Re: educate a liberal
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
See this PDF
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting piece, but it seems to have a number of shortcomings...
It assumes that loss of property value is the primary reason to avert an attack -- a very simplistic assumption indeed that ignores a host of intangibles for which there is no hope of ever creating a market simply because they are mainly in the realm of the subconscious.
It also highlights the efficiencies ie. negation of transaction costs as being a key factor in making necessary defense spending achievable without the coercive powers of the state involved. IMO transaction inefficiencies are not a key component of military spending.
It also assumes that an organization such as an insurance company could singlehandedly organize a military when it sees a financial incentive to do so.
Same goes for a tycoon who buys up threatened property from risk-averse people who are happy to accept money in exchange for not having any place to live.
These last two make the whole piece look completely ludicrous and not much more than a mental masturbation exercise. Wait for the threat to impact market prices and THEN start recruiting and training military personnel, procuring and developing weaponry, gathering intelligence etc. I mean WTF has this guy been smoking!?
Or if the personnel and equipment were already there before the insurance company or tycoon saw the opportunity, who was controlling it and why!?
|