Privatize National Defense

National Defense is too important to be left to the whims of government bureaucrats. I will address what appears to be my opponents three top criticism: 1. How would the poor acquire defense? 2. What would stop private protection agencies from being corrupt/violent? 3. What would give private defense companies motivation to fight? It is true that the poor would have more difficulty acquiring defense than the wealthier would-but that's true of any service. And government defense is not "free" it is paid for by taxpayers-many of whom are the poor themselves who would likely pay less in voluntary fees to more efficient private defense companies. Free-markets favor the poor. This is so because in order to attract customers business must be constantly lowering prices, innovating, and fostering a respected reputation. So long as government does not step in and restrict competition anyone could start a defense business anywhere and at anytime; this totally open competition would ensure high quality defense at a low price. For the very poor it's conceivable that "Defense Aid" charities would open up, similar to the current "Legal Aid" societies that offer legal assistance free of charge. Governments on the other hand, have been known for targeting the poor and minority groups because they know they are easy targets. Very well, but wouldn't all of that make no difference if the defense agencies were constantly warring and selling out to foreign governments? To the advocates of private defense this is a very odd question. Aren't government militaries constantly warring and murdering their own people? And aren't those wars and murders compounded by government's ability to tax and conscript? When governments fire on their own people there is no alternative for the people to call upon. If a Private Defense Agency(PDA)attempted to extort and oppress the populace then their customers would be free to immediately seek out more peaceful PDAs to put down the coup. Without the ability to tax and conscript no private army would be able to muster the resources to establish a dictatorship(unlike government). The force of competition would punish corrupt agencies with losses and reward quiet, honest agencies with gains. It is really that simple. As for the underwriting process, if insurance companies can underwrite large and destructive events like floods and earthquakes then why can it not underwrite the probability and liability of terrorism, nuclear strikes, or a ground invasion of Communists? If the insurance companies calculate a high probability of a hijacking then they will invest in airport security. If there's a likely-hood of a nuclear attack they will invest in bunkers and a missile defense shield. It can be expected that, because of profit motive, the intelligence of private companies will be far more thorough then their government counterparts(who lack profit motive). But how on earth would a private company afford a billion-dollar missile shield? This brings us to the nightmare of the military-industrial complex. Contrary to popular belief, the current military-industry is far from an example of the free-market. Actually, there is no greater distortion of the free-market than the government contracts, taxes, controls, and privileges that corporations like Lockheed-Martin and Blackwater receive. The military-industrial complex is an example of government purchasing from private firms(Prior to WWII that was known as Fascism). I am describing private firms purchasing from other private firms(capitalism). Since government has no incentive to limit its spending it is willing to grossly overspend its resources(remember those $600 toilet seats?). Military hardware(and toilet seats)sold on the open market would be priced at affordable levels-lest competition should step in and win away customers. If Northrop-Grumman knowingly sold defective equipment to Metropolitan Insurance then Metropolitan would simply not buy from Northrop-Grumman again. If Lockheed was slow and dishonest it would quickly go out of business. If particularly heavy hardware such as defense shields, tanks, or fighter jets, are needed in a particular region then it is likely that several large firms there would pool resources and purchase them or post reward that "We will give X million dollars to anyone who can produce a missile shield of our chosen level of quality". But through all this comes the why question. Why would private firms, pursuing profit, have any enthusiasm to give protection? My opponent talks of the need for patriotism, and he talks as if it is not subject greed, propaganda, and profiteering. Patriotism and defense of country has been used to justify many atrocities. A product or service that is sold on the open market can certainly be driven by greed, but if a greedy defense company competently halts a Chinese invasion at a reasonable price do the customers really care about the CEO's personal agenda? But who is to say that there would be nothing but greed involved? When individuals purchase healthcare it shows that they care about their personal health. If individuals purchased war insurance wouldn't that show that they care about themselves, their families, and way of life? It can be expected that insurance protection would actually foster more enthusiasm for defense because the companies would offer discounted premiums to clients who were willing to arm themselves, train, and be at-the-ready to repel an invasion(minute-men style). These minute-men would be voluntarily fighting to protect themselves and their homes from a direct attack from a bunch of foreign conscripts fighting for "their country". Need there be any debate about who would be fighting more enthusiastically? History and theory have long showed us that it is government who has the incentives to waste resources and bring about mass murder while using propaganda to justify itself. Free-market competition among armies would drastically reduce these abuses and drastically improve the quality of protection individuals would receive.