The Market for Military Defense | Robert P. Murphy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 19 July 2019.
Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian school of economics. Mises.org/MU19
I didn’t know George Constanza was an Anarcho-Capitalist
How have I not seen this before hahahahah
"The best argument against democracy is a ten-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Something else to keep in mind: In addition to everything Bob said, in an ancap society people have the right to bear arms.
Thus. good FREAKING luck trying to subjugate a society where most people are ARMED TO THE TEETH.
Whether you are a state, or a defense company gone rogue, you have NO chance conquering a society like that.
To add another dimension to this, how would a centrally planned military conquer a decentralized one when there is no one to raise a white flag on behalf of everyone else, no planning department that can be spied on, no command and control that can be knocked out? A war against a decentralized military is a very very expensive proposition that could easily take generations to succeed at, if at all. You wouldn't even really know when you'd succeeded. The only states that would attempt it would be driven strictly by ideology rather than economic incentives, and any state that is premised on ideology rather than economic incentives won't have much money to play with to begin with.
Yeah, but Bob's a pacifist...
Yeah, I heard that this is why Japan never invaded the USA.
@Cultivator Venturing I think it would be moot because, as I said, there would be no leader whose surrender would mean anything. An invading army would never know when they had succeeded in the conquest.
Government is the monopoly on force on a given area. Force is inherently monopolistic. In an anarchist society, a monopoly on force (somewhere to some degree) will emerge. Then you just have government again, but uncertain in it's form. It would just be chaos at first, small governments would form, and then we're back to square one.
Anarchism doesn't work. Minarchism is best.
- Introduction 00:00, Pacifism? 3:00
- Private Law Is Hard, Private Defense Is Easy 5:10, Mises The Minarchist 7:07
- In Free Society, Military Defense Probably Funded By Insurance Companies 15:04
- Why Wouldn't Private Defense Companies Turn In To State? 22:00
- Effect of Draft 23:30, Civil War example (why did South lose?) 26:10, inefficiency of central planning in war 30:13, blowing up Infrastructures 32:55
- Private Defense Firms Would Pay for Inputs 35:00
- Thinking Clearly on Military Defense (responses to objections) 37:50
I was at this lecture. Very good.
I don’t agree with him saying standing armies wouldn’t exist under Ancap, having standing armies would reduce risk of invasion which lowers risk and premiums for insurance firms
Love Murphy! Super smart guy! And great at speaking on layman terms. Clearly his best attribute is taking great Rothbardian ideas and doing exactly what Rothbard did, make them accessible to the masses.
Great job Robert!!!!!
You're 150 I.Q. George Costanza
Imagine meeting those two in a bar. You would be better off bringing BAIL money!
You know we're living in a statist society!
@@Paul-A01 What does that have to do with Castanza or Murphy?
Yet doesn't believe in washing.
The Confederate government was trying to seek international recognition. They knew that it was help from the French, Spanish, and Dutch that won the war for the founding fathers, and they knew that getting allies abroad was the best way to win this war too. It would have worked too had MacClellan not ended up with a copy of special order 191.
Great lecture.
The technology for private roads finance exists now in the form RFID's .
Muh roads!
@@MBarberfan4life And better roads!
I think the key problem is the public goods argument. Hoppe deals with it a little in his essay, but we need more on that in my opinion. The rest of the stuff is pretty straightforward, as these tricky things go.
Where can I find the pacifist debate between Bob Murphy and Tom Woods? Thanks you guys great video!
I also wanted know, I find this position of pacifist contradictory
I tried to look for it and couldn’t find it :(
When did Bob get rid off his beard? Did he lost some bet with Tom Woods?
Hmm, not convinced with the role of insurance companies for defense. Such companies would be in the hook for paying "war damages" to their clients iff the attacker was fended off. If the attacker conquers the land, then would The insurance company be on the hook for anything really? We shouldn't assume that the profit motive would solely work towards helping the defender, it might go to the direction is helping *the attacker*, if that's more profitable.
I think you're probably right, leaving defense to insurance companies is a form of centralization, and I would have more confidence in a mixture of completely decentralized citizen militias, saboteurs, and ad hoc defense companies, working on the theory that more decentralization equals more resiliency. We've seen a demonstration of this most recently in the middle east.
Which would disincentivize needless wars as no one wants to pay for them
Re: Revolutionary War vs Civil War. Without foreign aid there is a good chance that the new United States would have lost the Revolutionary War. In the Civil War the South generally didn't just throw people in to Union cannons, if they did they probably would have lost a lot sooner.
There is an advantage to actually fighting as a conventional force, you can hold and defend territory. An insurgency runs away all the time, and is harder to fully defeat but doesn't defend territory. If you have the capability to defend your land its better to do that then to have to operate as an insurgency. If you can't fight off the enemy invasion then an insurgency is still a fall back position.
A competitive market for the right to blow up a bridge vs keeping it going doesn't strike me as a good idea in a situation where if you don't blow up the bridge the enemy is going to put an a strong mechanized force across it in the next few hours, and surround you. Compensation later? Sure property rights are important. But you don't have time to set up bidding on every piece of infrastructure or equipment you might destroy intentionally or inadvertently in the course of fighting a serious war.
sweet
Feudal Europe had a degree of rational calculation when it came to war because the monarchy and nobles considered the land they controlled their own property and the nobility would gain enemy land that was conquered and benefit from the income that land would generate. I will grant that this economic calculation wouldn't have been of as much benefit to the civilians though because it was primarily in service to the nobility.
Hence the huge amount of warfare.....
Pretty good presentation of the arguments but when you talk about not wanting people who would be the protectors "sitting around" until an attack -- Full time soldiers don't just sit around. They train. A professional military tends to fight better then people just called up in an emergency.
Good point
I'm not trying to indict the overall idea of an anarcho-capitalist system, I only want to point out some flaws I see in Murphy's reasoning, and ask some questions about a few things. I'm a two time combat veteran and many of the points and questions that I present are from direct observation.
Modern US military personnel are entirely voluntary, and not conscripted. The points made about the moral implications of forcing people into the military are moot, at least in this country.
Without a standing military force, how would a society like this train its already limited armed forces? Guerilla war doesn't work as well as it used to in a modern military setting against highly trained intelligence agencies backed by extremely well trained special operations teams and well trained small unit infantry operating with continually evolving and time tested tactics, which would not be available to minutemen like partisans. In addition, there would have to be people well trained to be able to use the advanced military equipment that these insurance companies would purchase.
"Shoot him in the knee or something..." I understand that Murphy is explaining how a bounty system would work, I just wanted to point out something that I saw funny coming from someone talking about how a military incentive system would work from the standpoint of someone who has an obvious lack of understanding of military operations.
Example of "blowing up a bridge" being paid for by insurance companies: This already happens with a government in charge of military forces. The bridge that is blown up by government forces, is owned by a government that would absorb the cost of replacing it. Negotiations between competing firms would drastically slow military responses to rapidly changing situations on the battlefield. Because of that, the defenders would be consistently outmaneuvered and would be quickly decimated, and/or captured.
My last point is in opposition about how insurance companies would lower the cost of defense spending by the public. From a direct observation standpoint, this is simply untrue. I pay far more for home and auto insurance premiums alone, without adding military defense, criminal liability, and breach of contract policies, than I do on state and federal taxes combined. In fact, I pay far less in annual taxes than I pay in three months for insurance premiums.
As Murphy said, "These are things that I thought of in just 15 minutes."
👍
Hey Ancap here I don’t agree with some of Murphy points that standing armies wouldn’t exist under Ancap since it would reduce risk of invasion for insurance firms and the reason you pay so much in insurance rn is competition being restricted, insurance firms cannot compete across state and they are forced to keep premiums below market rate for ppl with high risk which causes insurance companies to increase premiums for everyone, also another reason auto insurance could be so high since it covers injuries from driving obviously most of the time you drive on government roads which is build by a entity less efficient than the free market
Also I’m guessing the reason you pay so little on state and federal taxes is because over the late 40 years, tax burden has been put more on the rich which also has its own economic consequences which hurts you and other “simpler ppl” through higher prices, lower productivity, less employment, less innovation, less investment, and lower wages
You need a standing army because the various needs of an army require years (even decades) of training, experience, and constant practice.
I think I'm cool with the military receiving a certain amount of money every year and then doing what it can with what it has.
How would you talk to others about how much that bridge is? Email? Telephone? Communication facilities would be the first target your invaders would attack!
Goes on for 10 minutes about draft being inefficient and exposes massive ignorance to draft exemptions for different professions...
I noticed it too
What if the invader attacks and destroys your insurance company?Actually, that would the first thing they attack and destroy!
Best comment :)
Same thing that happens when the invader destroys your government, lol.
Mises would like this fiction.
This is pure silliness.
The entire military industrial complex is private, our entire space program was revived by Elon Musk and Detroit has private police forces! We’re already doing it!
Even though I'm all for Anarcho-Capitalism, I don't think we have it quite as good as you seem to think. When something is funded by the government, it's public. Therefore, the military industrial complex is public, and Musk is a charlatan and a state crony (the leftists do dig up some interesting dirt).
This was an extremely poor lecture that doesn't come anywhere close to proving his point. It shows that this speaker has a poor understanding of military history and military strategy and tactics. The central flaw is how can a society that defaults to an insurgent war utilize its economic and industrial power when the major cities and transportation systems will just be ceded to the invaders? There are numerous other problems, and I find this video did more to convince me that a state is necessary for military defense.
I think we watched two very different lectures, then. Bob's arguments are spot-on.
@@SL2797 No they are not. I made a very detailed comment up there with time marks. Please refer to it for a "very" detailed explanation.
@@SL2797 Agreed
Romantic utopianism...what you reckon would fill this vacuum? LOL
Nothing utopian about putting the consumer king instead of a central govt thats acts without our consent
We already have this giant insurance company you are dreaming about, it's called "The Govt".
Michael Lin, but when they overreach for power, there is no option to use competing defence contractor (or ones self) without fear of coercion. Fundamentally, how is your argument different from what the mafia would say (substituting “the govt.)
Since I am all about my freedom, why do I need to participate in national defense? why should I? No one has the right to tell me I must take part in National Defense. As a matter of fact, am I not free to choose to collaborate with the invaders? They promised me a handsome reward. I am all about the free market, and the invader pays higher so I decided to collaborate... This lecture is 100% "pure utopia fantasy". In reality, when being invaded, we encourage, we shame, we force, as many people as possible to take part in national defense: young male go up the front doing the killing and getting killed, everyone else support them in many shapes and forms.
>Since I am all about my freedom, why do I need to participate in national defense?
You don't. By the way, what nation are you talking about?
>why should I?
No reason.
>No one has the right to tell me I must take part in National Defense.
I agree.
>As a matter of fact, am I not free to choose to collaborate with the invaders?
You're free to do that right now.
>They promised me a handsome reward. I am all about the free market, and the invader pays higher so I decided to collaborate...
As I say, you're free to do that right now. Of course, if you get caught you'll most likely not be able to spend that reward.
>This lecture is 100% "pure utopia fantasy".
You think that because you're an overgrown child with childish arguments.
>In reality, when being invaded, we encourage, we shame, we force, as many people as possible to take part in national defense: young male go up the front doing the killing and getting killed, everyone else support them in many shapes and forms.
What's your point? What's your argument?
This is pathetic...
11:10 So your plan is to wait until you are attacked so that market can decide building warships which takes "YEARS" to build to counter that ? In today's world that wars are won or lost within months at most ?
13:49 Venice, Genoa, Britain were all capitalists but got defeated by Ottoman blob quite sometimes. Also Vietnam War oh and yes; Korea was almost lost if not for a single "Turkish" brigade refused the order to retreat and gave enough time for allied armies to strike back.
And Capitalist powers always bankrupt themselves via stock market and internal/external debt ( Netherlands, Britannia and currently US)
13:57 Germany was fighting "The Whole World". Maybe that's why ?
16:36 Insurance sector ? Paying for the war ??? By taking money from the population yearly.... Like fixed amount taxation ????
Jesus Christ.....
20:00 Insurance company asks to WHOM ?! Who will buy and set up and operate these missiles ?! Who ?!?!
28:00 This is an horrendous understatement of Civil war and Confederate tactics.
31:35 Just how much money and authority of these "Insurance Companies" of yours have ? Just how much money they will charge to pay for all of this ?! Do you have any idea of cost of the military equipment ?!
31:35 Bounties ? Congratulations, you just destroyed your whole army's unit cohesion. Now they will be killed in disarray while trying to out-do each other rather than co-operating to accomplish the mission most effectively (can you say "friendly fire" and "line of fire obstruction" ?)
39:25 In war Central Planners defeat "millions of minds". That is the whole point of war. There is no such thing as "decision making by committee". There are only generals and commanders. If you don't have that you will loose (I can't believe I have to explain something as obvious as this)
These are good questions. You should ask him on Twitter where he might actually see them.
Agreed. An-caps are all a weeeee but fruity.
Privatize residential roads? Yes! Privatize interstates? That works well about 35% of the time and is a disaster 35% of the time.... I’d rather pick the non-disaster and just keep it public with the freest bidding possible for its maintenance.
As a private, in the military, do I need to obey my sergeants and lieutenants? Where is my freedom? Why am I not the general? I want to be free!
Shut up boot
Same reason businesses have bosses and workers. Your’d be free to resign. Same reason your not the CEO of Google (or are you?).