The political authors I have studied recently had dedicated their entire lives unconditionally to the solutions of the problems discussed in their literature, so naturally I am accustomed to a very serious tone. It is important to understand that I am holding the author to the standard that I am only because I believe the subject matter he chose requires it. I know absolutely nothing about the Mises Institute or the success that may or may not be attributed to it's efforts. All I can say is that in my opinion of this one work, this author appears more concerned about the delivery of his sarcastic remarks than he is in conveying a message true to the heart. When I read this work I don't get the feeling that the author is in the trenches on this one, and when I read political oriented material I very much enjoy feeling the author's passion and desperation for success. But enough about my opinion of the author and his writing style… Let's get on with the issues.
This is a great critique. I think the only course of action the author sees is "spreading the word". I've heard him admit he's no entrepreneur or businessman, though he has overseen a big expansion in the Mises Institute. So yea, I think he's developed a blow-hard tone just to try to compete with the other talking heads out there trying to penetrate the consciousness of the masses.
Already things are starting to take shape. Needs have arisen; needs that would shape the telecommunications industry. But who's needs were these? Did they belong to the people? It would seem that regardless of how it required the funds, the state represents a huge demand in its own right, and just as the market thrives by satisfying the wants of the people, industry also sees huge improvement when met with the new and large demands of the state.
There is an important point you are overlooking in your assessment of the positive benefits of warfare, and that is the costs, both seen and unseen. The seen costs are obvious: death and destruction. However, the unseen costs alone make the benefits you mentioned not worthwhile. That unseen cost is lost demand in the private sector. It's simple: the resources used in warfare are unavailable to private individuals. We have no idea what people would've done with the trillions of dollars worth of resources that have gone into blowing people and things up, not to mention the resources that were directly destroyed. Considering the efficiency with which people competing in the market operate, and the inefficiency of the military bureaucracy, I suspect that the innovation and wealth produced by a world without war would make any advances the military has made look negligible.
Because of the life or death nature of the business, the military has more pressing needs than any civilian ever could. Industrial development to them is a lot more important than an improvement in business logistics to increase stocks a of couple points. Many lives are at stake and a tactical or technological edge is a requirement for any force that wants to remain on this Earth. Such a demand cannot be felt in the private sector and for this reason I see militarism as a much more successful form of capitalism than free trade between civilians.
This is an interesting point. It certainly cannot be denied that the conditions of war and peace and quite different. Look at your example of Motorola, a private company, responding to the intense demands and needs of the military. The life of Motorola's employees and stakeholders was not at stake. They were simply responding the the huge profit opportunity that the military budget afforded. Well, that goes back to my earlier point. If the military wasn't spending that money, someone else would be, and the same amount of demand would be coming from other sources pursuing other ends and Motorola would be servicing those ends with the same ingenuity and intensity.
Another great point about TSA. It is bigger than passenger security because of an airplanes capacity to be weaponized. Kinda opens a can of worms about the state's role in national security. Here's a market solution for ya: hold airlines accountable for any destruction that comes about as a result of misuse of their planes or other property. They would then insure against it and actuaries would be able to put a price on this potential cost and the risk reduction of security measures in airports so airlines could make economic decisions about what measures to take. Customers would also get a say as they choose their airlines based on cost vs. security measures taken.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion caesar
Show Posts
(Besides the bill of rights of course)