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. 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. 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