the state; because they must possess software capable of interpreting that format in order to usefully interact with the state.
Therefore, the state's use of a document format constitutes a state-imposed market distortion in favor of software that can interpret that format, and against software that cannot. Because the state's use of some document format is unavoidable, the imposition of this market distortion is unavoidable.
The more openly available, and widely adopted, and patent unencumbered the format is, the lower the barrier of entry to supporting it is, and the greater the amount of software that can support it will be. Therefore, the more open the document standard used by the state, the smaller the market distortion imposed by the state.
Any free market libertarian is therefore obligated to support the state's use of the most open and least encumbered formats available.
Just out of interest, does anyone else know what he is on about or care to translate?
