Actually I'm not attacking the government for ...

2010-08-21T12:52:55.591-07:00

Actually I'm not attacking the government for "murder and tyranny through massively-oversized military forces." The government SHOULD be the main holder of force, that's what makes them the government. As I said, it's the very definition of the state. (Not the sole holder of force, however, let's not get into 2nd Amendment issues here).

Indeed, the issue isn't even that private military contractors exist. I believe that PMCs (and a privatized prison industry, but, again, another matter) are inherently a bad idea. However, their problem in Iraq wasn't simply their presence, but their relative lack of regulation.

And that is really the big problem with PMCs in the current government. Government has moved so heavily toward deregulation since the Reagan era that we aren't actually monitoring the PMCs and controlling them the way we ought to be. The issue isn't that government is monopolizing force (in the case of police abuses, which are an issue), or even wholly that they're giving the right to use force to private companies, the issue is that they're then failing to regulate these companies.

This same air of deregulation has led to a number of corporate abuses, and directly led to the current financial crisis, the BP oil spill, and the various other economic and environmental disasters caused by a totally unregulated free market.

Creating a more libertarian environment is, to quote deregulation king Ronald Reagan, "the problem, not the solution."

Instead, the solution is to rein in abuses at every level through increased regulation.

The flaw I see in your argument is this: The government has failed to regulate the market, therefore we need to take power away from the government and give it back to the market. (See your last paragraph). And it is true that the government has given a free pass to the military/industrial complex. But creating even more private power isn't going to solve that, it's just going to compound the problem.

In short: we don't need to get government out of business, we need to get government to do its job. The job of a government is to protect the powerless from the powerful, and instead they have been acting in collusion with America's greatest economic powers since the late 1800s.

I also do not agree that trying to take government out of business will limit business' influence on government. Candidates still need to get elected, after all.

Now I do think there are some legitimate arguments to be made in favor of limiting government military power. Police abuse is rampant, we're fighting unnecessary wars, and often violating the Constitution doing so (see: Guantanamo, Bagram, etc.). And here private powers can do a great deal of good. Not in for-profit corporations competing with the government (because, while free-market principles would dictate that the competition would create a better outcome, in reality this doesn't seem to work). But, instead, in private citizens being aware of what the government is doing, and being active in opposing it.

Here we come all the way back to the second post I made in this blog: the best way to prevent abuses by government and big business is simply to be aware of them, and actively stay informed.

Thanks so much for your comment!

I agree with everything except your statements abo...

2010-08-21T00:29:40.482-07:00

I agree with everything except your statements about privatized military contractors. You make the same mistake I see a lot of socialists/lefists make: you relentlessly criticize the government for murder and tyranny through massively-oversized military forces (good), but then cannot tolerate the idea of privatizing them. It's like this:

"The US Army is a murderous death machine engaged in a massive free-for-all in the pursuit of profit."
"Then why not prevent the US Army from forcibly holding itself as the only military force in the country?"
"Gasp! If government isn't controlling the army, it'll be a murderous death machine engaged in a massive free-for-all in the pursuit of profit!"

People criticize the government's handling and then balk at the idea of taking it out of their hands. It's the same for a lot of things, like guns; leftists complain when police abuse their power (rightly), and then become even MORE upset when you suggest that if government is fucking up by giving arms out only to power-hungry murderers, maybe you should challenge that monopoly.

In general, the principle applies to the whole situation here. As long as government has its finger in every American pie, so to speak, then corporations will continue to use it for money and power. The classic libertarian quote "the welfare state is a warfare state" isn't always true, but here it really is. When government is actively involved in regulating and taxing and funding and propping up the military/industrial complex, as it must to meet your somewhat protectionist goals here, the influence is unavoidable.

If government were to take a ragingly libertarian approach and leave these industries (and all industries) alone, neither helping nor hurting, then the massive amount of influence they would have over our senators and congressmen would disappear.

As long as government decides where money goes to and what the military/industrial complex can and can't do, not only will it continually grant them a free pass as it has for decades now, but that complex will wield a dangerous amount of control over the very institution set up to control it.

Comments on Facts Are Useless In Emergencies: Conclusion: The Coming War With Iran (And Who Stan...

Actually I'm not attacking the government for ...

I agree with everything except your statements abo...