Privatize National Defense

The crux of my argument has been to advocate the separation of war and military affairs from the state, much in the same way that we (ought to) have separation of religion from the state. My opponent has fallaciously attempted to refute the effectiveness of this separation by using examples where either states directly hired independent fighters(Feudalism, Military contractors) or where independent fighters directly sought control of the state(Caesar, Hitler's Tan Shirts, French Revolutionaries). He may as well have used the Spanish Inquisition to "prove" that the separation of church and state would lead to religious oppression. He also greatly underestimates the capabilities of insurance protection, capabilities summed up by Professor Hoppe of UNLV who writes: "Indeed, although restricted and hampered by the state, even now insurance agencies provide wideranging services of protection and indemnification (compensation) to injured private parties...They operate on a nationwide or even international scale, and they own large property holdings dispersed over wide territories and beyond single state boundaries...all insurance companies are connected through a network of contractual agreements and mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies, representing a combined economic which dwarfs that of most existing governments". If the state gave up its monopoly on weapons of war the insurance companies would surely step in and coordinate with such armaments for the sake of protecting their own investments. And historical examples exist of such private defense. Celtic Ireland, relying solely on insurance agencies to protect their homes and families, was able to repel English invasions for five hundred years before being conquered by Cromwell. Also, prior to the existence of FEMA, if a city suffered disaster it would mobilize and rebuild itself. Without interference by and dependence on FEMA the recovery from Katrina via the spontaneous order of the free-market would have been much faster. It is true, largely due to costs, that America would have to adopt Swiss-style neutrality in its foreign policy, but this should be enthusiastically welcomed. American Imperialism in the name of the military-industrial complex has caused international destabilization and the incitement of terrorism-all at an enormous cost to taxpayers. The withdrawal of American forces from ALL countries around the globe would be a remarkable step towards global stability. The same is easily said for the Chinese military as well. The enormous aversion to fighting in foreign nations or having an excess of armed forces would be a built-in asset of private defense which would focus on strategies for being ready to repel actual invasion and occupation of its own soil. If foreign threats did exist, the private companies would focus on neutralizing the threat as quickly and cheaply as possible, most likely with precision strikes and commando raids towards very specific targets. The scope of private defense would need only a small fraction of the hundreds of billions required by the American or Chinese militaries, and with this fractional budget it would do far more for national defense than government ever could, what is there to lose? Governments like to have large standing armies and constant warfare because it is very good for stirring up hysteria and devotion to the central state-bringing the politicians and their friends enormous power and wealth. Often after creating enemies through foolish politics, governments call on their citizens to "protect your country" and "join the cause" in marching, killing, and being killed. It is also often when governments confiscate civilian weapons for "security" leaving an unarmed populace vulnerable to the now militarized government. This could all be avoided by keeping to strict neutrality and then there would be far less need for defense(government or private). Has my opponent not considered that government acts for profit as well? Won't government limit its defense only to the people that serve the interests of the state? A large part of the support for government defense is the common misconception that wars are fought by the government to protect the people, the truth is the exact opposite. Governments, fearful of having their rule taken from them by another government, call on the people to protect them while propagandizing that the war is for "the sake of the people". Falling to this fraud, the people become willing to tolerate an increase of tax-coercion and sometimes a draft. How can an institution that forces its populace to pay for and fight in wars be called a protector? If a private insurance company was fraudulent or forceful like this it would quickly be driven out of business by more honest companies. The bloody and counterproductive record of government imperialism and lies should make it plain that the state will abuse the power to raise and control armies. The only way to prevent this abuse is to take this monopoly power from them and totally separate government from defense; the resulting spontaneous order of the free-market for demanded protection services would create a dramatically cheaper and infinitely more efficient framework for national defense.