Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?"

Obviously. Name one large, powerful, affluent nation that does not or did not have a military. You can attribute your existence to shear luck if you are not able to forcefully defend yourself and your interests, and the thing about luck is it eventually runs out. Think about my Bolivia example.
Why do I need to name a nation? I'm not interested in being a nation. I am an individual. In saying that government shouldn't be the organization that defends rights, that does not infer that no one should. It's not like saying 'Government shouldn't be a healthcare provider' therefore means we should all be our own doctors.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Well one, it wouldn't have to be a singular corporation. Two, why is it a terrible idea even if it is one corporation? That is similar to what the US military is in practice. Anyways, let's explore why it is a 'terrible idea.'"

It would most certainly be more than one corporation, and they would compete with eachother. War becomes not a means of reaching a political goal and an ultimate measure of peace, but a profitable business.
Security is not simply fighting foreign power, it could just be simple protection against criminals.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
People argue that America entered war with Iraq because war is profitable and we wanted oil and blah blah blah, it matters little if there is any truth to that statement since there are still political and moral reasons for entering war.
Moral reasons for entering a war?

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
When it is due to legitimate coflicts of interest between countries, that is the only justifiable reason for going to war. When corporations stand to make enormous profit, the legitimate concerns for justice and survival are skewed. Corporations don't have non-monetary interests like nations do. You want to talk about coruption on an epic scale, talk about corporations manipulating or creating violent conflicts to best suit their income.
This completely ignores the reaction of individuals who are in this corporation. Why would the consumer base be paying for a war beyond corporations in which they seek no benefits yet retain all the costs?

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Why it is 'for a good reason'? It is rather odd to encourage a ban on military grade weapons and also say that people are unable to defend themselves and therefore require a military."

I'll give you a minute to think about why it wouldn't be a good idea to sell military grade hardware to private citizens. . . . . . have you figured it out yet?
Not really. It's not as if people when receiving military grade weapons will suddenly become more violent. Are you against gun control?

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Yet chaos still reins in Afghanistan. They are not dominated. Who cares about capitals and buildings, they can be rebuilt. The point is that the US could never conquer these people...ever. They may live in caves but we're quickly reducing our economy to third world levels in the process."

That is guerilla warfare meeting industrial warfare. It doesn't change the fact that the Taliban was removed from power and in its place is a new government. Guerilla tactics failed, completely, in every sense of the word, to defend the Taliban's government against the American military. A good defense does not entail letting your enemy crush you and evict you from power, forcing you to wait in the shadows until your new rulers do or do not bleed themselves dry. What happens to your people in the mean time? What if they don't bleed themselves dry? Guerilla forces are not invincible, keep that in mind.
Yes yes, that is why Vietnam didn't become a communist country. The Taliban is still alive and remain alive as long as there is a large group to continue the ideology. The US will leave Afghanistan talking about how they changed it for the better, give themselves a pat on the back and within several years the Taliban will resurge, the status quo will return and nothing will have changed.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Right, the military has only been used for defense. Honestly, why does there need to be a super-power in the world? Why does there have to be one nation to wipe the tears for all others? And why does it have to be the US?"

It doesn't matter if there needs to be a super power or not, the fact is they exist whether there is a need or not. That's the same argument stonedape was using for world peace, just because it is physically possible to not fight doesn't mean we will stop, there are so many other factors that go into global politics.
That doesn't address any of my questions.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"What incentive does government have? Obviously to protect themselves, but so do corporations and people. So what else?"

If a country loses a war, the government stands to be disbanded by the conquering force. If a corporation loses a war, they stand to lose a little bit of business, but they survive to fight another war. A government is made of the native citizens, all of whom have personal investments and pride in their country.
So do individuals who fight for corporations. If they want to keep their way of life with that corporation, because who will contract services of an organization which has lost, then they do have person investment and interest.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Oh please, there is nothing more overrated then fighting for one's 'country.' 300 million strangers. Private security is like any other profession. It reacts to supply and demand. I had a rather funny thought, you should encourage bakers to 'bake for America.' Bake for one's country for that is the highest honor!"

Private security is not like any other profession. Any profession that has such a high mortality rate is not a normal profession. It takes a very desperate soldier to fight for an entity that is not his own country. And remember, just because you dont have a sense of pride or honor, doesn't mean other people don't. It isn't "300 million strangers" to most people.
What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"Is the money right?"

For some. For most the money will never be right.
Then they will not be private security providers. Division of labor and specialization.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"What stops a super-sized military from waging war? What stops government from waging war? Especially since we have captive customers. A private defense force cannot externalize their costs like governments due therefore if you are apart of private corporate A and it starts a war then you are going to be paying for that. Now you can either continue to pay for that war if you think it is just which some might do but I think it more plausible that their customers leave their business and thus bankrupt them because why pay for something you don't agree with and you have the ability not to pay?"

The difference between a war of nations and a war of coporations is a matter of legitimacy. If there is a war based on a legitimate conflict of interest between nations, it is important to resolve the conflict, through violent force if necessary. There are no legitimate conflicts between corporations, at least not ones that warrant violent force, but that is not to say they won't use violent force if they have the capability.
Ah so government can have legitimate conflicts but not corporations cannot? Why is this so?

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
You've made the mistake of thinking nations will sacrifice themselves on a matter of principles and morals.
Actually I think that is your transgression.


Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
If doing business with a private military will benefit a nation, or more importantly save that nation from conquest, it will do business with that organization regardless of its past ethics.
We're not talking about the state contracting out business to crony businesses. We are talking about free-market security.

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"That is exactly what I am saying. It is an irrefutable fact that they didn't properly defend the Pentagon. The government spends billions of dollars every year on "Defense" and they couldn't even defend their home base."

This is bullshit of the highest order. The only irrefutable fact is that an airplane hit the pentagon. I study aiport security in school so I know a little about its inner workings, and it is really just national security on a smaller scale. You've commited the same mistake as the TSA in that you expect to be able to defend against every threat in every situation at all times.
That is their job isn't it? To be on constant vigilance. What the hell are we paying 600 billion dollars a year for in the first place if they cannot even defend themselves? You cannot say that the government is a great defender of us and let them slide on such a catastrophe by saying 'these things happen'

Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
Im writing my english term paper on this subject and one of my main points is comparing evolutionary survival techniques with security techniques. A group from Duke university conducted this study. They concluded that it is impossible to be accountable for every threat at all times, all biological organisms inherently know this
All the more reason to have numerous dispersed, decentralized that can spread their nets to a large degree and better degree rather then a monolithic, bubbling bureaucratic entity.


Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
"My point was that in destroying the Pentagon, you are destroying the hub of the entire US military effectively crippling them."

This is another ridiculous statement. You assume the government is dumb enough to pile all of their resources into one building. You also overlooked the extreme difficulty of completely destroying the pentagon. The 9/11 attack was a pin prick.
...THEY DO! What do you think happens in the Pentagon? That is where the Joint Chiefs are, that is the strategic command. It is the hub of all military activity in the US.