Feral Jundi

“Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.” -Thomas Jefferson

*****

    I am telling you, this is an interesting paper to read if you can find the time.  If you are a big Ayn Rand fan or a Mises Institute fan, then you will enjoy this.  Even if you aren’t into that stuff, I still think you will like this treatment of the subject.

    It is basically all about privateering and how it could be used for national defense. To basically use free market forces to defeat an enemy.  The reason why this is not being implemented, even though the mechanism is still in place in the constitution is that big government and it’s military is really not down with sharing the stage with private industry. Although if you look at the evolution of the industry the last eight years or so, you could make the case that we are sharing the stage.  Either way…..

     Larry has pointed out that private industry is certainly capable of doing extreme damage to an enemy, if given an opportunity. And as you can see with his final commentary on the subject, the professor thought it would have been a good tool to use against Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I wonder if we could have got him by now, if we would have set up a system like this to go after his merry gang of miscreants?-Matt

Edit: 11/30/2009- Mr. Lozzi has made a comment on the article Larry Sechrest wrote to correct the record.  You can find this quote in the comments section and I will post it here in the edit.

*****

From Edward Lozzi & Associates:

Although there was a group of Fortune 500 Companies who raised over a billion dollars to finance mercenaries to kill Bin Laden within weeks after 911, and 2 years before Bush sent in U.S. troops, something needs to be made clear to your readers. The article from Seacrest in 2001( repeted on your site) implies that myself and my company raised these funds. U.S. News & World Report broke the story. But it is not the case that we raides-or help raise the funds. In fact our public relations firm was only brought in to consult on spreading the quest and to liason with the media- we were retained by the cooperating Fortune 500 companies who remained secret fearing more planes crashing into their corporate offices in New York and Los Angeles. There was intent fear of this happening for almost a year. Thank you.

Edward Lozzi, President Edward Lozzi & Associates Beverly Hills

——————————————————————

Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit

September 1, 2001

Larry J. Sechrest

Abstract: The claim that all legitimate defense functions can and must be privately supplied flies in the face of certain economic doctrines that are almost universally accepted. Almost all economists declare that national defense is a “public good” that will be provided in sub-optimal quantities—or not provided at all—by private, profit-seeking firms. The purpose of this paper is to challenge just that sort of statement. The attack on national defense as a public good which must be provided by the state will be two-pronged. One part, the briefer of the two, will raise theoretical questions about public goods in general and national defense in particular. The second part will be devoted to a detailed survey of privateering, a form of naval warfare conducted by privately-owned ships which lasted from the twelfth century to the nineteenth century. What privateers were, how they operated, the legal customs that grew up around them, how effective they were, how profitable they were, and why they disappeared will all be addressed. The common employment of privateers during wartime will be offered as empirical evidence that defense need not be monopolized by the state.

 Download PDF File of the Full Paper

Larry J. Sechrest is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and a professor of economics at Sul Ross State University. (Larry also passed away in 2008)

—————————————————————–

Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden

September 30, 2001

Larry J. Sechrest

In the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, a group of American businessmen has decided to enlist the profit motive to bring the perpetrators to justice. Headed by Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, California, the group intends to offer a bounty of $1 billion—that’s billion with a “b”—to any private citizens who will capture Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive.Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried.

Recall Ross Perot’s successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979.We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bail-jumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide.Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called “privateers,” played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists’ cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy.During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wronged by a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers’ nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers’ bond to the owners of the seized shipIf the seizure was just, the ship and cargo were sold at auction, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the privateer’s owners and crew. The crews were volunteers who shared in the profits, and the investors viewed the venture as remunerative—albeit risky.Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers.During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689-1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd’s of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, “Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.”If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative — private ships of war.In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and “every terrorist group with a global reach.” The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.Let’s bring back the spirit of the privateers. By letting profits and justice once more go hand-in-hand, victims and their champions can have an abundance of both, rather than a paucity of either.

Story here.