The anarcho capitalist answer to military seems to be private defense agencies (PDAs).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency
In reading through this page, it discusses the dilemma of the “free rider.” This is a person who does not pay for defense services for themselves, but still receive defense benefits from their neighbors who do. Rothbards answer is to say “who cares?” And you know. That’s interesting. I don’t really have a response to that right now except to say, I think it’s a bad incentive, and we all know incentives matter. It would become a game of chicken and the egg to see who could get away without paying for defense, often with the poorest of us the likeliest losers. Also, the defense agency will have less resources, and be worse, without everyone paying for it.
The page also discusses how corporations would need, and be able to afford, the most defense. So now imagine Amazon is paying for 90% of the services of a particular agency; in other words, 90% of the revenue of that PDA is from Amazon. Essentially, that PDA is completely beholden to Amazon; if Amazon goes down, then they go down. Amazon has a military. Is anarcho capitalism just building corporatocracy? Is that the land scape we want to live in? A land owned by corporations? What are the possible negative or positive ramifications of this? To what extent would Amazon just “do it themselves” and integrate defense into their own business model (armored trucks for example)? And do we want private companies militarizing themselves? Does that make companies worse since they can’t specialize and must be a jack of all trades?
Finally, in the anarcho capitalistic opines, are other states around the globe just non existent? The Wikipedia page discusses how the PDAs would be mostly set up for defense, with markets choosing to minimize offensive strategies (although no arguments are given as to why this might be the case). Would a PDA, or collective group of them, be able to go to war with an adversarial state like Russia, China, or the Middle East?
Dakota / Dakota
npub13p5…yttq
2023-12-11 02:44:58
Author Public Key
npub13p5kny6j6valcshaa9sns8a6yg2p5gu2fuqyd4acsy8g03xmlu5qfpyttqPublished at
2023-12-11 02:44:58Event JSON
{
"id": "4474b7fdac2b5885e0b98c136e8f0c5a2fdcef0aaad0bcc677740c6041b0f37e",
"pubkey": "8869699352d33bfc42fde961381fba22141a238a4f0046d7b8810e87c4dbff28",
"created_at": 1702259098,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"r",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency"
]
],
"content": "The anarcho capitalist answer to military seems to be private defense agencies (PDAs).\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency\n\nIn reading through this page, it discusses the dilemma of the “free rider.” This is a person who does not pay for defense services for themselves, but still receive defense benefits from their neighbors who do. Rothbards answer is to say “who cares?” And you know. That’s interesting. I don’t really have a response to that right now except to say, I think it’s a bad incentive, and we all know incentives matter. It would become a game of chicken and the egg to see who could get away without paying for defense, often with the poorest of us the likeliest losers. Also, the defense agency will have less resources, and be worse, without everyone paying for it. \n\nThe page also discusses how corporations would need, and be able to afford, the most defense. So now imagine Amazon is paying for 90% of the services of a particular agency; in other words, 90% of the revenue of that PDA is from Amazon. Essentially, that PDA is completely beholden to Amazon; if Amazon goes down, then they go down. Amazon has a military. Is anarcho capitalism just building corporatocracy? Is that the land scape we want to live in? A land owned by corporations? What are the possible negative or positive ramifications of this? To what extent would Amazon just “do it themselves” and integrate defense into their own business model (armored trucks for example)? And do we want private companies militarizing themselves? Does that make companies worse since they can’t specialize and must be a jack of all trades? \n\nFinally, in the anarcho capitalistic opines, are other states around the globe just non existent? The Wikipedia page discusses how the PDAs would be mostly set up for defense, with markets choosing to minimize offensive strategies (although no arguments are given as to why this might be the case). Would a PDA, or collective group of them, be able to go to war with an adversarial state like Russia, China, or the Middle East?",
"sig": "a999cd18069bb05909a2ecdb0092acf4226d747f43465b391d9483ca53c4c690762e3ecee4e03ce660fe1c7f315f0ab0e1f0a44e1728053154e9a74868098f77"
}