Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Military In An Objectivist/capitalist System

Rate this topic


Lancifer

Recommended Posts

I was curious about what other people thought the role and structure of the military would be under an Objectivist/Capitalist system. I'm new to Objectivism and honestly haven't given the idea much thought. I would appreciate any one's feed back in this area. As a member of the US Air Force, I'm particularly interested in everyone's views on this subject.

I can't take full credit for the thread. Smathy actually inspired me to start this one.

Edited by Lancifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the role and structure of the military ...

The primary role would be to protect the country. This means the protection of life and property. Specifically, this would not exclude so-called "pre-emptive" action.

There are "special cases": protection of foreign property owned by citizens, and protection of citizens when they are abroad. The military has a certain role to play there too.

I don't know enough about the structure, to be able to comment. At the broadest level, the military would be under civilian control, as it is in the U.S. As a check-and-balance issue, I would like to see the military generally barred from operations against its own citizens, as I believe it is in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It dawned on me that I didn't clarify what I wanted to know very well. I'm not so curious as the role of the military, I wanted to know what people thought the way the military would fulfill the role would be. Obviously, the role would not change very much, but the policies for the military becoming involved in foreign affairs would, I imagine.

As far as structure is concerned, where would the military recieve it's funding from? Would the branches remain seperate? With technologies becoming more and more privatized, how would the military maintain a superior force compared to other nations?

I'm not looking for an ultimate Objectivist answer, I'm just curious about every one's opinion on the subject.

Edited by Lancifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you asking that objectivist philosohpy be applied to our foreign policy?

Like is it O.K. that we occupy around 130 countries?

We fund governments and their militaries despite their completely backwards political systems?

We must not intertwine ourselves in foreign affairs. I too believe the primary role of the government is to protect the property and life of its citizens. However, our current foreign policy is not representative of this. Grenada is a good example.

“Capitalism would not collapse if Grenada remained revolutionary. And Reagan was right, it wasn't a matter of direct resources that you needed from that country. He said, "Nutmeg is not the question." I mean, that was Grenada's biggest export, we could get perfectly good nutmeg from Africa, you don't need Grenada's nutmeg. So why did they invade Grenada? They invaded Grenada because they were serving notice to the people of the Caribbean, and to the people of Latin America, and to the people of the world, that you cannot drop out of your client-state free-market system. That if you tried to take an independent source, and that if you use YOUR land, YOUR labor, YOUR resources, and YOUR capital, and YOUR markets in a different way, in a collectivist way, if you use them to benefit the needs of your people, rather than to be milked like a cow for foreign investors, if you do that, this is what's going to happen to you.”

Now I am not saying we should be communist. Communism doesn't work. It won't work. Communism would have failed. Like it has in China. Like it did in the Soviet Union. Do we have the right to tell another group of people how to run their political system? If they serve no economic or military threat to us? Does meerly an economic threat serve as a reason to invade another country to overthrow their government? Would the Iraqi war been justified If Bush stated that inorder to repair our economy we needed to lower the price of oil... and this was the best way. Perhaps. Is an economic threat greater than that of a political/religious doctrine? Perhaps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone familiar with the views of Mike Palmer? Link Out

If it could be assumed that there would be little American casualties, should America decide to invade places like Cuba and convert them to a very free market economy? It would certainly be an incredible boon to the wealth and prosperity of the free world. Looking at Japan after they were liberalized and Americanized, we can see they greatly influenced the wealth of the world by automobile and computerchip manufacturing. Cuba could be the same--an island country with a strong trading relationship to the coastal states.

Some of the governments in Africa would be easy to take down, and the impoverished people would like the result of capitalism. Much of African land is so fertile that you can drop a handful of seeds and wheat will grow up easily--yet the food is not grown. So much of Africa could be a productive breadbasket, it is sad to see it go to waste.

So when I say should America free these countries, I am already sure that those states have no rights. What I am unsure of is whether we should risk lives of actual innocent civilians who genuinely want to live in freedom (as opposed to most who are usually either complacent or supportive of their dictatorships). I am sure that at this point, zero American battle casualties from enemy fire could be achieved against some places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kilegoretrout and ex-banana eater ... you seem to be saying that it's morally justified to invade another country that is acting immorally and against it's own rational self-interest. I disagree with this. We should have a military solely to protect our own right to freedom from foreign invasion or attack. It is immoral to initiate the use of physical force, whatever the case, according to Ayn Rand. (Rand's statement doesn't account for the possibility of pre-emptive action, but pre-emptive action would clearly be justified if a nation was about to be attacked by another.)

Lancifer--I think in an Objectivist nation, the military would do exactly what softwareNerd said. It's foreign policy objectives would be to ensure the rights of its citizens at home and abroad are upheld. Although remember, when a citizen of one nation enters another, he is agreeing in doing so to uphold the laws of that country.

As to the structure of the military... I think perhaps hiring national defense out to private corporations could perhaps be done practically, but this is a difficult topic that would deserve a new thread. The different branches clearly need to be able to work seemlessly to respond to threats, however.

Edited by valjean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

We must not intertwine ourselves in foreign affairs.

<snip>

Do we have the right to tell another group of people how to run their political system? <snip>

kilgoretrout,

I have never met you before, but the above quote leads me to believe that you are a libertarian. Frankly, I don't care if you advocate a "non-interventionist" foreign policy, but I find it extremely dishonest and insulting that you chose to regurgitate it in a thread asking for the Objectivist viewpoint.

To the maker of this thread, I recommend you do two things:

(1) Read Leonard Peikoff's article End States Who Sponsor Terrorism. Also, read the various Op-Eds on foreign policy from the Ayn Rand Institute. Here is a direct link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag..._foreign_policy

(2) Buy The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest by Peter Schwartz at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. You can find that and other Objectivist works on foreign policy and terrorism by following this link: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/products.asp?dept=48

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must not intertwine ourselves in foreign affairs. 

...

Would the Iraqi war been justified If Bush stated that inorder to repair our economy we needed to lower the price of oil... and this was the best way.  Perhaps.

Oakes's post made me look at your post more carefully, kilgoretrout. What i've quoted seems to be a logical conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the structure of the military... I think perhaps hiring national defense out to private corporations could perhaps be done practically, but this is a difficult topic that would deserve a new thread.  The different branches clearly need to be able to work seemlessly to respond to threats, however.

Actually, I was hoping that some one would bring this up. Privatizing the military seems like it would be a rather risky concept for national defense, in the sense that it would have potential to become very mercenary. An army for hire could just as easily work against the nation, as for it. This is a little off from the thread, but the idea intrigues me.

I haven't done a particularly good job explaining the reasons I started the thread. I'm still new to this. I was hoping for an open discussion on ideas for the military in an Objectivist society, the problems that could come from it being privatized and solutions for those problems. I think that there will be a lot of different input from individuals on the forum, and I was curious about peoples reaction to the concept. I hope this clarifies it a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was hoping that some one would bring this up. Privatizing the military seems like it would be a rather risky concept for national defense, in the sense that it would have potential to become very mercenary. An army for hire could just as easily work against the nation, as for it. This is a little off from the thread, but the idea intrigues me.

I'm not sure what valjean meant by "hiring national defense out to private corporations," but Objectivism is opposed to any form of anarchism. The government may contract corporations to provide for the military - it does that now, like when it contracts Lockheed Martin to build F-22s. But a completely privatized military brings up the very problems you mentioned. Same goes for private police and courts.

I haven't done a particularly good job explaining the reasons I started the thread. I'm still new to this.  I was hoping for an open discussion on ideas for the military in an Objectivist society, the problems that could come from it being privatized and solutions for those problems. I think that there will be a lot of different input from individuals on the forum, and I was curious about peoples reaction to the concept. I hope this clarifies it a little more.

Objectivism, because it is a philosophy, only outlines broad ethical principles for how a military should be run (as you can see in the links I gave you). Specifics, such as whether or not we should do away with different branches, belongs to military experts.

But if you want me to throw in my $.02, I am a follower of John Boyd when it comes to military strategy/technology. He advocated lightness and agility on every level, from military hardware all the way to force structure. The force structure idea to me was most interesting, because it consisted of eliminating the Army/Navy/AF/MC distinction in favor of an "Evolutionary Force," which I explain in greater detail here (halfway down that post).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Oakes. Those are the types of responses I was looking for. But, again. I'm not looking for the Objectivist stance. I was looking for more personal opinion.

Well, if you ask me whether Hiroshima was moral, or how I think the military should be funded, those are philosophical questions, and as an Objectivist, I take the Objectivist stance on them (Hiroshima was moral; the military should be funded from voluntary sources). On technical issues like military strategy, Objectivism has no stance, so that last paragraph of my post was personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what valjean meant by "hiring national defense out to private corporations," but Objectivism is opposed to any form of anarchism. The government may contract corporations to provide for the military - it does that now, like when it contracts Lockheed Martin to build F-22s. But a completely privatized military brings up the very problems you mentioned. Same goes for private police and courts.

I am totally in agreement with you Oakes. The military (and police and courts) can never be completely privatized. However, one reason we have excellent military equipment is becuase (as you know) the corporations that build the best equipment get the contracts, and there is competition. The same could apply to other fields of military operations.

Corporations could be hired for surveillance work. They could hire, train, pay, and deploy troops. This would make the military more efficient and cost effective; we'd end up paying less, and troops would get paid more. This would have to be very carefully managed. The government could give contracts to a very limited number of very large corporations. To prevent the military-industrial complex from pushing us into war, the corporations would get paid based on what services they could render, regardless of whether they're rendered or not; they'd have to render these services well to keep their contracts and keep making money.

The likelyhood of a military corporation trying to take control of the country is very slim. If a nation became "Objectivist" enough in its thinking to implement this system, the troops and citizens would be intelligent enough that nobody would go along with a military coup at all. Corporate leaders and would never initiate such a thing anyway.

Like Oakes said, this is outside the realm of Objectivist philosophy; it is personal opinion and speculation. Also Oakes I like your advocacy of lightness and agility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...