From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:42:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes:
>>Defense of a country against an external enemy is not something that can
>>be carried out by individuals until the enemy has successfully invaded.

>        Hmmm.  Consider a defense employee looking at satellite photos
>for signs of potential enemy troop movements.  Isn't that defense as
>much as firing missles?  But I suppose you mean that we cannot evaluate
>how well the job is being done until an actual invasion attempt.

Not impossible, but hard. Also, by the nature of such operations, if you
can find out how well your defenders are doing, so can your enemy. This
is doubleplusungood.

>>External defense doesn't provide anything that enhances life under what we
>>like to think of as normal circumstances (fails constructiveness test).

>        Are you saying that if defense does not enhance our lives, it
>is impossible to measure its value?

Strictly speaking, defense doesn't enhance our lives. At best, it allows us
to maintain them. I'm not saying this isn't valuable.

>>And while defense can help maintain quality of life, there's no feedback
>>channel to maintain quality of service during peacetime because the system
>>isn't being tested in a way that individuals can immediately perceive (fails
>>service-to-individuals test). Because of these two non-features, rational
>>people don't build private markets in external defense.

>        Hmmm.  I suppose all of your argumentation shows that rational
>individuals do not build competitive markets in defense in the same
>sense that they build markets in butter.  It would be difficult to
>choose between defense company A and defense company B because there
>would be little opportunity to find out which was the more effective
>company in practice.  However, it would be easy to choose between two
>different brands of butter because they could be sampled immediately
>after sale and the customer would buy her favorite brand from then on.

>        However, let me propose the following.  

>        1) Rational individuals realize the need for defense.

>        2) In the absense of government defense, which may be rejected
>        out of a distrust for it, rational individuals will choose
>        instead to create private alternatives which are funded in
>        a purely voluntary fashion.

This can result in factional warfare. Currently, when the US goes to war,
the US goes to war. Under your system, you will have multiple organizations
capable of waging war, controlled by people of varying opinions and beliefs,
maintained in places that may be beyond the reach of US law.

In most situations, I trust the corporate boys a lot more that the
gummint boys. This is an exception. A competitive market in the projection
of force will get out of hand in about a nanosecond. If you don't believe me,
go look at your local junior high school, or maybe a street corner in East LA.
It's better for the factions to have to work something out between themselves
before they start shooting at someone else. And with a government military,
the factions have a harder time "working something out" with bullets.

Which brings up another point. The rest of your discussion assumes the world
is full of rational people. Nice dream. If it were true, we wouldn't need a
military at all.

Nope, this is a case where I'm willing to be taxed to obtain a public good,
as long as I can exercise my right of free expression, and can own weapons
comparable to those carried by an infantryman. Any meaningful defense begins
with self-defense. If you want to contribute to the national defense, I
suggest that you go join up. The military is always in need of rational
people.

Regards,

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism