[ExI] Libertarian-spotting field guide

[David Lubkin]

I wrote:

 > A casual dispassionate look suggests it's far more cost-effective than
 > open warfare, and far more humane (as measured in death or suffering
 > per military objective achieved).

Rafal replied:

>### Let's see: a world where assassination is easy, let's say each
>human can inflict a death wish on the mean people. You don't like the
>dictator? Off explodes his head. You think your boss is an asshole?
>Massive internal hemorrhage solves the problem. Your GF is a slut?
>....
>
>You notice the problem with your cost-benefit analysis?

What does this straw man have to do with assassination?

What you are describing is ordinary murder, which *is* easy. We *are*
in a world were each human can inflict a death wish on the mean
people, and plenty of bosses and GFs get killed. You don't need to
postulate a magic power.

I am considering situations where actors do initiate or respond with
mass violence to achieve objectives, situations like state-on-state
warfare. I'm not considering whether I agree with those objectives.
Just noting that it is more humane and efficient to achieve them
through assassination.

Compare sending special forces sniper teams to eliminate
military or civilian leaders, in a progressive campaign to weaken
your foe (and perhaps induce those who remain to give you what
you want, lest they be next) with the routinized slaughter of mass
warfare. Why is it ever preferable to bomb cities or even to send
a cadre of 19 year olds off to maim and kill other 19 year olds?

It seems to me the only time that conventional warfare is a preferable
method for achieving your goals is if one of your major goals requires
a mass effect, e.g., mass casualty -- killing the infidels or altering the
demographics of your own country -- or intimidating whole populations.

Parenthetically, while I'm thinking mostly about past state-on-state
warfare, it seems to me that a contracted private defense service
in an AnCap society -- concerned with costs, reputation, lawsuits
from third-party innocents, competitive pricing, return on investment,
etc. -- would naturally gravitate toward techniques that were as
pinpoint as they could make them.

And if they didn't, they'd be supplanted by nimble start-ups, as in
any other business.

Hell, imagine a defense service that not only has low rates but
advertises that their solutions are better for the environment.
A few guys with sniper rifles compared with the lumbering
environmental depletion with every tread of an M-1 tank. There's
even a perfect name for such a business: Greenpeace.


-- David.