From - Thu Jun 04 23:00:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: from smtp28.bellglobal.com by l.pop50.bellglobal.com (PMDF V5.1-10 #26718) with ESMTP id <0EU2003CU51NTL@l.pop50.bellglobal.com> for b1swpm73@pop50.bellglobal.com; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iconmail.bellatlantic.net (iconmail.bellatlantic.net [199.173.162.30]) by smtp28.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA05921 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shawmag.com (client-124-235.bellatlantic.net [151.198.124.235]) by iconmail.bellatlantic.net (IConNet Sendmail) with SMTP id WAA10359 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:43:14 -0500 From: Joshua Galun Subject: Frazier To: Dylan Reid Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: YAM 2.0.0 Preview4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck - http://www.yam.ch Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="BOUNDARY.40632192.1" X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 6519 Warning: This is a message in MIME format. Your mail reader does not support MIME. Some parts of this message will be readable as plain text. To see the rest, you will need to upgrade your mail reader. --BOUNDARY.40632192.1 Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dylan, Here is the edited version of the Frazier piece. I made armed forces singular (important change, though not so important, if you know what I mean), and I changed one paragraph in particular, but otherwise it's the same. Please read over it and tell me if you like the changes. I think that they are good but I definitely want your input on this one. Sincerely, Joshua Galun -- jgalun@shawmag.com http://www.shawmag.com --BOUNDARY.40632192.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="01.text" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="01.text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable = Privatize the Army by S.O. Farr-Right In the past few years, the broom of deregulation has finally begun to swe= ep away the bloated mass of government activity that has been clogging the free m= arket. = So far, however, this new wave has bypassed the largest and most expensiv= e single item of government expenditure: the armed forces. The armed forc= es is a classic bureaucratic monopoly, a huge organization answerable only to its= elf, and it is crying out for reform.It exhibits the usual symptoms of a gover= nmental monopoly: a bloated and complex hierarchy, an unwillingness to downsize = in response to a reduction in demand, excessive employee benefits, and a lac= k of fiscal control, as demonstrated by the excessive prices paid for equipmen= t. = Only the discipline of the market can cure these flaws. The armed forces= must be privatized. The idea is not as radical as it might first appear to our twentieth cent= ury outlook. Throughout history, nations have provided for their defense thr= ough independent military contractors (sometimes referred to as "mercenaries")= =2E = These freelance soldiers, whose livelihoods (and lives) depended on their= military prowess, were cost-effective suppliers of military services for centuries. After all, the term "freelance" itself was coined to refer to= the independent knights (free lances) who offered their contracts to the high= est bidder. It was only with the rise of the over-taxed bureaucratic state i= n the eighteenth century that this efficient, market-oriented system of militar= y supply was discarded completely. A privatized armed forces would offer many benefits to the taxpayer.Under= the pressure of making the lowest bid for military contracts, individual unit= s would be forced to find efficiencies in their operations.Unneeded staff would b= e laid off, and wages and benefits would be kept in line. Meanwhile, units woul= d have a strong incentive to make sure that equipment suppliers were themselves = as efficient as possible. Overpriced procurement would become a thing of th= e past, as independent military units scrutinized equipment prices and played sup= pliers against each other. Not only would taxpayers save billions of dollars th= rough competitive bidding, but they would get a more efficient army in return. = Finally, outsourcing military services would give the nation the flexibil= ity to adapt the amount of military services it purchased according to demand. = During peacetime, contracts could be cut back, while they would be expanded duri= ng times of tension or war. No longer would the nation have to maintain a h= uge army during periods when there is little demand for military services. The armed forces are a natural fit for the free market. After all, what = could be more competitive than warfare? The incentive to keep a unit at its ma= ximum efficiency, the difference between life and death, is almost as effective= as the monetary incentives of the business world, and the winners and losers in = warfare become apparent much more rapidly than in business, as inefficient compet= itors are destroyed and the most efficient seize ever more territory. In many = ways, such a system is a much more satisfactory arbiter of effectiveness than s= hare price, which can be subject to manipulation. The added benefit to the ta= xpayer is that if a unit that has been contracted to supply military services is= ineffective, it will not have to be paid, as most of its individual milit= ary service providers ("soldiers") will have been killed or captured, while a= ny who survive will be subject to financial penalties for not fulfilling the vic= tory clause of their contracts. Just imagine if the CEO of Pepsi could be cap= tured and killed by Coke if he lost market share, and the workability of this s= ystem should be obvious. Whiny bureaucracy-loving liberals may complain that a privatized army cou= ld use its power to take over the government. It is true that military contract= ors have occasionally taken this course of action in the past.However, the mi= stake has always been in making a monopolistic contract, where defense is suppl= ied by a single party. The solution can be easily implemented simply by contrac= ting many different units to provide different elements of military service. = That way, if one independent military contractor tries to take over the nation= , it will be quickly countered by its market competitors, who will not want to= see their contracts in the hands of a partial regime. Such a system would be= far safer than leaving military affairs in the hands of a government bureaucr= acy. = In recent decades, there have been many examples of government-"controlle= d" militaries leading coups and setting up brutal dictatorships. This dange= r would be eliminated by ensuring a free, competitive market in military services= =2E It is time that the last bastion of bloated bureaucratic monopoly was sub= jected to the rigors of the free market. The armed forces must be privatized. Taxpayers deserve a bigger bang for their buck. [http://www3.sympatico.ca/dylan.reid/frazier/] S.O. Farr-Wright is the Di= rector of a radical think-tank dedicated to pursuing the fundamental principles = of the free market to their absolute limits. < Converted by HTMLess v2.5 by Troglobyte/Darkness. Only Amiga... >= --BOUNDARY.40632192.1--
Make your own free website on Tripod.com