/liberty/ - Liberty

Man, this picture is getting more mileage than OP's mother on a Friday night.

>>97834

> What is private defense

You could at least have attempted to read a thesis on topics such as these from a libertarian/ancap perspective rather than just being a plain retard. Then again,

>Communist

Why did I expect anything else?

>>97841

>stay in denial

I'm not in denial of anything, you on the other hand seem to have an odd fixation on the idea that a privatized army wouldn't be trained or equipped (Which is a rather odd notion), that's not even mentioning that the examples you listed are hardly indicative of the performances of private defense groups in any real light, merely just small armies that failed miserably (with both examples involving Marxist armies that either faced infighting or at worst, blatant antagonism).

Most militias that succeed well enough to be known and/or fight on the level of an army (ie: the IRA, Ulster Volunteers, the FARC etc) tend to succeed where they do because they do have a degree of training, and a code of regulation in regards to equipment and the tactics to be used against enemy forces. This odd implication you have that a private/voluntary defense force wouldn't have such provisions ready teeters on being nonsensical. Along with this thesis, there's also the odd implication that state armies are efficient, when they are hardly even competent to the degree that most people envision them to be, one look at how the Chinese army operates makes that fairly evident, a conversation with an American officer makes military inefficiency obvious, and a single study of the many, many, MANY blunders and blatant failures of the Russian army can be found to be both humorous and depressing.

This is ironically why private contractors were having a hay-day in Iraq, they were by-and-large better paid, better trained and more quick and efficient at achieving various goals that the pentagon wanted done (I should stress that this is not a justification of their actions or even their presence in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore so than it is a justification of the US military being in these areas, rather this is simply a demonstration that a private entity is more efficient at achieving goals).

Military structures, despite being put forth as an example of the efficiency of the state are (ironically enough) hardly the most efficient in the hands of the state, as is the same with any service that the state provides simply due to the fundamental nature of the state. It's inefficient, wasteful and has no incentive to be either of the aforementioned qualities due to the fact that it does not serve consumers as a market firm would, but rather it coerces them into paying for the state's services, which is a recipe for a long term disaster.

>>97835

>private """"""""""""defense"""""""""""""

>warlords of China get defeated by Mao

>>97934

>just use a bunch of ideas that have proven successful in the past, acknowledging that it'll never be perfect, but at least it'll be better equipped to respond to problems

>utopian

Ok bud.

>Theres a reason only weird teenagers are into it.

Teenagers want free shit. At least try to make your strawman make some kind of sense.

>>97936

not an argument

>>97943

>>97962

>fought in vain

>>97950

>FARC (Who eventually surrendered and failed to defeat the US / Colombia army) and the IRA (Who failed to even capture any significant territory and were relegated to assassination and bomb scares and were killed whenever directly confronted by the British army or police) proves that paid warlords and voluntary armies can defeat the mobilized military of a attacking / occupying power

Not only is everything you're saying a half-truth at best, but you've completely missed the point. The point isn't that the IRA or FARC are proof or that they're the model for a modern private army, but rather that they succeed where they do due to learning military structures, strategy and building an army accordingly, the implication that a private army (which has the key advantage of a profit-loss system which encourages efficiency) wouldn't take note of these things is asinine.

Also as one anon already mentioned; with FARC it was a cease-fire, as with the IRA, what you said is just blatantly false. With reference to both the war of independence in the early 1900s (which is the reason there's a split between North and mainland Ireland to begin with) as well as the troubles. While one could certainly argue that the IRA during the troubles wasn't exactly the most moral (especially the Provisional IRA), that wouldn't change the fact that they were exceedingly efficient at killing British personnel (certainly far more so than vice versa), and that British personnel would be hard pressed to venture into IRA heavy territory without good reason.

Mind you, I could have just as easily have referenced the Taliban and how they pretty much kicked the sorry shit out of the Soviets during the 1980s, but the point is in the fact that they could fight these armies in a competent manner, and they did so due to an understanding of tactics, equipment, etc. It's not that rag-tag militias are some sort of ideal, it's that depending on how well-organized and trained they are, they can actually put up fairly significant resistance. A private army even moreso due to economic incentives of being a market actor and not wasting resources.

>And yes large armies can have flaws and inefficiencies but can still in symmetrical combat easily steamroll non-state actors

It's not just that they have 'flaws' but rather that these flaws create massive inefficiencies that will inevitably hamper their ability to successfully initiate combat in any successful capacity. One can look at the massive amount of corruption in the Chinese army or their lack of worthwhile recruits and see massive problems with the organization in question. This would not and could not reflect well in an actual conflict.

>And the use of mercenaries in MidEast conflicts isn't just because their epic hardcore operators but because it creates a veil of plausible deniability between the US / NATO and its actions

That's just not actually correct.

>>97959

>avoids accusation, no denial

Should've just kept your mouth shut and ignored the post tbh.

>>98032

>opponent loses 99% of china

>they win