Next week we are due for the annual ritual of watching the British government’s finance minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer) tell us how far he intends to stick his fingers into our wallets. No doubt funding the cost of military campaigns in the Middle East will provide a convenient excuse, although I would guess that Gordon Brown’s huge public spending increases on health and education have more to do with it. Remember he made such increases against a backdrop of crumbling stock markets.
A good article in the British weekly, The Spectator, lays out the lunacy of where public finances are currently headed.
And an article at Reuters suggests that owners of property can expect another kick in the shins from Labour.
Some nice things have been said about Premier Tony Blair in recent weeks from the right-wing side of the political tracks due to his hard-edged realism about dealing with Saddam. We all knew it could come at a cost in blood and treasure. But on pretty much everything else, this government, like 99 percent of them, remains a menace to liberty and property.
Of course, non-interventionist libertarians would say that war is the health of the state and therefore advocates of military action vs Iraq like yours truly can have no complaints about the size of my tax bill. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. Domestic spending, much of which is wasted, dwarfs UK spending on the military as a proportion of the total budget.
Longer term, of course, any overhaul of public spending (ie, a stonking big cut) must include a willingness to look at private sector options in providing for our defence, including use of mercenaries, even. I’d be very interested in what readers have to say on the latter point. I’d guess even opponents of the current war might want to say how minarchists or even anarcho-capitalists should look at how military forces should be paid for.
Privatising defence and hiring mercenaries? Can you imagine the organisational consequences? The extra expense it would entail? It would make the British Rail privatisation look like a stunning success. And would you really want the defence of your sovereign state in the hands of people who were not citizens of that state?
If I remember correctly, we did use Mercenaries in Sierra Leone. Indeed if you search on ‘Private Military Companies’ on The Foreign Office web site, it appears to be something of a live subject.
And would you really want the defence of your sovereign state in the hands of people who were not citizens of that state?
You mean like the Gurkhas (Britain & India) or the Legion Étranger (France)? Sounds like a pretty damn good idea to me!
Hugo, do you mean mercenaries like that useless and overpaid bunch, the Gurkhas?
Damn, Perry beat me to it by about 5 seconds
Hey, Perry and David, you are on fire!
The Ghurkhas are a great example. Come on bloggers, let’s have some more!
I read about how the former naval commander, Thomas Cochrane, who led a controversial career terrorising the French navy in the Napoleonic wars, ended up fighting for pro-liberation forces in South America at the time of Bolivar and Co. Lots of these guys would rank as mercenaries.
and there are of course dozens of examples in Africa over the past 150 years or so.
What about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War? That was an excellent example of what could have been done in Kosovo….
My dad and those of a few more kids at my school joined the Sultan of Oman’s Navy after leaving the Royal Navy. It’s not that uncommon.
Yes, I agree with all of this BUT, denationalisation of the armed services would not be top priority because, as Johnathan makes clear, military spending is but a gnat-bite compared to domestic sending generally.
Also, I am growing increasingly skeptical about blanket claims that ‘war is the health of the state’. Does anybody fondly imagine that public spending could have been curbed if only we hadn’t attacked Iraq?
This works; but only to a point.
It’s hard to see how the UK would contract out it’s nuclear submarine program or the RAF.
I’m an ancap and I have no fondness for “privatized armies” or “privatized tax collection” or any other sort of “privatized” jackbootery. Just because it’s done by a corporation doesn’t make it any less evil.
The best ancap solution to defence, is to get out of the way of the facination that ordinary everyday folks have with guns, tanks, jet aircraft, etc. The same sort of people who play Quake would love to shoot targets or drones with real munitions. And the massive prosperity boost in the absence of taxes would make these sports affordable.
Some people propose mercs as an ancap thing but I doubt that would work – there’s too little ongoing work for them when the interventionist state doesn’t exist.
Reduce the administrators/bureaucracy in some of the most expensive sectors? Find and prosecute fraud? Consolidate services?
I know it’s hard to do, but it can be done if you have leaders with guts and aren’t career politicians.
My state, Massachusetts, is facing a *huge* budget deficit. Most of the past governors we’ve had have been career politicians who would promise cuts, but never deliver because of ‘favors’ owed.
This year, we elected an outsider who is wealthy in his own right and doesn’t owe any favors to the career politicians. I don’t care for all his positions on things, but I wanted to see what an outsider, from the business sector could do, so I voted for him.
In the first few months he’s found ways to cut excess staff that our former governors could never find, for some reason.
For example, each of the hundreds of state agencies seemed to have its own PR person. I never knew that and can’t fathom why these parasites weren’t gotten rid of long ago. He fired many of them. Same for the lawyers each agency *had* to have.
He’s also set up a fraud division to find and prosecute fraud that’s cost the taxpayers millions.
Past governors were not as aggressive on fraud.
Had he not been an ‘outsider’, he wouldn’t be making the cuts he is. Many of those positions went to supporters of other politicians and they were sacred cows that couldn’t be touched if you wanted to stay elected.
Little by little he’s finding people to cut, consolidating services and saving money. He’s also taking a pounding by some of the career pols. But, the majority of people support him because that’s what we wanted him to do.
Can you find someone who is not a career politician, who can be a maverick and make some staffing cuts that need to be made? Someone who could consolidate services where there’s duplication?
I know cuts will yield only a little savings at first, but if you have enough of them they add up.
It seems all our governments are very good at adding more layers of people to do things. They aren’t very good at reducing the layers. The fewer the layers, the less expensive things are.
Regards,
Chris J.
Of course, if you can have privatised armed forces you can also have privatised governments. The East India Company would appear to be a rather good example.
We could licence private armies/governments to topple regimes we don’t like and aren’t going to fight back. Zimbabwe and Cuba would seem pretty good places to start.
“And would you really want the defence of your sovereign state in the hands of people who were not citizens of that state?”
I’m a little puzzled as to where this idea that mercenaries would automatically be non-citizens comes from. Why would that be?
As for the question asked above, it already is. I direct readers’ attention to Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, the first Marine casualty of Gulf War Two, and an illegal immigrant from Guatemala. (He was awarded citizenship posthumously.)
I’m sure L/Cpl Gutierrez was a fine soldier and will be much mourned, but how did he get into the Marines if he was an illegal immigrant?
Try just getting into the US without the right papers, never mind getting a job, and certainly never mind joining the military.
Puzzling.
It’s actually very easy to get into the US and get a job without showing “your papers please” to any JBTs. Many thousands of people do it every year.
As for the specific case of Jose Gutierrez, the media seems to be avoiding the subject. That’s not too surprising, since immigration is something of a hot-button issue. Only one of several articles I’ve read mentioned his status, and that one went from relating that he was caught by the INS to telling about his foster family in America, without really saying how he got from one place to the next.