4 ms·

I agree with others that hard power - the monopoly on violence possessed by states - is a big stumbling block to visions of declining state power. I think howev

I agree with others that hard power - the monopoly on violence possessed by states - is a big stumbling block to visions of declining state power. I think however that hard power is more brittle than we appreciate. The US military runs on technology. It seems as if the defense sector is struggling compared to the past to release new hardware, to say nothing of software. I think that's in part related to the salaries offered by defense contractors, which have not kept pace with industry. Defense contractors used to pay very well; now they are second tier at best. Why build weapons for less when you can build apps for more? Less moral compromise and better pay. I doubt a privatized defense sector would be allowed. But by siphoning talent from the defense industry with better pay the technology industry could come to an arrangement with the state that constrained the state's ability to use hard power against tech.

analognoise 5y ago
Defense is already private - the government doesn't own Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etc. (Only speaking for the US - I don't know about defense in other countries). I know Amazon, Microsoft, Intel, etc have current projects working directly with the state (Not sure if Google has one, haven't kept up with that saga). There's no "tech/hard power" duality - they all have projects for, and exist in the framework of, the State's monopoly on violence. The "tech" the state doesn't have a lock down on appears to be weak tech - the stuff that doesn't even really qualify as tech. If it can be used to make weapons, radios, high powered lasers, etc., the state has a direct line to the largest commercial operators, and has its own labs as well (AFRL, FFRDCs, etc). There is no "division" between "hard tech" and the state. The only people who seem to think so...probably build web apps and call it "tech".
- jackcosgrove 5y ago
  My use of the term privatized means a defense sector that can sell its weapons to anyone who can pay for them. I think that's far-fetched. Rather I'm arguing that the person capable of building hard tech might be lured to build dumb tech if the pay is better. Some people do it for patriotism, some for the challenge, but some just do it for the money.
  - Animats 5y ago
    My use of the term privatized means a defense sector that can sell its weapons to anyone who can pay for them. Been reading Major Barbara? CUSINS. What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer? UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man, white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes.

analognoise 5y ago

Defense is already private - the government doesn't own Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etc. (Only speaking for the US - I don't know about defense in other countries). I know Amazon, Microsoft, Intel, etc have current projects working directly with the state (Not sure if Google has one, haven't kept up with that saga). There's no "tech/hard power" duality - they all have projects for, and exist in the framework of, the State's monopoly on violence. The "tech" the state doesn't have a lock down on appears to be weak tech - the stuff that doesn't even really qualify as tech. If it can be used to make weapons, radios, high powered lasers, etc., the state has a direct line to the largest commercial operators, and has its own labs as well (AFRL, FFRDCs, etc). There is no "division" between "hard tech" and the state. The only people who seem to think so...probably build web apps and call it "tech".

jackcosgrove 5y ago
My use of the term privatized means a defense sector that can sell its weapons to anyone who can pay for them. I think that's far-fetched. Rather I'm arguing that the person capable of building hard tech might be lured to build dumb tech if the pay is better. Some people do it for patriotism, some for the challenge, but some just do it for the money.
- Animats 5y ago
  My use of the term privatized means a defense sector that can sell its weapons to anyone who can pay for them. Been reading Major Barbara? CUSINS. What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer? UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man, white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes.