How would the free market deal with terrorism in a free society?
Free Market Solutions to Terrorism in a Free Society
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #2
For all of the free market capitalist types, here is your chance to expound. How does Liberty deal with terrorism?
With a bounty on terrorists.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
Million dollar mercenary contracts for building security, bulk discounts on cremations, and a complete lack of due process.
I don't think I can answer your question literally, because 'free market capitalism' and 'liberty' are not government entities. However, I can tell you how private enterprise deals with threats. Would that suffice?
First, threats of all kinds are part of the business world. Business understands this, and deals with them under the category of risk management. Risks can come from many sources, including natural (weather), political (instability, riots, revolution, etc), criminal (hijacking, employee theft, piracy) and yes, terrorism.
Second, business protects itself in a variety of ways from risk. Protection is generally aimed at continuing profitable business operations by protecting assets (people, real property, trade routes, delivery channels, etc) and business climates (political).
Threats can and are dealt with in a variety of ways. All businesses purchase insurance. Liability, theft, disaster, and yes, even piracy insurance. I have no doubt that there is such a thing as terrorism insurance, although that is probably handled under the rubric of property damage and business continuation insurance.
When need be, businesses form coalitions to protect common interests, which can and have included joint ventures for protection, such as establishing private security forces; even armies; in remote locations or where local governments were weak or ineffective. These forces can be limited strictly to defending assets (people and real property), or they can be more proactive, depending upon the need.
One example in the USA are railroad police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States
They are paid for by private businesses. But they have real police powers.
Going back historically, such companies as Pinkerton's and Wells Fargo were formed specifically to meet security demands where law enforcement did not yet exist (the American West prior to 1900) to any great extent. In some cases, they carried quasi-government authority; in others, they simply enforced the laws on behalf of their clients only.
Business will also deal with threats by treating with government entities in any number of ways, from providing public works and benefits for citizens of the country in question, providing employment, paying taxes, and even by paying tribute, bribes, and other forms of extortion money to be allowed to continue to operate. Business does not particularly care about the political or economic conditions of a country in which it operates, so long as it can do so profitably. This can lead to horrifying issues like child sweat shops and Bhopal in India; business will never regulate itself in this manner as long as there is no economic reason to stop, or government requirement that it do so.
How would private enterprise deal with terrorism? By evaluating it as a threat to commerce, and responding based on that. Retaliation is not a profitable business, so there would be none of that. Insurance, engagement, bribes and tribute, joint ventures and protective associations, and where necessary, by private enforcement actions (armed intervention).
Keep in mind that for business, killing people and blowing stuff up is almost always terrible for business (unless you are in the defense industry), so it is always the last resort. For governments, protecting citizen's lives and defending national interests is in the mix, so war is not looked upon with a profit motive.
Just some thoughts on the matter.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
There are several "free market" answers to terrorism. Some are being tried, some have been floated and met with outrage, and some can't really be talked about. For example, the Pentagon tried to start a "futures market," essentially a betting pool on future terrorist events. This actually might have been effective in predicting such events, or at least anticipating areas to focus security on-it was, of course, controversial, and abandoned-as far as we know. After all, an essential problem with terrorism is it's unpredictability-this, or something like it, might have served to reduce that unpredictability.
Another solution akin to what others have pointed out would be not just placing bounties on terrorists (there was a bounty on Osama bin Laden long before 9/11, and for nearly a decade afterward) but enabling the less risk averse and criminal elements to pursue them and, more importantly, their assets. Set hackers onto international banks, and whatever al Qaeda money they find, they can keep. Enable organized crime to trade in Afghani opium, but whatever Taliban they deal with, they identify for destruction.
Those are just off the top of my head, and I just woke up-I'm sure I could think of more, and I'm hardly a "free market" capitalist anymore, if I ever was. I bet most of them wouldn't be any more savory, though.....
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Well first let me get this off my chest
Free Market and Liberty are not exactly the same thing ok with that said
It is funny you should ask this today since it appears that 20,000 surface to air missiles (Grinch SA-24s) have vanished from a unguarded military warehouse in Libya
And guess who has a presence in Libya .. Al-Qaeda
Now they are talking about offering money to buy them back so all we have to do is sit back and wait and see how a Free Market and Liberty deals with Terrorism
Libyan missiles looted
Last edited:
Let's talk for a moment about business versus governments.
Businesses seek a profit. Governments are inherently not profitable (snark and sarcasm aside).
Business seeks to please stockholders. Government seeks to please their constituents (be that voters or the ruling party, the absolute monarch, etc).
Sometimes their interests coincide. That is, when voters are also customers, both business and government seeks to reduce negative impact on them; which would lead to a conclusion that both business and government would view terrorism as a 'bad thing'.
However, business would view it as a risk to be managed. Government would view it as a threat to be eliminated.
Citizens do not want to hear their government say "We are going to reduce terrorism to a level where only a few thousand die each year." But business seeks exactly that; it's cost-benefit analysis and the bottom line is that if the cost of combating terrorism is higher than the cost of letting it happen, business will cheerfully let it happen. Only if it rises to the level of costing business more than the cost of removing the threat will business act.
I do not anticipate that businesses would 'attack' terrorism or issue letters of marque, offer bounties, or go to war with terrorists unless there were no other ways of managing the risk. Businesses would prefer to seek solutions that only cost money; the solutions that do not destroy customers, disrupt commerce, or destroy real property. And why should they? They're not in the business of defending rights or protecting citizens when there is not a profit motive behind it.
Businesses seek a profit. Governments are inherently not profitable (snark and sarcasm aside).
Business seeks to please stockholders. Government seeks to please their constituents (be that voters or the ruling party, the absolute monarch, etc).
Sometimes their interests coincide. That is, when voters are also customers, both business and government seeks to reduce negative impact on them; which would lead to a conclusion that both business and government would view terrorism as a 'bad thing'.
However, business would view it as a risk to be managed. Government would view it as a threat to be eliminated.
Citizens do not want to hear their government say "We are going to reduce terrorism to a level where only a few thousand die each year." But business seeks exactly that; it's cost-benefit analysis and the bottom line is that if the cost of combating terrorism is higher than the cost of letting it happen, business will cheerfully let it happen. Only if it rises to the level of costing business more than the cost of removing the threat will business act.
I do not anticipate that businesses would 'attack' terrorism or issue letters of marque, offer bounties, or go to war with terrorists unless there were no other ways of managing the risk. Businesses would prefer to seek solutions that only cost money; the solutions that do not destroy customers, disrupt commerce, or destroy real property. And why should they? They're not in the business of defending rights or protecting citizens when there is not a profit motive behind it.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
Lets imagine that the cost of fighting terrorism wasn't socialized. Wouldn't normal people have to step up and form form strategies to protect themselves? Could the 2nd Amendment or similar civil rights in other countries fit into this? Terrorism is such a diffuse phenomenon. Perhaps this would create a diffuse net that would catch most of the bad guys?
What about other civil rights? Would we see the same erosion as when the cost of defense is socialized?
What about other civil rights? Would we see the same erosion as when the cost of defense is socialized?
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
In most cases you don't even know who they are until they do something
Terrorist organizations are by nature hard to get rid o fsince one cell may not even know there is another cell just down the street.
Also define terrorism.
There are multiple law enforcement agencies and groups that watch terrorists organizations and they cant even agree upon a definition.
Would a group of freedom fighters be terrorists...maybe not to you but to the government they oppose they most certainly are. Not all terrorists are Al-Qaeda and not all are from outside the country, there is domestic terrorism too.
Terrorist organizations are by nature hard to get rid o fsince one cell may not even know there is another cell just down the street.
Also define terrorism.
There are multiple law enforcement agencies and groups that watch terrorists organizations and they cant even agree upon a definition.
Would a group of freedom fighters be terrorists...maybe not to you but to the government they oppose they most certainly are. Not all terrorists are Al-Qaeda and not all are from outside the country, there is domestic terrorism too.
I can do that, but I can't imagine it in the context of free enterprise capitalism. "Fighting terrorism" is not a profitable business, so business would not engage in it. Free Enterprise does not perform social services, that is not its function.
Probably. They do this by forming governments. There are Libertarian / Anarchist concepts of mutual beneficial societies or private protective services that private individuals can band together and subscribe to (and pay for) which could perform this activity, but the line quickly blurs between this and government.
One clear difference is this - private individuals, like businesses, will seldom pay for services that they do not directly benefit themselves. They do not think in the abstract for the most part, with the exception of some communitarian-minded individuals. What I mean by this is that government is charged with protecting 'rights'. All rights, for all citizens. Private entities are charged with protecting the rights of those who pay to have them protected, and only to the extent that they have paid. Nor do subscribers wish to pay for rights protected for non-subscribers.
Civil rights only exist and can only be enforced by governments. Socialist or capitalist-based, makes little difference in terms of their capability to protect civil rights. As individuals, we have only the rights we can defend ourselves. Businesses in a vacuum (no government) have the same limitations.
Socialism is an enhanced form of insurance. Insurance is defined as a risk pool which spreads the costs of some risk out over the pool of insured, who pay premiums for this service. The main difference is that government pays benefits to all who meet other criteria (such as citizenship), subscribers or not.
All government services are essentially socialist in nature; the real question of capitalism versus socialism concerns to what extent the government interferes in the market and what the actual services are that the government provides, versus those that are sold by private industry.
When most of us think of terrorism, we think of the stateless groups that use violence against larger societies, militaries, or governments to create fear (the 'terror' in terrorism) in order to force others to do what they want. There is another term for this, which is 'asymmetrical warfare'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Asymmetric_warfare_and_terrorism
Terrorists are capitalists. Their 'capital' may be religion instead of money or power, but it is still a return they seek, as any business would. Asymmetrical warfare is far closer to capitalism than anything other form of government.
Let me explain.
Terrorists must have funding. They do not obtain arms, manpower, material, logistics, and 'aid and comfort' in a vacuum. The people who support the terrorists are essentially hiring them to carry out their wishes. They are their subscribers, no different from people joining a benevolent society (except that it's not benevolent, of course) or a merchant's guard association.
Terrorists do not act on behalf of all, or on behalf of a government or a geographical location, or even a religion (though they may claim to). They will cheerfully kill their own countrymen, members of their own religion, or anyone who is not part of the paid subscribers and does not share their point of view. If non-subscribers benefit through their actions, that's a side-effect; it is certainly not their primary goal.
Terrorists must make a profit. That is, they must produce a return on the investment made by subscribers. Not in cash, but in the desired actions and outcomes.
Terrorists act in their own self-interest. They do not take civil rights or law into consideration when planning or executing their plans. They are purely mercenary in their concerns, and what they desire is all that matters to them.
Like a business, terrorists will frequently work together with other businesses (other terrorist groups) when it is mutually beneficial to them to do so; noted examples include the war materials that the IRA used to receive from Libya.
Terrorist groups will fold when they lose public support (Tamil Tigers), or when their objectives are achieved (Mao's Communist Revolution). Military defeat alone generally only succeeds in driving such groups underground; they come back (Chechnya).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Asymmetric_warfare_and_terrorism
Terrorists are capitalists. Their 'capital' may be religion instead of money or power, but it is still a return they seek, as any business would. Asymmetrical warfare is far closer to capitalism than anything other form of government.
Let me explain.
Terrorists must have funding. They do not obtain arms, manpower, material, logistics, and 'aid and comfort' in a vacuum. The people who support the terrorists are essentially hiring them to carry out their wishes. They are their subscribers, no different from people joining a benevolent society (except that it's not benevolent, of course) or a merchant's guard association.
Terrorists do not act on behalf of all, or on behalf of a government or a geographical location, or even a religion (though they may claim to). They will cheerfully kill their own countrymen, members of their own religion, or anyone who is not part of the paid subscribers and does not share their point of view. If non-subscribers benefit through their actions, that's a side-effect; it is certainly not their primary goal.
Terrorists must make a profit. That is, they must produce a return on the investment made by subscribers. Not in cash, but in the desired actions and outcomes.
Terrorists act in their own self-interest. They do not take civil rights or law into consideration when planning or executing their plans. They are purely mercenary in their concerns, and what they desire is all that matters to them.
Like a business, terrorists will frequently work together with other businesses (other terrorist groups) when it is mutually beneficial to them to do so; noted examples include the war materials that the IRA used to receive from Libya.
Terrorist groups will fold when they lose public support (Tamil Tigers), or when their objectives are achieved (Mao's Communist Revolution). Military defeat alone generally only succeeds in driving such groups underground; they come back (Chechnya).
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Although I would not call Terrorism Capitalism or a terrorist a capitalist by definition because I do not beleive they are I do see your point and I pretty much agreed (85%) up until this bit
Terrorist do not generally have public support they do have to have monetary support from individuals in a society but that is far from public support. Not all terrorsist are the same, not all terrorsts are from the middlw east and not all terrorists are from outside of the USA.
Anf Mao's communist revoltion was not technically terrorism it was war and they were guilty of some atrocities as were the Guo Ming Dong. Mao's terrorism was mostly perpitrated on his own people from 1966 to 1976 in teh cultural revolution
Terrorist do not generally have public support they do have to have monetary support from individuals in a society but that is far from public support. Not all terrorsist are the same, not all terrorsts are from the middlw east and not all terrorists are from outside of the USA.
Anf Mao's communist revoltion was not technically terrorism it was war and they were guilty of some atrocities as were the Guo Ming Dong. Mao's terrorism was mostly perpitrated on his own people from 1966 to 1976 in teh cultural revolution
Quite right, my bad. I should not have used the word 'public' to describe the support they receive. Shall we instead say the support of the groups that finance and otherwise agree with their goals? That's more in line with what I meant; support amongst their subscribers. I should have said it better, thanks for the correction.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
I came here from your link in the thread on missing missles. I am surprised no one else has commented on this. It is a long accepted fact that guerrillas cannot be effective without the support of the populace. Terrorism is a facet of guerrilla warfare. The populace is a part of the "public." The support does not have to be willing, only effective.
I think you probably meant popular and willing support of the civilian populace. That isn't necessary. It would be preferred by terrorists/guerrillas, but it isn't necessary. They will simply coerce the support if it isn't given willingly.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Nope I meant what I said and to be honest I do not agree because Guerrillas are not terrorists
Guerrillas are generally a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise,and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army,or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.
There is an agreed upon definition of Guerrillas and Guerrilla warfare but there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism but most do have in them parts like
Violent, Politically Motivated, designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target.
Terrorists do not generally have the support of the public but they do have and need support of members of the public and in some cases the public that is supporting them is entirely unaware they are supporting terrorism due to the construction (Org chart) of the typical terrorist organization. Think Domestic terrorism, do local terrorists have the support of the public of the USA?
Although Terrorist can use Guerrilla tactics and could possibly fall under the definition Guerrillas are not terrorists... they could actually be freedom fighters, it all depends on what side of the Guerrilla war you are on.
