Private Armies

[P3ter_Griffin]

Don't have much time so I'll keep this short. Should American citizens be allowed to employ private armies overseas?

This question stems from, first, the belief that a non-interventionist foreign policy is vitally important to the peace of our nation. Second, the freedoms I believe we should have to pursue economic and other goals. And also, watching the documentary Burma VJ, in which one of the individuals is an oppressive dictator that deserves to be killed-- but not by our government.

Problems I see is that foreign troops wouldn't be allowed to pursue onto an American's home territory, making it virtually impossible to force peace or retaliate. And stemming from that, the appearance that the US is safeguarding the combatants. I'm sure many foreign governments wouldn't care to differentiate either way.

What say you?

 

[bolil]

Considering the amount of money it costs to operate over seas (logistics would be a nightmare) and the fact that no cost would be recouped through production it is practically impossible for a private citizen to fund an overseas war. Pillaging might be sufficient to keep a renegade band going, but would they really find open arms when they return from pillaging provided they are not put down by the, hopefully soon but certainly eventually, well armed populace they targeted? State fiscal insanity is what makes modern war logistically feasible, and the fact that some people are actually enriched by an action that can only destroy wealth is very suspicious. I think we spend 3 billion a week to keep the troops in Afghanistan paid, sheltered, fed, and trained. Not even if Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg in concert decided to wage a war could they keep it up for longer than two months, and when those two months were up they would be financially ruined, socially ostracized, and physically targeted. Modern War is made profitable and possible by the Keynesian state.

Actually, America does RIGHT NOW employ private armies overseas, and the only reason that is possible and profitable is because of state sanction. The losses are socialized, the gains private.

thats all I got for now.

 

[nayjevin]

When should an army be formed? In my opinion, for the defense of peaceful people from real threats. Anyone should be able to build up any sort of army necessary to do so. When facing survival, we can in fact count on people to take defensive action no matter what law is written.

Should an American be able to ___________ is always the same answer, by the way. Yes, so long as the action does not infringe the liberties of another.

 

[cheapseats]

...for the defense of peaceful people from real threats. Anyone should be able to build up any sort of [FORCE] necessary to do so. When facing survival, we can in fact count on people to take defensive action no matter what law is written.

Sounds like Militia and Second Amendment to me.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?

 

[dannno]

Who are the private armies responsible to?

Financially or otherwise?

What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China?

Stop going to WalMart?

 

[Seraphim]

Wal Mart operates on RAZOR thin margins, as do most businesses.

Raising an army with intent to conquer is incredibly expensive. Bye, bye profit margins and investor equity.

There's a reason why the only war mongering institutions are the ones that levy taxes.

Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Google or Microsoft would have the resources. An invasion would not have to be large to cause the other country to retaliate against the US.

Or perhaps Exxon invading say Saudi Arabla to take over their oil fields for economic profits?

How about the second questions? Domestic abuse by private armies?

 

[Matthew5]

For attacking other nations? No

For defending your land, group, state, or nation? Yes

One would need to form their own government within America in order to attack foreign targets. But you'd be 100% guarenteed that the foreign nation would ally with the US to wipe you off the map (if the US hadn't done it first anyway).

 

[erowe1]

To answer this question with a "no" is to say that there ought to be someone with the authority to stop other people from employing armies. Who can have that authority, and how could they enforce it if they had it unless it were by employing an army themselves?

 

[erowe1]

Who are the private armies responsible to? What if WalMart financed one with their own money and decided to take over China? How would one deal with any domestic abuses by a private army?

Say perhaps they wanted to extort money from local citizens for their own pay or forcebly conscript people?

There's a label for what you're describing, "the state."

 

[JackieDan]

What if the supposed soldier is fighting with an enemy of the host country? If Private armies should exist they must be recognized and regulated. Also, they should not replace a standing army.

 

[erowe1]

What if the supposed soldier is fighting with an enemy of the host country? If Private armies should exist they must be recognized and regulated. Also, they should not replace a standing army.

Recognized and regulated by whom?

And if these armies existed during peace time, wouldn't they by definition be standing armies?

 

[dannno]

For attacking other nations? No

For defending your land, group, state, or nation? Yes

What about defense of your property outside of the country?

The thing is, I can totally see how corporations might benefit from getting together and forming armies or private security in order to help ensure the safe transport of their goods and services back to the US.

However. The key is that THEY need to pay for it because otherwise they get a security force with unlimited funds (the US DOD) and they end up using it to go against the will of the people in those areas and install dictators, start wars, etc..

The other key is information transparency, we need to be able to relay what these corporations are doing overseas so that we as consumers can determine if their security is acting in a responsible way so that we don't end up getting blowback for what the security for US corporations is doing overseas that I as a consumer am funding.

 

[Matthew5]

What about defense of your property outside of the country?

The thing is, I can totally see how corporations might benefit from getting together and forming armies or private security in order to help ensure the safe transport of their goods and services back to the US.

However. The key is that THEY need to pay for it because otherwise they get a security force with unlimited funds (the US DOD) and they end up using it to go against the will of the people in those areas and install dictators, start wars, etc..

The other key is information transparency, we need to be able to relay what these corporations are doing overseas so that we as consumers can determine if their security is acting in a responsible way so that we don't end up getting blowback for what the security for US corporations is doing overseas that I as a consumer am funding.

I could see that being legitimate. Isn't that what major security firms already do though? I suppose Walmart could create a security team that could consist of military-grade weaponry to protect shipments if they so chose.

But what if a scuffle breaks out and the foreign nation called it an act of aggression? Would the corporation be sued?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

What happens when Exxon's army pisses of the wrong warlord and said warlord retaliates by nuking Boston?

 

[nayjevin]

What if the supposed soldier is fighting with an enemy of the host country? If Private armies should exist they must be recognized and regulated. Also, they should not replace a standing army.

What happens when Exxon's army pisses of the wrong warlord and said warlord retaliates by nuking Boston?

I am afraid of ____. Therefore government.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

What happens when Exxon's army pisses of the wrong warlord and said warlord retaliates by nuking Boston?

How would Exxon afford nukes and massive armies? The only way the government can manage this is because it expropriates from everybody.

 

[erowe1]

I don't understand where the people who said no are coming from.

For those of you who did, what maximum number would you set for how many body guards I should be allowed to hire?

 

[Seraphim]

NO maximum. It's ur damn money and if you feel like bankrupting yourself over your paranoia, go for it.

Now if you start commanding those guards to activately violate the property of others...there will be hell to pay, one way or another.

I don't understand where the people who said no are coming from.

For those of you who did, what maximum number would you set for how many body guards I should be allowed to hire?