Defence monopoly and slavery
Published by Yazad Jal September 22nd, 2004 in GovernanceDon Boudreaux makes a telling point while discusing the military draft.
The state, at its best, provides protection against violence. It is a service. It is a valuable service, perhaps even an especially valuable service. But it is a service. The supplier of this service is entitled to no greater claim on the rights or property or lives of its customers than are suppliers of other services. If General Motors or Starbucks or The Wall Street Journal cannot supply their services without conscripting workers, they should go out of business. If the state cannot supply its service without violating the very rights that allegedly justify its existence, it should step aside and let some other provider supply this service.
I’d posted on the issue some time back. This is interesting in view of the current debate on closing down ministries as Boudreaux questions the state’s monopoly on security services, hinting at an abolition of the defence ministry (and maybe with it, the government in toto?)
I have always taken the view that I can tolerate the state having a military and a police function because that is one of the few legitimate roles I see for the state.
But seeing a role for the state in these things is not the same as wanting the state to have a monopoly in them. Private military organisation and private security already exist so clearly there *is* a market for such services… all me need to do is get the state to recognise that these areas are as amenable to markets as anything else.
I think whats most important is that the use of force in the society be governed by predictible rules. It should be clear to the citizens what activity on their part invites the use of force against them.
You advocate abolishing the government monopoly of the use of force. How do you propose the private militias will be bound by a set of rules? Or do you disagree with the need of objective rules governing the use of force?