Saturday, July 27, 2013

Bihar Mid-Day Meal Tragedy

In India, few days back in Chappara village of Bihar 23 children died after eating poisonous mid-day meal food in their government primary school. The Indian government launched the Mid-Day Meal scheme in 1995 (the National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (NP-NSPE)) and one of the stated objectives of this scheme is to, improving nutritional levels among children! What a wonderful way of improving nutritional levels of children. Only government officials have the chutzpa to call their scheme a nutrition scheme which feeds poison to children and kills them. This incident got lot of reporting and attention simply because of the large number of deaths. Government primary schools everyday provide such stale and spoiled food to children in mid-day meals. I am myself a victim of this scheme so I know it very well (I was a Surat municipal school board student up to standard 3, and I have myself seen lizards and cockroaches in my mid-day meal). During my M.Phil. research I saw the same corruption in mid-day meal scheme of Bharuch municipality elementary schools in Gujarat (see my 2008 research paper). 

Notwithstanding the sad death of innocent 23 children, immediately after this tragedy, government officials started the blame game e.g., the Bihar government chief minister Nitish Kuman suspected some kind of conspiracy in these killings, and the opposition party BJP started blaming the ruling UPA government. These political gimmicks were well expected from the State, which is nothing but, as Murray Rothbard said, a gang of criminals, writ large.

What is more tragic, but again totally expected for those who understand the true nature of the State, is the response of State bureaucrats in the aftermath of this event. First, after killing 23 innocent children, these government schools instead of getting shut down, got an increased budget for this very same lethal mid-day meal scheme's efficient [sic] implementation in future (see here)! Second, there was already one government panel watching over the implementation of this scheme before this tragedy took place, but as if this panel was not enough for quality monitoring, they created another panel - with 20 new bureaucRats - above the existing panel! Third, instead of indicting the owner of these government schools where the mid-day meal scheme was being implemented i.e., the whole government apparatus, the government is blaming and indicting the principal of Chappara village school for this mishap! In fact, the criminal Union HRD minister, Pallam Raju, is calling for a collective responsibility, as if we all are responsible for this crime!!! All these responses are typical of the State and its bureaucracies. These thugs are all career politicians and bureaucrats. As the public choice school economics demonstrates, they are as selfish as any other individual in his private sphere. They are only interested in securing their political and bureaucratic careers no matter how many children/men/women dies because of their criminal actions. Thomas DiLorenzo very aptly said, in government, failure is success. That’s what I call DiLorenzo’s First Law of Government. When the welfare state bureaucracy fails to reduce poverty, it is rewarded with more tax dollars and more responsibilities. When the government schools fail to educate children, they are rewarded with more tax dollars and more power to meddle in education (Organized Crime, p. 9, emphasize added). And, DiLorenzo’s Second Law of Government is that politicians will rarely, if ever, assume responsibility for any of the problems that they cause with bad policies. No one group in society is more irresponsible than politicians (Organized Crime, p. 9). The mid-day meal disaster in Bihar is the clear cut exhibition of DiLorenzo's above cited two laws of government. 

On the other side, if this tragedy took place in a private school, government would've surely closed down that school. People must have surely blamed the free market capitalist system; they would've surely showed their hatred for the 'greedy capitalist pig educators' who run their schools only for profit. Also, if we were living in a purely free market private law society, any such school who kills its own students would've immediately gone out of business, and its owners must have faced very heavy legal punishments. But the State and its government schools are different. They don't have to worry about making any profit or staying in business because they receive their funding by looting the poor tax payers. So, no matter how many children will get killed in public schools, they will never shut down or the government will never go out of education business like in the private market.      

What is the Solution?
The only way in which we can stop such incidents from happening in future or at least  make sure that if such incidents happen (they invariably will happen even in the private market because human beings are not perfect) the culprits get punished for their crime, is by totally dismantling the public school system with all its phony schemes, and replacing it with a fully privatized education system. Notwithstanding the phony public good and externality arguments of the mainstream economists, education is just like any other economic good which market produces (see this). It can be very efficiently provided by the free market capitalist system. Free market education has all in-built mechanisms of stopping these kinds of incidents from taking place.  The profit and loss system of free market will ensure that all private schools provide best quality services to their students at the lowest possible prices. If some entrepreneur fails in satisfying the most urgent needs of his customers, then he will surely make losses and go out of business. This way all the inefficient schools will be weeded out of the market leaving behind only the best ones. Myriad of private schools means more choices for students; it means lower prices and best quality education. Public schools force a uniform curriculum on its students who are all different individuals. Private schools won't do any such thing. In private schools, the curriculum will be customized to cater all kinds of parent and student needs. And, if some parents are not satisfied with the given choice of private schools, then, they will be free to homeschool their children, which is either impossible or very difficult in the present system of government monopoly schooling.  

The only problem which our societies face right now is the belief or opinion of most people, that only government can provide education. This myth of public education is manufactured by the court intellectuals - public school teachers, university professors etc. - to keep the slave population in their slavery forever. As H L. Mencken said, The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else. As long as this erroneous assumption infects public mind, incidents like Chappara will keep on happening. The day public will realize this public education con, their mind will again be free, and that will be the end of the criminal public schooling system.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Privatizing Indian Roads and Highways

Road Accidents in India
According to the available data on road accident deaths, India is on number one spot in the world. Surely this is no reason for celebration of being number one in terms of dead people on Indian roads. Every year more than 1 lakh people die on Indian roads and highways e.g., in 2011, according to the report of Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India (see here), there were total 4.98 lakh road accidents out of which 1.42 lakh were fatal. This surely is a huge waste of human lives; a big tragedy about which no one is talking or seriously thinking. Even the most contentious issue of Kashmir, where in two decades of freedom fight 47,000 lives were lost, pale in comparison to lakhs of annual accident deaths on public roads. Newspaper and mainstream media TV channels scream on top of their voice for non-existent threats like Bird or Swine Flu, which kills few hundred people every year, but they remain silent on the ever so present danger of road accident deaths where lakhs of people lose their lives every year.   

We must break this silence, and seriously discuss the issue of road accident deaths if we want to save lakhs of those lives which are lost every year on Indian roads. We must ask the following questions to ourselves: Why these road accidents are taking place? What is the root cause of these deaths? How to stop or lessen these road accident deaths? These are some of the most important questions which I am asking and briefly answering in this short article (those who are interested in a detailed analysis of these questions should read the pioneering work of Dr. Walter Block, Privatizing Roads and Highways).    

Proximate Causes
The social science literature on road safety mainly focuses on three causes of road accident: 1) the driver (drunken driving), 2) road (bad roads) or weather condition, and 3) the vehicle (defective cars and two wheelers etc.) For example, the above cited government report says that, "The analysis of road accidents in terms of causal factors reveals that drivers’ fault is the single most important factor responsible for accidents, fatalities and injuries. Drivers’ fault accounted for 77.5 per cent (3,85,806 accidents) of total accidents; 72.0 per cent (1,02,620) of the total number of persons killed and 78.2 per cent (3,99,911) of the total number of persons injured in road accidents during 2011 (Chart 22). The fault of the cyclists and that of the pedestrians appears to be of marginal consequence accounting for a share of 1.3 per cent and 2.4 per cent, respectively, in road accidents during 2011. Cyclists and pedestrians were responsible for about 1.8 per cent and 3.1 per cent, respectively, of total number of persons killed in road accidents. Defects in the motor vehicles caused 1.6 per cent of road accidents and 2.1 per cent of fatalities in road accidents." (p. 22) (emphasize mine).

Causes of Road Accidents in India, 2011 (Government Report)
But, to blame drivers, cyclists and pedestrians for these accidents is to point out only the proximate causes. Government of course is not going to blame itself for these deaths. They will always find scapegoats in the form of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. To find the ultimate cause we have to dig deeper and go to the root of this problem. We now see what is the ultimate root cause of these accidents and deaths.

The Ultimate Root Cause
Just think carefully for a while. Suppose you go to a private restaurant to eat your dinner, and you get sick and die! Would your relatives sue the waiter who served you the stale food or the cook who prepared that food for compensation and punishment? Or would they sue the restaurent's management and, most importantly, its owner? Of course they will sue the owner.

If we clearly see the restaurant owner as the main culprit in the above example, then, why we don't indict the government and its officials, who are the owners and managers of those public roads, for the similar case of death on public roads? The way in which the restaurant owner is responsible for the negligience of his customer's death, government officials are also responsible for the numerous road accident deaths. If there is a private market in the roads and highway production, then, any entrepreneur on whose road every year 1.42 lakh people are getting killed will surely go out of business. No motorist, bicyclist or pedestrian will use his road because of these fatalities. His company will make losses quickly and forced either to improve the driving safety on its roads or go out of business. His road company will surely be taken over by a more efficient company once his business go bust. This beautiful market process will efficiently weed out the bad road companies ensuring maximum road safety.

But the market process system of profit and loss is dysfunctional on government roads because government doesn't work on the principles of free market. Quite the contrary. Government means violation of free market principles. Lakhs of people every year are killed on government roads, but it never goes out of business because it doesn't rely on voluntary purchases of its customers. Government doesn't care whether buyers are patronizing its roads or not because it has the monopoly over roads and highway production. There are no other competitors to worry about. Those people who drive on public roads don't have any other choices. They are not customers of government roads, but victims! Government relies on coercive taxation for financing [sic] its road and highway operations. They can easily fund their losses by forcefully taxing more its productive populace. What most that can happen is, that some drama and commotion will take place in parliament, some phony road safety bill will be passed, may be some road and highway construction or safety function will be outsourced to some politically well connected private company, and that's it. No matter what happens, public roads will never be fully privatized. The government will never go out of business like private firms.  

The Remedy
If government ownership of roads and highways is the root cause of accident deaths, and it IS, then, the only way in which we can eliminate or lessen these deaths is by privatizing these roads and highways. Only when the free market capitalist system is allowed to produce roads and highways, we can finally see a drastic reduction in the number of accidents and fatalities. How the private market companies will exactly run and manage roads, highways, byways, streets, footpaths etc., is an entrepreneurial question, and not an economic one. The way in which market produces toothbrushes, shoes, pencils etc., without any big problem, it will also produce roads, highways, streets etc. The market process system of profit and loss will make sure, that only those companies will survive in the market who can provide best quality roads at the cheapest possible prices to their customers. All the inefficient companies will go out of business. There will be variety of different roads for myriad of different types of customers. Some companies will provide roads only for those who want to enjoy the thrill of speed whereas others will make sure that customers drive at safe speeds. Drunk drivers, careless pedestrians or cyclists will simply be not allowed to venture on these private roads by their owners. Drunk drivers are not ultimately responsible for fatalities, but the government who allows these drivers to drive on their roads. The price system will make sure that roads are provided where they are needed the most. 

Private road market will also solve the problem of road traffic congestion. Government owners of today's public roads actually create more congestion by giving low cost passes to daily commuters when exactly opposite pricing policy is required. Peak load traffic requires pick load higher prices. Private companies will let the demand and supply forces determine the price of road usage. Increasing competition in the road market will reduce the prices of road usage and ensure highest quality also. Roads with pot holes and other bad conditions will become a thing of the past. 

I know there are many other issues re privatization of roads and highways which I have not discussed here, but then the versatile private market is capable of solving almost any problem. What we need today is just a change in the public opinion in favor of privatization of roads and highways. The idea that only government can produce roads is totally wrong. The day people will understand the fact that roads and highways are just like any other commodity produced by the market, the way for real privatization will be clear. Until then, sadly, lakhs of people will continue to die on Indian roads every year.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Is There Any Need For The National Armies?

Beginning with this article on the question of whether we need national armies and its national defense or not, I am going to explore the world of private alternatives of the so-called public goods like national defense, roads and highways, education, health etc., etc. Some of my readers are demanding that with the criticism of the present Statist system, I also discuss its (private) alternatives. I am already discussing the alternative system of free market capitalism in most of my posts, and with these series of small articles, I will expand the discussion to other more difficult areas. Difficult because most people have never seen a free market private sector working in these areas, and their narrow perspective and imagination holds them back from envisioning such system today. In the outset of this writing, let me tell you all, that not only the private alternatives of all the economic goods which the government provides [sic] are available, but they are, as expected, much more efficient and, above all, moral. I will also discuss some real life examples of present day Anarchic societies. Many people want to know whether such societies can function properly. People falsely believe that Anarchy means chaos! That in the absence of any central government, our societies will fall apart; they will become the victims of Hobbesian myth of a nasty, brutish and short life! Nothing can be more further from the Truth. Anarchy only means, the absence of any centralized ruler (Lack of centralized authority,  origin: mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler', Oxford Dictionary of Politics). 

I just finished reading a very important book on the myth of national defense, which was edited by the present dean of Austrian school of economics, Prof. Hans Hermann Hoppe. In the next few paragraphs I will briefly present the case for a privatized system of defense. It is impossible to know in advance how a free market defense system will actually work, but we can surely look into the past and present, where many private firms provided and still provide defense services, to know how such system will likely function in future. As Prof. Walter Block said, and I paraphrase, the question of how the private market in a present public good sector will work is an entrepreneurial question, and not theoretical one. In any case, as I said, based on past and present experience we surely can imagine such a system.

Before we discuss private alternatives of defense, first it is important to bust the myth of national defense. The theoretical base on which the whole idea of only government can provide defense services via its national armies rests is totally hollow when we logically scrutinize it. Once we dismantle the theoretical case for a national defense, it is easy to see and appreciate its private alternatives.

Is national defense a public or a private good?
The major reasons which mainstream economists give to make the case for the state provided national defense are that of the problem of 'externality' and the 'public good argument'. National defense provision involves many positive externalities, and because of these externalities market will fail in providing adequate amount of defense to citizens. According to their thesis, only State can provide national defense because of this alleged market failure. The State must take the responsibility of providing national defense. They also argue, that national defense is a public good, which a system of free market can not provide. The Statist people say, that because of these two problems, the free market will not be able to produce defense good for the citizens, and so, to protect the citizens from aggression, government must take charge of national defense services. And above all, because citizens will not pay voluntarily for their own defense needs, government must force them, mainly the tax payers, to pay for this security of their life, liberty and property!

Before we go on and expose both the externality and public good arguments, first let us try and see the sheer lunacy of this argument of forcing citizens to pay for their own defense! As we all know, government tax us to make provision of defense (protection) of our life, liberty and property not only from the foreign enemies, but also from the domestic threats. Now, taxation is nothing but a day light robbery; it is a theft of our life, liberty and property. If that is the case, and it is THE case, then, how a government who first robs us of our life, liberty and property can protect that very same life, liberty and property later on? As Prof. Hans Hermann Hoppe says, an expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. When the Statist people tell us, that the government needs to rob us first to later protect us from robbery, they are logically contradicting themselves. They are fooling everyone. Those people who believe in such baloney are deceiving themselves.

Not only the government cannot protect us from foreign and domestic enemies via their tax theft funded national armies (and police force), but the whole notion of national defense itself is bogus to begin with. There is no such collective good called national defense. The collective thinking hides important facts about the security good. Defense, security etc., are just another type of commodities in the free market whose demand varies from customer to customer. The demand for defense is not same everywhere e.g., in India, those people who are living in the border areas like Kutch or Kashmir are in more need of defense from foreign nation states than those who are living in areas which are more interior like Madhya Pradesh! Moreover the defense resources are scarce, which means, if the government makes provision of defense equipments in, let's say, Kashmir than that many resources of defense services they can't provide in Gujarat simultaneously. If they try to defend Delhi first than they can't, at the same time, defend Bangalore. Even government will have to allocate defense resources. The problem with government allocation is, that it will be arbitrary, mostly based on political criteria, and not based on the intense defense needs of citizens of various part of the country. Government central planning resource allocation will be inefficient in the absence of the guidance of market price system. The way in which a private defense company can allocate resources based on the price and profit and loss system, governments can't even dream of doing that. 

Apart from the above mentioned fundamental error in Statist thinking, both the externality and public goods arguments are also hollow as our analysis will show now. Let us first see what this alleged problem of externality  is. I take help of my mentor Prof. Walter Block, from whose article now I cite a lengthy quote:
The first attempt to justify the levying of compulsory taxation in order to “protect” the citizen that we will consider is the argument from externalities. Many economists maintain that national defense is the sort of thing which, while it indubitably helps those who pay for it (they would scarcely consent to be billed were it otherwise), these benefits cannot be fully captured by them. Rather, a part of the good effect “spills over” onto those who have not paid for it. Each person thinks: “If others pay for protection from external enemies, then I, instead of undertaking the defrayment of these costs, can be a ‘free rider’ on their expenditures.” But if all go through this exercise of logic, then each will wait for the others to finance this operation; they will all operate under the hope that the other guy will pay the freight, and they will be passive beneficiaries. As a result, no one will recompense the private providers of this service, there will be no national defense, and relatively weak foreign armies will be able to overrun us. (The Myth of National Defense, p. 305)
But this is a flawed argument. As Prof. Block has argued, private defense companies, in a purely free market capitalist societies, can easily internalize these so-called externalities by providing protection to only its subscribers. They can easily exclude the non-subscribers. We right now can't tell how the private defense companies will do that, but the flexibility of free market will definitely find some way of doing it. And in any case, the Statist solution of this externality argument of taxing the citizenry for their own defense is a contradiction in terms as we already noted above.

Seeing national defense as a public good is also a flawed thinking. Mainstream economists define public good by using two criteria of 'nonexcludability' and 'nonrivalrousness'. The meaning of nonexcludability is, that the producer of a certain economic good cannot exclude people other than its buyer from consuming that product. They say that the national defense has such characteristics e.g., once a border defense system is in place, even those people who did not pay for it - i.e., the non tax payers - can enjoy the benefit of its security. But such a notion is surely wrong because any private defense provider - e.g., a private insurance company - can easily exclude the non-payers from enjoying the benefits. Suppose people from Surat are paying subscribers of XYZ defense company, and of Ahmadabad are not. In case of an attack from the Pakistani government armies, XYZ company will only defend its subscribers from Surat city. People of Ahmadabad city will have to defend themselves by using other alternative defense tactics or, as will surely happen in a private free market, they will be subscribers of some other defense company, say ABC, which will defend them against any such foreign aggressions. The same thing can happen inside the city borders also where different areas can subscribe to the defense services of myriad of defense companies. There is no question of defense as a national or public good. Defense is very much a private good.

The meaning of nonrivalrousness is, that the cost of providing defense service to one additional customer is essentially zero once it is in place. But this notion is also mistaken because of the fact of scarcity of resources for the provision of (national) defense. Suppose if government armies are fighting on the Western  front against Pakistani national army, and suddenly Chinese national army attacks Indian people from the East with full force. In such a case the Indian government will have to provide additional resources to the Chinese front for which it either has to move resource from other fronts making those fronts vulnerable or produce new defense equipments incurring additional cost. Prof. Block drives a final nail in the coffin of cost argument for public goods,
One basic difficulty with the entire public-goods schema is that whether or not there are costs at all, and whether or not they are positive or negative if they exist at all, is entirely a subjective matter. Costs, essentially, are opportunities forgone; specifically, the next best alternative not chosen. Who but the chooser himself can ever be acquainted with any such thing? Certainly not the outside observer-mainstream economist, the one responsible for the public-goods dogma in the first place. (p. 316)
Some Private Alternatives of State's National Defense Armies
After proving the case against the national defense good, we are ready to discuss some private alternatives of defense production. I will discuss four alternative tactics very briefly: 1) Private mercenaries, 2) Citizen militia, 3) Guerrilla warfare, and 4) Private insurance companies providing defense services (those who are interested in further reading on this topic are advised to read Joseph Stromberg's article in above mentioned book, The Myth of National Defense).

Mercenary Army    
Mercenary soldiers are hired soldiers to fight defensive wars of various geographic or political regions. For example, in ancient Italian city states wealthy merchants used hired soldiers for defense purposes. Stromberg reports:
Mercenaries played an important role in the politics of Renaissance Italy, where wealthy merchant oligarchies in city states provided for their defense by hiring soldiers. A number of benefits flowed from this system. The thrifty bourgeois who hired mercenaries could dismiss them when their work was done. The soldiers had no great incentive to kill or be killed, and their commanders would jockey for advantage and surrender when they lost it. As British jurist F.J.P. Veale wrote, “soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively harmless profession." (p. 218)
Similarly British government also used Hessian mercenary force in their battle against the American revolutionaries (for other historical evidence of use of mercenary forces please see this). In recent times various democratic governments have banned the use of mercenary forces because they see them as a threat against their monopoly. 

Militia force is a voluntary citizens' army which can gather in an event of aggression to defend its territories. They are different from the present day permanent standing State armies. All citizens of a country are trained in using war weapons, but they are called upon to gather and fight only when they face an aggression from outside. To understand how such militia forces can effectively work, just imagine a Pakistani national army facing 50 crore able bodied militia army of Indian citizens! The main issue here is of voluntary militia force. If government coerces its citizens for combat training, then, it is immoral and inefficient. The underlying point is, that in the absence of any government armed forces, all citizens of this country have an incentive of voluntarily training and arming themselves for their self-defense. Right now, except from the State armies, all citizens are unarmed, and thus totally defenseless against any foreign attack. Once the national armies are defeated, the whole country fells to the victors. Militia forces will not allow this to happen. An invading foreign army will have to face armed civilians in every little villages and towns before they can dream of capturing the whole country.

Guerrilla Warfare
One of the most effective defensive war tactics is that of Guerrilla Warfare. As Joseph Stromberg says,
There is no absolute distinction between militias and guerrillas. “Guerrilla warfare” refers to tactics and style rather than to preexisting force-structure. It is the way of the weaker side, whether in “internal” war, wars of secession, or wars against foreign domination. Mao Tse-tung provided this summary: “When the enemy advances, we retreat! When the enemy halts, we harass! When the enemy seeks to avoid battle, we attack! When the enemy retreats, we pursue!”
Guerrilla strategists allow the enemy to advance into the interior, where his supply lines are longer, where he lacks popular support, and where partisans can harass his overextended armies. They force the enemy to exhaust his manpower and resources holding ground—until a decisive “battle of annihilation” against the weakened invader becomes possible (Yorktown, Dien Bien Phu). Militias, with their smaller size and greater mobility, are well suited for such warfare. (p. 223)
As Stromberg's article shows, the Guerrilla tactic has defeated even mightiest invading armies e.g., the Soviet and mighty hi-tech US armies in Afghanistan are defeated by rag-tag Afghan guerrilla fighters. Guerrilla fighting is not only useful for defense against foreign invading states, but within the State boundary too where various groups of people, because of one or the other reason, no longer want to remain with the National State e.g., the secessionist movement in various parts of India where Maoist guerrilla fighters are giving lot of headaches to the mighty Indian State.

Private Insurance Companies Providing Defense Services
In a purely free market society we mostly will not need any mercenary or militia force for our defense needs. It is highly likely that private insurance companies will produce and provide these defense services to its subscribers, as we have noted above. Prof. Hans Hermann Hoppe's brilliant article, Government and Private Defense of Production, gives the details of how such private insurance companies will function and produce security good. I will here only very briefly discuss how this system will likely work. Today's private insurance companies are in a position to provide defense services because they have vast resources under their command. Big insurance companies, who are present all over the world, have also incentive of providing defense good to its customers to minimize the risk of vast insurance claims, which can quickly bankrupt them. Competing insurance companies will provide variety of security goods based on varied needs of its customers e.g., a region on an adjacent State border is in need of different defense good than a region far away from such a border. Such companies will be more flexible in fulfilling such needs than the government armies. Also, as Hoppe says, on the other hand, a system of insurers offering competing law codes would promote a tendency toward the unification of law. And, market competition for profit in the defense market will result into high quality defense services being provided at the lowest possible prices, which will enable everyone to subscribe to one or the other defense company services.

Above I have only scratched the surface of these alternatives, but still we can see that the whole idea of national defense is a myth perpetrated by the Statist people to continue our enslavement. Most people don't think about the above mentioned private alternatives of defense because they are either not allowed to or they are brainwashed in public schools and via mainstream media about the necessities of having national armies and impossibility of having any private alternatives. The government has molded public opinion in a such a way that it is difficult to even start the discussion of these alternatives. But, once people will open their brain even a bit to these private alternative possibilities, the public opinion will start to change. And once the public opinion starts to change, no one can stop the idea of private production of defense from taking hold and start changing our societies for better. The State mainly uses its armies for offensive wars; it uses it to subjugate its own population; it uses it to strengthen its own exploitation machine. Wars are the health of the State. Having a private purely defense system will eliminate State and its bloody Wars. If humanity wants to give Peace one chance, then, people will have to seriously start considering these private alternatives of defense.