Private Army and Courts

Brocolis · 25th March 2010, 08:25 AM

Some of you may be aware of the existence of a big fellow called Penn Jillete, famous for being an outspoken "nut libertarian" and many times referring to himself as an anarchist or anarco-capitalist

One of Penn's most famous ideas (in this matter) is that he wants, with exception of the army and the judges, everything to be private.
Well, I disagree. I say even the army and the judicial system could be private. let me try to start two quick points here

First of all a big part of the American Army is already private. We have a number of contractors and think-tanks working for us and as businesses they will compete in the marketplace to provide the best guns, technology and information so they can make a profit. We don’t have a problem with that, because as customers whenever we are not happy with their services we can hire someone else. Aside from that, all staff and officers in the army get paid. Why would they care if the name on their paycheck is the government or a contractor company hired with government money? Then again, If the company in any way doesn't do their job well or their private interests do not conciliate with the interest of the people… we stop paying.

Second. The concept of private court might be a bit odder to accept as Judges are supposed to be neutral. However in our capitalist marketplace we have no problem finding examples of companies hired to be neutral. Pick for example a company like PricewaterhouseCoopers. Even though they are a private company ,hired by another private company, they must stay neutral when considering the interest of all the parties involved, sometimes screwing their own clients when that is necessary. If PWC for some reason looses their neutrality then they have no business, and people will just go to Ernst & Young or whatever other company. That is exactly what happened to Arthur Andersen, their services where considered biased and quickly the market adjusted itself and a leading company went out of business from night to day.
I’m not going to further speculate here exactly how a private Court would operationally work, I’m just making a point that even in unregulated markets we have the mechanism necessary to provide both competition and neutrality.
tell me what you think

drkitten · 25th March 2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

tell me what you think

Completely unworkable.

If I get to pick a judge, I'm not going to pick a judge that is "neutral." I'm going to pick a judge that is so far in my pocket, he's covered in lint. Especially if there's no penalty for doing this. And especially if this is a case that I can't win, but can only lose -- like if you're suing me for damages.

And with private courts, how can there be a penalty? If anyone wants to sue me for using biased judges,.... where will he get a judge that I will accept to hear the case?

It's not like judicial corruption is a new thing. What is relatively new (historically speaking) is the idea that judges themselves can be held to answer to "the public," which in a democracy or a republic means the population at large, as expressed through the proper channels.

Raconteur · 25th March 2010, 09:01 AM

I'd recommend reading through this thread.

Gord_in_Toronto · 25th March 2010, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Raconteur

I'd recommend reading through this thread.

Do I really have to? It makes my brain hurt.

Thunder · 25th March 2010, 06:58 PM

police officers working for a corporation?

i think not. have you SEEN Robocop?

geni · 25th March 2010, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

Second. The concept of private court might be a bit odder to accept as Judges are supposed to be neutral. However in our capitalist marketplace we have no problem finding examples of companies hired to be neutral. Pick for example a company like PricewaterhouseCoopers. Even though they are a private company ,hired by another private company, they must stay neutral when considering the interest of all the parties involved, sometimes screwing their own clients when that is necessary.

You don't read private eye do you? PWC neutral?

PogoPedant · 26th March 2010, 03:07 AM

Somebody should read Machiavelli's thoughts on using mercenaries.

Dancing David · 26th March 2010, 04:28 AM

Oh great! Star Chambers run by private coporations and accountable to coporate courts.

Sure whatever.

NoZed Avenger · 26th March 2010, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Completely unworkable.

If I get to pick a judge, I'm not going to pick a judge that is "neutral." I'm going to pick a judge that is so far in my pocket, he's covered in lint. Especially if there's no penalty for doing this. And especially if this is a case that I can't win, but can only lose -- like if you're suing me for damages.

Well, people have been using arbitration for quite some time now, fairly successfully. It does, however, use the court system to enforce its swards under contract law. As long as both parties agree to the procedure and agree to the selection of the arbiter(s), there is no real problem with it.

Amazer · 26th March 2010, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Well, people have been using arbitration for quite some time now, fairly successfully. It does, however, use the court system to enforce its swards under contract law. As long as both parties agree to the procedure and agree to the selection of the arbiter(s), there is no real problem with it.

But what if both parties fail to agree to the procedure and the selection of arbiters?

dudalb · 26th March 2010, 09:47 AM

Did'nt we go through this with Alex Libman?

NoZed Avenger · 26th March 2010, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Amazer

But what if both parties fail to agree to the procedure and the selection of arbiters?

Currently, that has to be agreed upon before-hand or it defaults to the court system. You see arbitration agreements usually in business, where the terms are agreed to before any dispute exists. The American Arbitration Association, as one example, puts out procedures and rules that can be incorporated into thr agreement, or the parties can shoose their own methods.

Typically, you'll have 3 arbiters - 1 chosen by each party and 1 agreed to between the 2 chosen ones.

INRM · 26th March 2010, 04:50 PM

Brocolis,

Completely unworkable

PogoPedant,

Very good point about Machiavelli

Brocolis · 26th March 2010, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Currently, that has to be agreed upon before-hand or it defaults to the court system. You see arbitration agreements usually in business, where the terms are agreed to before any dispute exists. The American Arbitration Association, as one example, puts out procedures and rules that can be incorporated into thr agreement, or the parties can shoose their own methods.

Typically, you'll have 3 arbiters - 1 chosen by each party and 1 agreed to between the 2 chosen ones.

yup, arbitration is also a good example. Most of the legal issues that companies have with each other very rarely go to trial... companies prefer to settle.
It is more efficient to compromise than losing a business partner. The market tends to avoid businesses that abuse the judicial system.

The True Scotsman · 26th March 2010, 05:52 PM

To the OP: So in your ideal system, both the courts and the armies are paid with tax money, just as they are now, but they are not government entities, but rather private entities?

psychictv · 26th March 2010, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

tell me what you think

I think the ideas are absurd, but they're also the only logical answer if you accept free market ideology. Which is a perfect illustration of why economic libertarianism is unrealistic and unworkable.

gumboot · 26th March 2010, 07:09 PM

I have one issue with this ridiculous concept, although it's a rather substantial one.

The OP states that the army will be run by a corporation which will secure a government contract.

What government?

You've already made it clear the government is itself private (the Judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of the government). On other words there is no government.

What you're promoting is the ultimate capitalist society where a corporation rules rather than the people. Go do some reading up on India and the East India Company at the time of British colonisation, because that's what you're basically talking about. That's when the world saw the most rampant capitalism in our long history. It was an utter disaster, and is directly responsible for many of the problems plaguing that part of the world to this very day.

What sane person would want to revisit that?

You cannot run a society "for profit". It's as simple as that.

The True Scotsman · 26th March 2010, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

I have one issue with this ridiculous concept, although it's a rather substantial one.

The OP states that the army will be run by a corporation which will secure a government contract.

What government?

You've already made it clear the government is itself private (the Judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of the government). On other words there is no government.

What you're promoting is the ultimate capitalist society where a corporation rules rather than the people. Go do some reading up on India and the East India Company at the time of British colonisation, because that's what you're basically talking about. That's when the world saw the most rampant capitalism in our long history. It was an utter disaster, and is directly responsible for many of the problems plaguing that part of the world to this very day.

What sane person would want to revisit that?

You cannot run a society "for profit". It's as simple as that.

I would have to disagree with you on one of your points. The East India Company was formed by way of government monopoly. It alone had the elusive right to trade in India during its time (as far as a British company) and was one of the main things Adam Smith rallied against in "The Wealth of Nations." It wasn't the result of free market enterprise, but rather of a distorted market.

As well, I would have to disagree with your statement that society cannot be run for profit. I believe it is only a profitable society that is thriving, as in developing better technology, ect. The only question is who is profiting?

Ladewig · 26th March 2010, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

Then again, If the company's private interests do not conciliate with the interest of the people… we stop paying.

And how quickly can one replace an army large enough to defend the U.S.?

Ausmerican · 26th March 2010, 08:31 PM

So I guess the OP is in favor of a one world government then? I mean, once the corperation in charge becomes multinational and big enough to buy their armies as well that would be a natural progression.

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.

GreyArea · 26th March 2010, 08:32 PM

How accurate would it be to say that absolute monarchs owned the countries they ruled? If he thought he could get away with it, could such a king claim the land of other aristocrats? I mean, the entire country is his, so he would have final say over any part of it. Right?

Dancing David · 27th March 2010, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

yup, arbitration is also a good example. Most of the legal issues that companies have with each other very rarely go to trial... companies prefer to settle.
It is more efficient to compromise than losing a business partner. The market tends to avoid businesses that abuse the judicial system.

It is a good thing it is NOT all in private arbitration and that there is a NON corporate court and COTUS

Jamie Leigh Jones^WP.

Stir the pot David!

Dancing David · 27th March 2010, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by GreyArea

How accurate would it be to say that absolute monarchs owned the countries they ruled? If he thought he could get away with it, could such a king claim the land of other aristocrats? I mean, the entire country is his, so he would have final say over any part of it. Right?

depends on the monarchy, and the history of the country. At times the Duke of Burgundy was much more powerful than Duke of Orleans.

Dancing David · 27th March 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

So I guess the OP is in favor of a one world government then? I mean, once the corperation in charge becomes multinational and big enough to buy their armies as well that would be a natural progression.

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.

That is Royal Dutch Shell/Exxon Mobil/Wal-Mart/British Petroleum/Chevron/Total/ConocoPhillips/ING Group/Sinopec/Toyota Motors/Google overlords!

Brocolis · 27th March 2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

You've already made it clear the government is itself private (the Judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of the government). On other words there is no government.

i'm not abolishing government completely. i'm just proposing a hypothetical discussion of how we can further make the government smaller. that is the libertarian point of view

Quote:

And how quickly can one replace an army large enough to defend the U.S.?

how quick can we replace Boeing for Airbus and vice versa? If a market is developed enough there is no reason why it should not be as easy as replacing Burger King for Taco Bell.

Quote:

It is a good thing it is NOT all in private arbitration and that there is a NON corporate court and COTUS

it is not all private because the parties are still legally bound to the decision, but it is an interesting concept that modern companies will avoid courts in favor of a third party reviews (just like they do with independent audit)

The True Scotsman · 27th March 2010, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by GreyArea

How accurate would it be to say that absolute monarchs owned the countries they ruled? If he thought he could get away with it, could such a king claim the land of other aristocrats? I mean, the entire country is his, so he would have final say over any part of it. Right?

I'm on pretty much the same page as Dancing David; it depends on the period you are looking at. In the feudal ages of Europe, the king actually had very little power, (comparably) while in the latter ages, he had much more. The kings power is usually in opposition to the aristocrats, so that the more powerful the aristocrats are, the less powerful the king is.

Bikewer · 27th March 2010, 09:39 AM

Why, after reading through newspaper headlines for the last 10 years or so, would anyone decide that "the private sector" was in some way better than governmental agencies?
I mean, there have been just a few instances of rather scandalous abuse, fraud, corruption, theft, etc, etc,....

Ladewig · 27th March 2010, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

how quick can we replace Boeing for Airbus and vice versa? If a market is developed enough there is no reason why it should not be as easy as replacing Burger King for Taco Bell.

Worst analogy ever. The four enterprises you mention are already well established entities. Firing the private army and looking for a replacement army would require finding and training one and a half million people. Then they would have to be outfitted and armed. During the year or two that it would take to build this army from scratch, the U.S. would be defenseless. Your idea is immensely impractical.

[/quote]

Dancing David · 27th March 2010, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

it is not all private because the parties are still legally bound to the decision, but it is an interesting concept that modern companies will avoid courts in favor of a third party reviews (just like they do with independent audit)

So ignore the problem with arbitration and the fact that companies and people settle out of court so they can hide behind the conditions of the settlement. Then they can say stuff like "Our products have never been proven to be harmful.", why? Because all the people they paid compensation to are under a judicial order.

What about Jamie Leigh Jones and the counteless others that corporation try to screw over? Especially in the name of the bottom line?

Brocolis · 27th March 2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Worst analogy ever. The four enterprises you mention are already well established entities. Firing the private army and looking for a replacement army would require finding and training one and a half million people. Then they would have to be outfitted and armed. During the year or two that it would take to build this army from scratch, the U.S. would be defenseless. Your idea is immensely impractical.

i didn't say that we should do it at once. that would defnettly not be pratical.

Quote:

So ignore the problem with arbitration and the fact that companies and people settle out of court so they can hide behind the conditions of the settlement. Then they can say stuff like "Our products have never been proven to be harmful.", why? Because all the people they paid compensation to are under a judicial order.

ur line of though is starting to get weird

Arcade22 · 27th March 2010, 10:43 AM

So are there any REAL examples of private armies and courts that are not corrupt?

Brocolis · 27th March 2010, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

So are there any REAL examples of private armies and courts that are not corrupt?

no.

well, there are the contractors and think-tanks that work for the US army, but assuming you meant 100% private. Then no.

Fiona · 27th March 2010, 10:56 AM

What happens when the army goes on strike?

psychictv · 27th March 2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Fiona

What happens when the army goes on strike?

I'm pretty sure strikes are not allowed in libertopia.

Fiona · 27th March 2010, 11:55 AM

Surely each person is totally free in Libertopia. So how can strikes be stopped? Do they bring in the army or.....oh, wait

Ladewig · 27th March 2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

I didn't say that we should do it at once. That would definitely not be pratical.

Yes, "not practical:" those are the very words I wanted to use to describe your plan.

Given that the clear majority military jobs that have been privatized in the past ten years has increased rather than decreased costs, what exactly is the benefit to this plan?

EvilSmurf · 27th March 2010, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

However in our capitalist marketplace we have no problem finding examples of companies hired to be neutral. Pick for example a company like PricewaterhouseCoopers. Even though they are a private company ,hired by another private company, they must stay neutral when considering the interest of all the parties involved, sometimes screwing their own clients when that is necessary. If PWC for some reason looses their neutrality then they have no business, and people will just go to Ernst & Young or whatever other company.

I just laughed out loud and thought of Enron, Tyco, Worldcom etc. (and the accountants who placed their own clients needs well, well above the shareholders) when I read that section.

Dancing David · 27th March 2010, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

i didn't say that we should do it at once. that would defnettly not be pratical.

ur line of though is starting to get weird

Sorry , I hope that is a typo, text speech is gross.

And if you can't figure it out, you propose private courts and hold up arbitration, but you don't want to mention the extra judicial processes we already have and the crap that occurs.

Your line of thought is probably not thought very far beyond some superficial appeal of free market forces.

Dancing David · 27th March 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Brocolis

no.

well, there are the contractors and think-tanks that work for the US army, but assuming you meant 100% private. Then no.

Blackwater, anyone?

psychictv · 27th March 2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Surely each person is totally free in Libertopia. So how can strikes be stopped? Do they bring in the army or.....oh, wait

Hire the Pinkertons!

25th March 2010, 08:25 AM	#1
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23	Private Army and Courts Some of you may be aware of the existence of a big fellow called Penn Jillete, famous for being an outspoken "nut libertarian" and many times referring to himself as an anarchist or anarco-capitalist One of Penn's most famous ideas (in this matter) is that he wants, with exception of the army and the judges, everything to be private. Well, I disagree. I say even the army and the judicial system could be private. let me try to start two quick points here First of all a big part of the American Army is already private. We have a number of contractors and think-tanks working for us and as businesses they will compete in the marketplace to provide the best guns, technology and information so they can make a profit. We don’t have a problem with that, because as customers whenever we are not happy with their services we can hire someone else. Aside from that, all staff and officers in the army get paid. Why would they care if the name on their paycheck is the government or a contractor company hired with government money? Then again, If the company in any way doesn't do their job well or their private interests do not conciliate with the interest of the people… we stop paying. Second. The concept of private court might be a bit odder to accept as Judges are supposed to be neutral. However in our capitalist marketplace we have no problem finding examples of companies hired to be neutral. Pick for example a company like PricewaterhouseCoopers. Even though they are a private company ,hired by another private company, they must stay neutral when considering the interest of all the parties involved, sometimes screwing their own clients when that is necessary. If PWC for some reason looses their neutrality then they have no business, and people will just go to Ernst & Young or whatever other company. That is exactly what happened to Arthur Andersen, their services where considered biased and quickly the market adjusted itself and a leading company went out of business from night to day. I’m not going to further speculate here exactly how a private Court would operationally work, I’m just making a point that even in unregulated markets we have the mechanism necessary to provide both competition and neutrality. tell me what you think
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23

25th March 2010, 06:43 PM	#4
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	Originally Posted by Raconteur I'd recommend reading through this thread. Do I really have to? It makes my brain hurt.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

26th March 2010, 03:07 AM	#7
PogoPedant Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 764	Somebody should read Machiavelli's thoughts on using mercenaries.
PogoPedant Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 764

26th March 2010, 04:28 AM	#8
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,710	Oh great! Star Chambers run by private coporations and accountable to coporate courts. Sure whatever.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

26th March 2010, 09:28 AM	#9
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by drkitten Completely unworkable. If I get to pick a judge, I'm not going to pick a judge that is "neutral." I'm going to pick a judge that is so far in my pocket, he's covered in lint. Especially if there's no penalty for doing this. And especially if this is a case that I can't win, but can only lose -- like if you're suing me for damages. Well, people have been using arbitration for quite some time now, fairly successfully. It does, however, use the court system to enforce its swards under contract law. As long as both parties agree to the procedure and agree to the selection of the arbiter(s), there is no real problem with it.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

25th March 2010, 09:00 AM	#2
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Brocolis tell me what you think Completely unworkable. If I get to pick a judge, I'm not going to pick a judge that is "neutral." I'm going to pick a judge that is so far in my pocket, he's covered in lint. Especially if there's no penalty for doing this. And especially if this is a case that I can't win, but can only lose -- like if you're suing me for damages. And with private courts, how can there be a penalty? If anyone wants to sue me for using biased judges,.... where will he get a judge that I will accept to hear the case? It's not like judicial corruption is a new thing. What is relatively new (historically speaking) is the idea that judges themselves can be held to answer to "the public," which in a democracy or a republic means the population at large, as expressed through the proper channels.

25th March 2010, 09:01 AM	#3
Raconteur Student Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 40	I'd recommend reading through this thread.

25th March 2010, 06:58 PM	#5
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	police officers working for a corporation? i think not. have you SEEN Robocop?

25th March 2010, 07:06 PM	#6
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,564	Originally Posted by Brocolis Second. The concept of private court might be a bit odder to accept as Judges are supposed to be neutral. However in our capitalist marketplace we have no problem finding examples of companies hired to be neutral. Pick for example a company like PricewaterhouseCoopers. Even though they are a private company ,hired by another private company, they must stay neutral when considering the interest of all the parties involved, sometimes screwing their own clients when that is necessary. You don't read private eye do you? PWC neutral?

26th March 2010, 09:40 AM	#10
Amazer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Bangalore, Cork, Sliedrecht Posts: 1,007	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger Well, people have been using arbitration for quite some time now, fairly successfully. It does, however, use the court system to enforce its swards under contract law. As long as both parties agree to the procedure and agree to the selection of the arbiter(s), there is no real problem with it. But what if both parties fail to agree to the procedure and the selection of arbiters?

26th March 2010, 09:47 AM	#11
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,814	Did'nt we go through this with Alex Libman?

26th March 2010, 11:33 AM	#12
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by Amazer But what if both parties fail to agree to the procedure and the selection of arbiters? Currently, that has to be agreed upon before-hand or it defaults to the court system. You see arbitration agreements usually in business, where the terms are agreed to before any dispute exists. The American Arbitration Association, as one example, puts out procedures and rules that can be incorporated into thr agreement, or the parties can shoose their own methods. Typically, you'll have 3 arbiters - 1 chosen by each party and 1 agreed to between the 2 chosen ones.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

26th March 2010, 04:50 PM	#13
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Brocolis, Completely unworkable PogoPedant, Very good point about Machiavelli
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

26th March 2010, 05:17 PM	#14
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger Currently, that has to be agreed upon before-hand or it defaults to the court system. You see arbitration agreements usually in business, where the terms are agreed to before any dispute exists. The American Arbitration Association, as one example, puts out procedures and rules that can be incorporated into thr agreement, or the parties can shoose their own methods. Typically, you'll have 3 arbiters - 1 chosen by each party and 1 agreed to between the 2 chosen ones. yup, arbitration is also a good example. Most of the legal issues that companies have with each other very rarely go to trial... companies prefer to settle. It is more efficient to compromise than losing a business partner. The market tends to avoid businesses that abuse the judicial system.
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23

26th March 2010, 05:52 PM	#15
The True Scotsman Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: In Great Birnam Wood, high on Dunsinane Hill Posts: 864	To the OP: So in your ideal system, both the courts and the armies are paid with tax money, just as they are now, but they are not government entities, but rather private entities?
	__________________ I don't have enough faith to be an a-Thor-ist. There's just too much proof for Thor. Like thunder and stuff... All good pets have Stockholm Syndrome.

26th March 2010, 06:55 PM	#16
psychictv Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Brocolis tell me what you think I think the ideas are absurd, but they're also the only logical answer if you accept free market ideology. Which is a perfect illustration of why economic libertarianism is unrealistic and unworkable.
psychictv Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 535

26th March 2010, 07:09 PM	#17
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,124	I have one issue with this ridiculous concept, although it's a rather substantial one. The OP states that the army will be run by a corporation which will secure a government contract. What government? You've already made it clear the government is itself private (the Judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of the government). On other words there is no government. What you're promoting is the ultimate capitalist society where a corporation rules rather than the people. Go do some reading up on India and the East India Company at the time of British colonisation, because that's what you're basically talking about. That's when the world saw the most rampant capitalism in our long history. It was an utter disaster, and is directly responsible for many of the problems plaguing that part of the world to this very day. What sane person would want to revisit that? You cannot run a society "for profit". It's as simple as that.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

26th March 2010, 07:33 PM	#18
The True Scotsman Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: In Great Birnam Wood, high on Dunsinane Hill Posts: 864	Originally Posted by gumboot I have one issue with this ridiculous concept, although it's a rather substantial one. The OP states that the army will be run by a corporation which will secure a government contract. What government? You've already made it clear the government is itself private (the Judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of the government). On other words there is no government. What you're promoting is the ultimate capitalist society where a corporation rules rather than the people. Go do some reading up on India and the East India Company at the time of British colonisation, because that's what you're basically talking about. That's when the world saw the most rampant capitalism in our long history. It was an utter disaster, and is directly responsible for many of the problems plaguing that part of the world to this very day. What sane person would want to revisit that? You cannot run a society "for profit". It's as simple as that. I would have to disagree with you on one of your points. The East India Company was formed by way of government monopoly. It alone had the elusive right to trade in India during its time (as far as a British company) and was one of the main things Adam Smith rallied against in "The Wealth of Nations." It wasn't the result of free market enterprise, but rather of a distorted market. As well, I would have to disagree with your statement that society cannot be run for profit. I believe it is only a profitable society that is thriving, as in developing better technology, ect. The only question is who is profiting?
	__________________ I don't have enough faith to be an a-Thor-ist. There's just too much proof for Thor. Like thunder and stuff... All good pets have Stockholm Syndrome.

26th March 2010, 08:23 PM	#19
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,805	Originally Posted by Brocolis Then again, If the company's private interests do not conciliate with the interest of the people… we stop paying. And how quickly can one replace an army large enough to defend the U.S.?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

26th March 2010, 08:31 PM	#20
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,381	So I guess the OP is in favor of a one world government then? I mean, once the corperation in charge becomes multinational and big enough to buy their armies as well that would be a natural progression. I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,381	__________________ Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing. Henry David Thoreau

26th March 2010, 08:32 PM	#21
GreyArea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,000	How accurate would it be to say that absolute monarchs owned the countries they ruled? If he thought he could get away with it, could such a king claim the land of other aristocrats? I mean, the entire country is his, so he would have final say over any part of it. Right?

27th March 2010, 07:02 AM	#22
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,710	Originally Posted by Brocolis yup, arbitration is also a good example. Most of the legal issues that companies have with each other very rarely go to trial... companies prefer to settle. It is more efficient to compromise than losing a business partner. The market tends to avoid businesses that abuse the judicial system. It is a good thing it is NOT all in private arbitration and that there is a NON corporate court and COTUS Jamie Leigh Jones^WP. Stir the pot David!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th March 2010, 07:04 AM	#23
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,710	Originally Posted by GreyArea How accurate would it be to say that absolute monarchs owned the countries they ruled? If he thought he could get away with it, could such a king claim the land of other aristocrats? I mean, the entire country is his, so he would have final say over any part of it. Right? depends on the monarchy, and the history of the country. At times the Duke of Burgundy was much more powerful than Duke of Orleans.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th March 2010, 07:12 AM	#24
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,710	Originally Posted by Ausmerican So I guess the OP is in favor of a one world government then? I mean, once the corperation in charge becomes multinational and big enough to buy their armies as well that would be a natural progression. I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords. That is Royal Dutch Shell/Exxon Mobil/Wal-Mart/British Petroleum/Chevron/Total/ConocoPhillips/ING Group/Sinopec/Toyota Motors/Google overlords!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th March 2010, 09:13 AM	#25
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23	Quote: You've already made it clear the government is itself private (the Judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of the government). On other words there is no government. i'm not abolishing government completely. i'm just proposing a hypothetical discussion of how we can further make the government smaller. that is the libertarian point of view Quote: And how quickly can one replace an army large enough to defend the U.S.? how quick can we replace Boeing for Airbus and vice versa? If a market is developed enough there is no reason why it should not be as easy as replacing Burger King for Taco Bell. Quote: It is a good thing it is NOT all in private arbitration and that there is a NON corporate court and COTUS it is not all private because the parties are still legally bound to the decision, but it is an interesting concept that modern companies will avoid courts in favor of a third party reviews (just like they do with independent audit)
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23

27th March 2010, 09:18 AM	#26
The True Scotsman Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: In Great Birnam Wood, high on Dunsinane Hill Posts: 864	Originally Posted by GreyArea How accurate would it be to say that absolute monarchs owned the countries they ruled? If he thought he could get away with it, could such a king claim the land of other aristocrats? I mean, the entire country is his, so he would have final say over any part of it. Right? I'm on pretty much the same page as Dancing David; it depends on the period you are looking at. In the feudal ages of Europe, the king actually had very little power, (comparably) while in the latter ages, he had much more. The kings power is usually in opposition to the aristocrats, so that the more powerful the aristocrats are, the less powerful the king is.
	__________________ I don't have enough faith to be an a-Thor-ist. There's just too much proof for Thor. Like thunder and stuff... All good pets have Stockholm Syndrome.

27th March 2010, 09:39 AM	#27
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,528	Why, after reading through newspaper headlines for the last 10 years or so, would anyone decide that "the private sector" was in some way better than governmental agencies? I mean, there have been just a few instances of rather scandalous abuse, fraud, corruption, theft, etc, etc,....

27th March 2010, 09:47 AM	#28
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,805	Originally Posted by Brocolis how quick can we replace Boeing for Airbus and vice versa? If a market is developed enough there is no reason why it should not be as easy as replacing Burger King for Taco Bell. Worst analogy ever. The four enterprises you mention are already well established entities. Firing the private army and looking for a replacement army would require finding and training one and a half million people. Then they would have to be outfitted and armed. During the year or two that it would take to build this army from scratch, the U.S. would be defenseless. Your idea is immensely impractical. [/quote]
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

27th March 2010, 09:59 AM	#29
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,710	Originally Posted by Brocolis it is not all private because the parties are still legally bound to the decision, but it is an interesting concept that modern companies will avoid courts in favor of a third party reviews (just like they do with independent audit) So ignore the problem with arbitration and the fact that companies and people settle out of court so they can hide behind the conditions of the settlement. Then they can say stuff like "Our products have never been proven to be harmful.", why? Because all the people they paid compensation to are under a judicial order. What about Jamie Leigh Jones and the counteless others that corporation try to screw over? Especially in the name of the bottom line?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th March 2010, 10:37 AM	#30
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23	Quote: Worst analogy ever. The four enterprises you mention are already well established entities. Firing the private army and looking for a replacement army would require finding and training one and a half million people. Then they would have to be outfitted and armed. During the year or two that it would take to build this army from scratch, the U.S. would be defenseless. Your idea is immensely impractical. i didn't say that we should do it at once. that would defnettly not be pratical. Quote: So ignore the problem with arbitration and the fact that companies and people settle out of court so they can hide behind the conditions of the settlement. Then they can say stuff like "Our products have never been proven to be harmful.", why? Because all the people they paid compensation to are under a judicial order. ur line of though is starting to get weird
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23

27th March 2010, 10:43 AM	#31
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,825	So are there any REAL examples of private armies and courts that are not corrupt?
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

27th March 2010, 10:53 AM	#32
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23	Originally Posted by Arcade22 So are there any REAL examples of private armies and courts that are not corrupt? no. well, there are the contractors and think-tanks that work for the US army, but assuming you meant 100% private. Then no.
Brocolis New Blood Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 23

27th March 2010, 10:56 AM	#33
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	What happens when the army goes on strike?
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

27th March 2010, 11:13 AM	#34
psychictv Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Fiona What happens when the army goes on strike? I'm pretty sure strikes are not allowed in libertopia.
psychictv Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 535

27th March 2010, 11:55 AM	#35
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Surely each person is totally free in Libertopia. So how can strikes be stopped? Do they bring in the army or.....oh, wait
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238