Kasz216 said:
A single private corproation would be more competant for providing national defense on a national army level. It's just you wouldn't want a single private corpoation running your entire army since force is the last negotiation tool. If you think the company running your private army is asking too much money.... ehhhh. Who's to say they don't just overthrow you? Even if they don't. Then you gotta go about getting a whole new private army. It's pretty much the only job that can't be split up to prevent these problems. |
Not only that, it would allow for a corporate monopoly...That is usually not much better than a government monopoly.
At least with the current military structure, there is a hybrid of private and public companies - the government employs the troops while the private sector does the bulk of R&D and arms them. That way, businesses can compete for the most efficient delivering of arms to the sector. Is it perfect? Beyond no. But its the best that we can manage.
In a 'perfect' world, we would have militias only, and everyone would rally to the common cause of his brother and defend the state and nation. However, that has not been the historical case. Just look at the Toledo War. Ohio and Michigan were a few steps away from initiating a full scale war against eachother.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.