den Otter wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> > From: John Clark <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
>
> > How can I guarantee that this voluntary army won't switch from being
> a
> > protector to being an oppressor? I can't. I can't give you an iron
> clad
> > guarantee that the US Army wont overthrow the government and set up
> a
> > military dictatorship either. They certainly have the means to do so
> if they
> > wished to. I don't think that's very likely to happen, but it's far
> more
> > likely than the sort of army I'm talking about doing it. The instant
> a
> > voluntary army starts acting in a totalitarian way, shut off it's
> money
> > supply and stop its cancerous growth in the bud. That is a powerful
> tool that
> > we don't have today, with the US. Army you are forced to keep
> sending it
> > money even if you hate what it's doing.
>
> If you cut off your private army's funds they'll do exactly what every
>
> other pissed-off private army did before them: they'll come and take
> it by force (perhaps shooting you, torching your home and raping
> your wife, kids and dog if they feel like it). An army that's intended
>
> to take on PPAs and even nation states shouldn't have much of a
> problem with coercing a couple of civilians.
Except that those civilians have contracts with PPAs, who are gonna:\
a) cut off contracts with the mercenary org b) hire other mercenary orgs to frag the berserkers c) notify all other PPA's that the mercenary org in question is personanon grata, and any organization that maintains ties with them is similarly gonna get fragged.
Since nobody is making any money off of this, all other parties are gonna pull out and let the PPA frag the jerks and string them up by the short ones. This tends to enforce the rule that NOBODY breaks a contract and gets away with it.
>
>
> Nope, I don't think there will be a libertarian society of any
> significance (in size etc.) before the Singularity, and after
> that the whole concept will most likely become obsolete,
> along with so many other things. C'est la vie...
>
But you don't know, do you?