Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[wufwugy]

I think this ground has been covered repeatedly in this forum, but ok. The advantage of centralized organisation is obvious in many domains. One would be military. The US would be much weaker if every state had to decide for itself who to send to war and with what weapons and for what purpose.

Centralizing the authority requires you centralize the power which in turn requires you find some non-voluntary way of funding that apparatus.

I understand that. I misspoke when I didn't include the mandated monopoly portion of it i.e. that it must be based on tax.

[Poopadoop]

I understand that. I misspoke when I didn't include the mandated monopoly portion of it i.e. that it must be based on tax.

Well, without thinking about it in great detail, I assume it would be hard to have a centralized military command structure without also funding it somehow. And I would guess funding it would involve some sort of centralized tax, be it income tax or tariffs or what have you. Unless you had a Pentagon based on volunteer work, how would you get around that?

[wufwugy]

Well, without thinking about it in great detail, I assume it would be hard to have a centralized military command structure without also funding it somehow. And I would guess funding it would involve some sort of centralized tax, be it income tax or tariffs or what have you. Unless you had a Pentagon based on volunteer work, how would you get around that?

People who value security voluntarily pay for it. The model works in a bunch of other markets and the military system already is voluntary regarding recruitment, so we have good reason to believe it would work. I estimate that if people were left to their own devices about what to pay for, security forces might even get MORE funding than they currently do. Lots of people really value that stuff but don't currently voluntarily pay for much of it since the tax-based monopoly of government crowds it out.

[Poopadoop]

People who value security voluntarily pay for it.

Well there are some historical examples where this argument is demonstrably untrue. In the war of 1812 for example, there didn't exist a centralized command structure in the US that could draw on resources (generally, soldiers and guns) to defend the interests of the country as a whole. So you had states like VA saying 'this war with the British and Canada doesn't concern us why should we send soldiers to fight it? They're no threat to us.' Meanwhile the Brits could draw soldiers from every corner of their Empire to fight over N. America. And arguably that is the only reason the US doesn't own Canada today.

Conversely, had the power been centralized, the US gov't could have drafted 300k soldiers and sent them off to take Canada from the British. That it didn't happen that way is wholly because there wasn't a sufficiently strong central gov't in the US with the right to exercise power over individual states.

[wufwugy]

Well there are some historical examples where this argument is demonstrably untrue. In the war of 1812 for example, there didn't exist a centralized command structure in the US that could draw on resources (generally, soldiers and guns) to defend the interests of the country as a whole. So you had states like VA saying 'this war with the British and Canada doesn't concern us why should we send soldiers to fight it? They're no threat to us.' Meanwhile the Brits could draw soldiers from every corner of their Empire to fight over N. America. And arguably that is the only reason the US doesn't own Canada today.

Conversely, had the power been centralized, the US gov't could have drafted 300k soldiers and sent them off to take Canada from the British. That it didn't happen that way is wholly because there wasn't a sufficiently strong central gov't in the US with the right to exercise power over individual states.

The bold is an important premise.

I'm focusing on people's interests. A country's best interest probably include tax and focus on war. But the people in a country are not the same as the country, and those peoples' interests are not the same as the state's interest.

[Poopadoop]

The bold is an important premise.

I'm focusing on people's interests. A country's best interest probably include tax and focus on war. But the people in a country are not the same as the country, and those peoples' interests are not the same as the state's interest.

My first thought is that the people's interests are inextricably linked with those of the nation. Otherwise there is no reason for nations to exist and we would all live as families independent of any higher order. Thoughts?

[wufwugy]

My first thought is that the people's interests are inextricably linked with those of the nation. Otherwise there is no reason for nations to exist and we would all live as families independent of any higher order. Thoughts?

Yes, they absolutely are. Though not entirely so. As you know, nation is different than state. You can have a nation without a state. A person that interacts with others in a sufficiently large society depends a good deal on the nation, and the same is true if that person has a state that sets laws by decree and executes them through taxes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But the people in a country are not the same as the country, and those peoples' interests are not the same as the state's interest.

Except in America, where it is the people who are the state.

[wufwugy]

Except in America, where it is the people who are the state.

While the state is supposed to depend ultimately on the aggregation of persons (if a democracy), the person and the state are in many ways different entities with different preferences.

[BananaStand]

People who value security voluntarily pay for it. The model works in a bunch of other markets and the military system already is voluntary regarding recruitment, so we have good reason to believe it would work. I estimate that if people were left to their own devices about what to pay for, security forces might even get MORE funding than they currently do. Lots of people really value that stuff but don't currently voluntarily pay for much of it since the tax-based monopoly of government crowds it out.

You seem to be ignoring the element of secrecy.

A massive massive fraction of defense spending is spent on research and development of new and better technologies. And a significant factor in our national security is the function of keeping that information secret from our enemies.

If you've ever worked at a DOD contractor, you know that this is no joke. You can get fired for leaving your office at night without closing your blinds.

Is it possible for the public to trust a collection of private entities to keep our secrets safe? Isn't it hugely important that the government's oversight of security carries the force of law?

[wufwugy]

Is it possible for the public to trust a collection of private entities to keep our secrets safe? Isn't it hugely important that the government's oversight of security carries the force of law?

This is only as possible in each of the private sector or government to the degree by which the consumers or constituents can make poor judgment and behavior on the part of those with the secrecy costly. As far as I can tell from the evidence, it is much easier to make firms in a free market account for the costs they cause than it is to do the same for government.

[BananaStand]

This is only as possible in each of the private sector or government to the degree by which the consumers or constituents can make poor judgment and behavior on the part of those with the secrecy costly. As far as I can tell from the evidence, it is much easier to make firms in a free market account for the costs they cause than it is to do the same for government.

I recognize all of those words. I know what they all mean. I can't for the life of me figure out why you arranged them that way.

Let me re-ask the question.

Effective military spending includes significant expenditures into research/development of new and better technologies. A significant part of this recipe is knowing the enemies capabilities, and then developing technologies to counter, outmatch, or defend against them.

If national security is outsourced to private institutions.....who is checking up on the enemy?

Could private institutions spy as well as the government?

Even if they can.....aren't they motivated to keep their findings private and not share that information with the rest of the market??

It's not hard to figure out how that would diminish national security. Furthermore, you would just end up with whichever company has the best spies dominating the market, and making all of the other companies obsolete pretty quickly.

Which just kinda gets us back where we started.

[wufwugy]

I recognize all of those words. I know what they all mean. I can't for the life of me figure out why you arranged them that way.

Let me re-ask the question.

Effective military spending includes significant expenditures into research/development of new and better technologies. A significant part of this recipe is knowing the enemies capabilities, and then developing technologies to counter, outmatch, or defend against them.

If national security is outsourced to private institutions.....who is checking up on the enemy?

Could private institutions spy as well as the government?

Even if they can.....aren't they motivated to keep their findings private and not share that information with the rest of the market??

It's not hard to figure out how that would diminish national security. Furthermore, you would just end up with whichever company has the best spies dominating the market, and making all of the other companies obsolete pretty quickly.

Which just kinda gets us back where we started.

We'd be back where we started IF the revenues of the security firms came by mandate instead of by choice of the buyer (and also choice of the seller).

A system in which the revenues come by choice instead of mandates has all the same concerns that the current system has (one by mandate). It addresses your listed concerns to varying degrees of success, like the current system has varying degrees of success. When the revenues come by choice, market factors that reduce cost, increase quantity, and increase quality are more powerful than if revenues are mandated.

I don't think that getting into details about "what would happen in this circumstances if..." is useful if the above premise is not accepted as a distinction between the two.