NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey all,

Having just spent the weekend with a buncha folks who are #1 hardline Ayn Rand, "virtue of selfishness," "boo regulation"-type capitalists and #2 serving in the armed forces, I'm curious how y'all think these two things interact, overlap, or are exclusive.

It struck me that the two items are more or less at odds. I mean, once you're in the service, you're kind of removed from the market. The demand for your services and your salary as a serviceman/woman is not determined by the consumer, but rather by government regulation. It's not like we, as civilians, as the consumers of defense, get to shop around for our army. And, as a soldier, sailor, airman, your health insurance and very often housing are provided by the state and it all becomes, well, sort of socialist. Add to this the fact that there's no way in hell that the armed forces are economically viable as a business venture (seeing as how my chums burn more fuel in a day than my taxes buy in a year), and what are we left with?

I'm still trying to get the angles on this, so I put it to General: What do ya think?

Hey all,

Having just spent the weekend with a buncha folks who are #1 hardline Ayn Rand, "virtue of selfishness," "boo regulation"-type capitalists and #2 serving in the armed forces, I'm curious how y'all think these two things interact, overlap, or are exclusive.

It struck me that the two items are more or less at odds. I mean, once you're in the service, you're kind of removed from the market. The demand for your services and your salary as a serviceman/woman is not determined by the consumer, but rather by government regulation. It's not like we, as civilians, as the consumers of defense, get to shop around for our army. And, as a soldier, sailor, airman, your health insurance and very often housing are provided by the state and it all becomes, well, sort of socialist. Add to this the fact that there's no way in hell that the armed forces are economically viable as a business venture (seeing as how my chums burn more fuel in a day than my taxes buy in a year), and what are we left with?

I'm still trying to get the angles on this, so I put it to General: What do ya think?

I think you need to read up on the modern history of mercenary armies and discover just how viable they are as a business venture.

I think you need to read up on the modern history of mercenary armies and discover just how viable they are as a business venture.

There's a huge difference between guys like Northbridge and EO and the entire combined forces of the United States. Ignoring for the moment that such organizations are likely to be hired under Halliburton-type no-bid contracts (which totally undermines the notion of a free market), consider the fact that these organizations are much more likely to be hired by governments than by individuals. Which again means that these outfits are succeeding through legislation and regulation rather than through free market success. They are viable as business ventures because they can name their price, not because they've designed a better mousetrap.

Because we in the US are, in spite of how many want to paint us, a Federal Republic, we do deturmine foreign policy directly, and are, therefore consumers of the armed forces. We also finance them directly, through taxes deturmined by us, through the vote.

I think the original writer is a secret second amendment basher - read it carefully, it all but demands that we arm the entire country for our protection. It's not that too many are armed and outfited for defense, but that not enough are armed and outfitted for defense; and what are they defending? our right to live a self-centered, selfish, Randian life pursuing happiness and wealth.

There's a huge difference between guys like Northbridge and EO and the entire combined forces of the United States. Ignoring for the moment that such organizations are likely to be hired under Halliburton-type no-bid contracts (which totally undermines the notion of a free market), consider the fact that these organizations are much more likely to be hired by governments than by individuals. Which again means that these outfits are succeeding through legislation and regulation rather than through free market success. They are viable as business ventures because they can name their price, not because they've designed a better mousetrap.

I think you may have hit upon something decidedly un capitalist in the way the US government does things. (dunno I'll have to think about this some more). Although a money making entity will at times require protection or help from military. (I'll definitely have to give this more thought if I wanna post again!)

It is hard to comment on modern mercenaries because they are not socially tolerated by global governments and therefore the average citizen (me)doesn't know much about real mercs.

But, someone brought up that it would be hard to make a mercenary band economically viable. It seems to me that the initial capital would primarily be invested in vehicles and weapons. Then, on the battlefield, the quartermaster would keep a ledger of all "expendables" (food, munitions, fuel, travel) and then charge the government or entity that hired them on a contractual basis, for all expendables purchased plus the contract fee.

Ultimately a mercenary commander would want to be selling their unit's willingness to take risks - and then have quality training to minimize those risks. Because what good is money if you're dead?