> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures.
I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain on the net from the security provided by the state, because they could provide their own private security more cheaply. Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you. John Galt, the engineer, isn't a free man without the state. He's a slave to a warlord, one who puts his talents to work amassing wealth for himself.
That's what makes the possibility raised by the author terrifying. Because in the long run, when private armies take over for states, the "wealthy groups or individuals" aren't Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They're feudal lords--people who earn their position in society by being skilled in war.
1. As the state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy, and the influence on policies from the democratic majority is reduced to zero, a 'country' controlled by warlord factions and private armies may be closer to the 'market' equilibrium by eliminating the waste of the bureaucratic middleman. No need to use roundabout ways and Kafkaesque policies to dominate the people and compete with other factions, just do it outright. You can read an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era As you can read in the article, private armies are cheaper and just as effective (Possibly due to government overpaying weapons manufacturers controlled by friends or relatives of public bureaucrats). This efficiency may in the future outcompete public armies.
2. Eventually conflicts between warlords lead to increased inequality between various private 'states' and thus consolidation - and from this monopoly of private armies a state emerges. To maintain this monopoly and to maintain stability and create a sense of legitimacy (and thus preventing new competing warlords from arising) it introduces policies like public bureaucrats only indirectly controlled by the individuals who have actual power, who act for the benefit of the public; and depending on the era, an emperor that governs for all, or allow the public to elect some officials, - the economy prospers and generate more taxes for the rulers.
3. This morphs into a more or less fair and democratic and equal society that may last for several decades or even centuries, as the economy booms, inequality is introduced. More affluent individuals are able to afford better education and better connections to their children, who are more able to compete for positions of power. The state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy. Go to 1.
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" - Romance of the three kingdoms
With a couple of exceptions, I have thus described the revolving history of China from the Zhou to modern times.
Do nuclear weapons (or equivalently massive weapons) not change this equation, by making incumbents incredibly difficult to oust?
Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating?
Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high?
While the idea of history always repeating itself is appealing, I fail to see how this example can apply in a modern world. Too much has changed, and short of a "mad max" regression, I don't see how feudal China can repeat itself here.
I have no idea, only noticed the recurring trend being described in the article. One thing we do know is nuclear weapons on its own is not sufficient to prevent the condition of warlords and private armies from appearing - Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons yet in the north of the country, tribes and warlords abound.
US interference (incompetent due to corruption and graft?) in Middle Eastern politics allowed ISIS, a warlord-like state, to capture high-cost support and weapons systems and used them successfully against the Iraqi government, a government whose army was less than competent due to the corruption within. The Iraqi government is backed by a country with nuclear weapons and missiles and drones and fighter jets, and yet ISIS persists.
Many US departments are being militarised, from the police to the IRS[1] to the Department of Education[2] to the Environmental Protection Agency[3] and the USDA[4]. I wonder if it's because many in the government itself see militarisation as a necessary reaction to the threat of private weapons, which as you can read in the article is an re-emerging trend. If nuclear weapons and missiles and carriers and drone strikes are sufficient to prevent the US government from being ousted, why is it busy acquiring conventional weapons? If the US government is relying on conventional weapons to hold off the tide of the privately armed, can mere conventional weapons be enough to cause it's --censored--?
With regards to the militarization of the Unites States executive branch I blame the Department of State. State has been an utter failure in their core competency of nation building for the past 30 years. Ethiopia and the Baltics in the '90s, Iraq and Afghanistan in the '00s are examples of State basically abdicating their role to the DoD.
The DoD has been the only major department with the budget, the expert personnel, the logistics, and the organizational will to tackle what should be civilian nation building exercises. It's a poor plan to put a 21 year old marine in charge of securing and rebuilding a village. An armies job is to "go places, kill people, and break their stuff." But for the last few decades the choice for the US has been to send our DoD personnel, or noone.
Because we've increasingly leaned on the DoD for these actions that's bled over to other organizations. A prime example there is the transfer of absurd materials to LEO under the LESO and Excess Property Programs. See also the budget of DHS/ICE/CBP which simply exploded in the last decade by following the militarization path.
If we want to stop the militarization of our society we need to fix our civilian agencies and stop relying on the martial.
I suspect you may mean the Balkans? And the Balkans have actually been a pretty successful outcome.
In Afghanistan and especially Iraq the State department was not allowed to do their job. See [1] where:
Secretary of State [Colin] Powell recently wrote to Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, urging that State oversee humanitarian assistance, an outcome that would help internationalize the effort. The United Nations and others, like the European Union, have experiences in the past relating to state-building. On the other hand, there are other elements in the administration, notably in the Department of Defense, which are beginning to try to invent a blueprint and map out the capacities in order to have the United States undertake this task alone.
As you note, the DoD took over this role. But it wasn't because of lack of interest of State.
Except the evolution to this point requires complete inaction on the parts of the governments.
Yes, some businesses have more money than entire countries. Because we allow it.
It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank. If your subjects stay loyal... well then you get things like The Harrowing of the North.
The US Congress has 535 members, and we're not talking about individuals we're talking about corporations, which themselves are made up of shareholders. There's no formal loyalty structure.
Your feudal Lord granted you land so you could provide for your family, and in return pay rent to him. When your kid went missing in the woods, it was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped search. When your barn roof collapsed, it was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped dig out your animals, and it was your Lord who stabled your animals. It might have been mutually beneficial, but it was still at his will.
A shareholder is invested in a company because they think it will be profitable, but most large shareholders are more invested in the industry than the individual. So if they think something might jeopardize their investment, they'll jump and go invest in another company. The managers and employees? To them it's just a job, if they think their company is going to go up against the US Government they'll be out the door and pretend they've never even heard of the Globex Corporation, even if they're wearing a company emblazoned jacket.
I see no loyalty structure that would be capable of supporting anyone trying to be a neolord. When the US government decides your company has gotten too big, it'll just nationalize it or split it.
Edit: Nice HN, act like reddit. You can't come up with a valid argument against my post so you downvote it.
Yes we get it this is some distopian idea, but it'll never happen. The closest we've ever come to an organization like this was the White Company, and they--like these private contractors will--stayed on the good side of the super power of the time, the Papacy, because their existence was entirely predicated on the grace of being allowed to exist.
It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank.
This dramatically understates the dependency a King had upon his Lords. Yes, a King could strip someone of his rank, but if he did it too often or too capriciously and he'd soon been replaced.
You see this in democracies too: interest groups (whether they be companies or other groups) are quite happy to remove their support for a member if their interests no longer align and if another credible candidate appears that is more aligned with their interests.
From what I've read that's spot on. Royalty had powers, but they were not all that despotic --they could not afford to be. They had to keep a good balance with their financiers, supporters, the church, asf., all the while keeping an eye out for shifting allegiances internally and specially externally.
>It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank.
And sometimes the Baron raised an army, killed the King, and took the throne for himself.
Most shareholders today are passive institutions. They don't care as long as the dividends show up on time etc.
In between those you have individuals that are active. Just consider the jockeying between Dell and Icahn when Dell announced plans to take the namesake company private.
> Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you.
I think the libertarian point is that this same logic applies to states themselves.
Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
> Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
Any policy related to the things you've mentioned were or were not enacted by popular support, on those issues in particular. Brutal slaver warlord can take away restaurants, high fructose corn syrup, and your children with a single vote.
Any policy related to the things you've mentioned were or were not enacted by popular support, on those issues in particular. Brutal slaver warlord can take away restaurants, high fructose corn syrup, and your children with a single vote.
Nice try, but no dice.
Most of those things weren't voted on. Most of them were decided by fiat of the slaver warlord (a mayor) and couple of his family members (some board or commission).
Understanding how it works doesn't mean that one has to agree that it's democratic; it's at best a mix of democratic and non-democratic elements, and for some that might be equivalent to "not really democratic". And that's even assuming that the mechanisms are working properly, and not subverted - which is a big assumption.
> Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
Terrifying. And it has been going on for a long while. Remember when shops in the US had the right to sell their wares to whoever they wanted, back in the good old days before the Civil Rights movements? Those were the days. </sarcasm>
More seriously, regulation takes some freedom away, but you have to look at the big picture. Smoking is harmful, even second-hand smoking, and public health efforts to reduce its effects should be applauded and not lamented.
When you're referring to days before the civil rights movement, I presume you're hinting at laws which required private businesses to create separate facilities for blacks if they wanted to do business with blacks.
No, he's referring to back before Congress told private businesses that they weren't allowed to refuse to serve black people. When Congress took away the right of family owned restaurants to exercise their freedom of association with only white people.
More seriously, regulation takes some freedom away, but you have to look at the big picture. Smoking is harmful, even second-hand smoking, and public health efforts to reduce its effects should be applauded and not lamented.
Oh great, then just ban it completely. And ban alcohol and sugar, and all sorts of other things that are "bad" for us.
And it's silly to try and convince someone to applaud vs lament. Do you seriously think you're going to change anyone's opinion?
Some people just hate individual responsibility. You would think that on HN, it would be different, but even this place has been infected with destructive, freedom-hating statist thinking. What a shame.
I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain on the net from the security provided by the state, because they could provide their own private security more cheaply. Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you. John Galt, the engineer, isn't a free man without the state. He's a slave to a warlord, one who puts his talents to work amassing wealth for himself.
That's what makes the possibility raised by the author terrifying. Because in the long run, when private armies take over for states, the "wealthy groups or individuals" aren't Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They're feudal lords--people who earn their position in society by being skilled in war.