We've tried that, with diminishing returns. Prove to me that more of the same will suddenly give us more accountability.

Politicians always say "we just didn't have enough money, give us more". However the definition of (institutional) insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result.

I am not talking about replacing the military with the free market. I am talking about shrinking it. Yes using democratic means. But good luck with that!

More people should read Smedley Butler.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

I know about Smedley Butler. I've also read Noam Chomsky, and I share his position that a democratic institution, for all of its many faults, is always preferable to a tyrannical, autocratic or authoritarian one.

To read Noam Chomsky, one wonders if that's his position, as he defends communist autocratic regimes far more than capitalist democracies like the USA. Part of his shtick is to criticize his home country the most. But compare his treatment of eg US in Vietnam vs Cambodian genocide. Or the amount of criticism he levels at the USA's activities abroad vs the same amount of the KGB.

In the Israel-Palestine situation he criticizes Democratic Israel far more than, say the Kingdom of Jordan. He criticizes Likud more than the PLO, and writes about the USA's imperialism in supporting a democratic state in the Middle East, while ignoring that during the 50s and 60s the KGB trained the PLO as part of explicit support to undermine Western-backed countries.

I correspond with Chomsky from time to time, and I think he is set in his ways. But I hardly think he would say our democracy has a good track record. You're thinking of Michio Kaku :)

You're mixing topics up in order to muddy the discussion. There's a conversation about power, amplification, human rights, etc at play in both Chomsky's positions and valid criticisms of his positions.

But that doesn't address what we're discussing, it distracts from it.

>It is not an argument for a radical experiment with the free market and military force.

Historically the concept of private fighting forces is not in any way radical.

Just because it exists historically doesn't mean that it's not a radical idea. Although, if you want historical perspective on how terrible of an idea it is, Machiavelli didn't mince words.

I repeat, then, that of all kinds of troops, auxiliaries are the most dangerous; for the prince or republic that calls them to their assistance has no control or authority whatever over them, as that remains entirely with him who sends them. ... A prince or republic, then, should adopt any other course rather than bring auxiliaries into their state for its defence, especially when their reliance is wholly upon them; for any treaty or convention with the enemy, however hard the conditions, will be less hard to bear than the danger from auxiliaries. ... And in truth no more favourable opportunity could be presented to an ambitious prince or republic for seizing a city or province, than to be asked to send troops there to assist in its defence. And therefore any one whose ambition so far misleads him as to call in strangers to aid in his defence, or in an attack upon others, seeks to acquire that which he will not be able to hold, and which after acquiring will be easily taken from him.

And I think one of the reasons Britain lost control of the USA is the king hired a mercenary army.