© 2010 avi

On the privatization of the army

Picturing the future Objectivist state of Israel, I consider it trivial to imagine how it would look. Business and employment-wise, the last two decades had already provided lot more opportunities than the decades before them. Sure, you had no government position waiting for you when you were 21, but with a little resourcefulness and imagination, you had many doors open to you and many directions to chose from.
What about education? I went to government-owned schools. Out of five schools and a university, one was excellent, one was terrible and the others were somewhere in between. How’s my son’s kindergarden doing in comparison? I think it’s doing pretty good. Kids at the ages of 4 and 5 know more math than I knew at the age of 7 (they count to 100, add to 20 and subtract to 10, most of them read at least a little, they group child books by authors, and so on). Kindergardens in Israel are mostly private, and they influence the government-owned as well. I’ll return to this fact later on: the fact that you have a privately held kindergarden, and free competition, improves the government-owned kindergardens.
Now, what about defending the state of Israel?
What if we had 5 to 10 private armies? What if the army unit that is in charge for the border with Gaza were private? The common believe is that the last time a western civilization had more than a single, centralized army, it looked like hell.
How do we know? Well, we all read Hobbs at school.
I believe that the basic concept that gets someone to win a war is not the concept of a centralized government and a single army. The concept is to be always prepared (invented by the Romans, and helped them to last for a thousand years). To what extent, and how to accomplish this preparedness? The Objectivist answer is that the it is up to you.
The IDF – the Israeli army – is doing very lousy. Should the southern command be privatized as a whole? Maybe not. Should tank and infantry divisions all be privatized? Again, maybe not. Should a contractor apply for a government contract for defeating Hamas? This is an option I’d consider a good sandbox to gather information from.
Is this contractor going to take us to 12th century England (here’s an excellent Atlasphere article on Ken Folett’s mediavel novells)? not if you don’t subject yourself to the church and accept the fact that practicing your sword for several hours a week can’t be all to bad.
I guess we all agree privatization is good. Starting a private business won’t corrupt you, right? Getting you close to money won’t corrupt you, either.
The privatization of the army shouldn’t scare the Objectivist mind, certainly not for Hobbsian reasons.

2 Comments

  1. Posted January 22, 2010 at 06:28 | #

    The government must have a monopoly over the use of force. It must be the only entity that can legally use force. If there were two armies, and they disagreed on anything, there would be no one able to stop the “rogue” army from misusing its force. It would be anarchy, with no one entity with the right and ability to use force to protect its citizens.

    Israel needs to destroy Iran’s government, and the United States in such a case needs to support Israel both militarily and with moral approval. It’s just a matter of will, which only a philosophy of reason can give.

  2. avi
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 14:18 | #

    @Jason
    A private army – that acts according to the law – is not more dangerous than you and me and our gun permit. The potential disagreement among rivaling armies is analog to the existing rivalry among units within a single army. These armies may betray each other in the way the Red Army betrayed the Polish army in WWII. On the other hand, they could supress their attitude in the way the US and UK armies worked together (or at least to the same end).

    As for Iran, I absolutely agree,