Private, Decentralised Militia


The freest society in the world must be the most proficient at war. Utopian realism aims to build the most powerful, most dangerous societies the world has ever known. Today’s militaries function as centralized command structures funded by terrorist activities. This monopolized military, comprising army, navy, air force and sometimes marines, represents only a small fraction of a nation’s population. The quality of training can vary widely, ranging from disgraceful to professional.

The problems with this system are legion. Any system which must survive by robbing those it swears to protect does not deserve to live. It's the enemy you need protecting from. Because its funding is not earnt, but stolen, it spends haphazardly and incompetently. I was in the Australian army as an infantryman and witnessed this brutal stupidity first hand. We had no funds for ammunition or training, but plenty for enough food wastage to feed all 54 countries in Africa. 

Our base security was handled by unarmed, unfit 3rd party contractors. We we're told if a single gunman invades the base that we are to hide in the classrooms and call the police. Disgraceful doesn't capture the pathetic nature of some "militaries". A private militia is funded by those who wish to participate and volunteer. It's run just like a normal business, as it should be.

Example: An entrepreneur establishes a gun shop and shooting range, where customers purchase firearms and practice their skills. He profits, they enjoy their freedom and become better equipped and trained to protect their liberty. Then, he expands and buys land and builds training facilities. He hires ex military and offers infantry courses, sniper training, artillery instruction and everything else you expect from standard military's. People pay to complete these courses and receive training because they want to. The militia fund their own training, buy their own equipment and as a result, everyone profits. There's no need to initiate violence and enslave a population to "protect" it. 

In Utopian Realism, local militias exist in every town, just like a gym, supermarket or any other goods and service business. This creates jobs and stimulates local economies. It also greatly enhances not only individuals defense, but a nations. By "nation", I mean a group of people in a geographical area who share a similar culture and speak the same language. Local militias also help communities build connections, friendships and increase life satisfaction.

Attacking a country with a centralized military, where less than 1% of the population is armed and defenses are concentrated in a few bases, is vastly different from confronting a nation with a decentralized militia. In the latter, any invasion would encounter resistance from all corners, as many are armed and prepared to defend their homes. This widespread readiness is as a strong deterrent against attacks, making it significantly more challenging for invaders to succeed.

Pro’s and con’s of privatized militia Vs centralised military 

Bases 

PM - Bases in every town

CM - Only a few bases across the entire country

Percentage of population well armed 

PM – Very high, possibly above 50%

CM – Very low, less than 1%

Funding 

PM – Payed willingly by the militiamen

CM – Stolen from the population 

Quality of training

PM – Very high, competition and payment produces the best

CM – Low-high, there's little incentive to have good quality training, except for spec ops

Pricing of equipment 

PM – As cheap as possible, because of capitalism

CM – As expensive as possible, because companies charge governments ludicrous prices

Leadership structure 

PM – Decentralised and governed by respect and merit

CM – Centralised and governed by unquestioning obedience

Ability to innovate and access to latest hardware 

PM – There are no restrictions or policies to prevent technological advancement and are actually incentivized by profit to continuously produce better hardware

CM – Updating technology is very slow, unorganized and inefficient

Gun safety 

PM – High, certificates of competency and psych evals required to purchase guns

CM – Low, gun licenses are abysmal and no psych evals

Morale of troops

PM – Very high, soldiers are treated with respect and dignity

CM – Low, constant disrespect and belittling erodes soldiers sense of self worth

Response speed

PM – Fast, there are bases everywhere and decentralised operations can respond very quickly to threats

CM – Slow, organisation takes a long time and troops are clueless without direction from head command

Ranking system 

PM – Based upon merit and elections

CM – Based upon sycophancy, obedience and superiors decisions 

Rank, Leadership & Organisation

Men and women wishing to join a formal militia for defense against external and internal threats require a clear rank and leadership system. Ranks are earned through demonstrated skills and peer voting, emphasizing a bottom-up approach rather than a traditional top-down hierarchy.

The militia is an organisation which prepares for the worst case scenario. Invasion. To respond to threats effectively, the militia needs to have the ability to unite under a command hierarchy. Leadership is necessary to coordinate nation wide defense effectively, by positioning troops where they're most needed and ensuring they're supplied. It's best not to wait until the last moment to decide a leadership structure. That's why an organized militia has a structured ranking system and practices in large scale war games multiple times per year.

The private militia co-operates and works together, more efficiently than even centralised militaries, because it has so much practice at the local base level. For a command hierarchy to be effective, it needs to be objective. For militiamen and women to earn the right to gain rank or vote for others, they need to complete basic training that covers fundamentals, like morality, law and essential combat skills.

The militia ranking works as a system of democratic leadership. Privates vote for their corporals, corporals vote for their sergeants, they vote for their lieutenants, so on and so forth. The rank below is responsible for the election of the rank above. This ensures that only those who are respected, capable and deserve the rank achieve positions of power. If leaders perform poorly, the ranks below can call for a re-vote anytime and elect a new leader/sergeant/general via clear processes of conflict resolution. Today, the ranks above select the ranks below, not on merit, but obedience.

Members that cause issues, such as disobeying competent commands or acting disrespectfully can be evicted by their peers from the militia. This ensures that uncooperative soldiers don't effect the cohesiveness of units. Discipline and objective standards of performance is essential to a powerful fighting force and must be intelligently maintained. 

Men and women have the right to bear arms and train whenever and however often they like. They don't have to join the militia and be part of the ranking system if they don't wish. Those who do join the ranked militia are free to leave anytime, there's no service duty or obligation. UR is built upon the foundation of freedom and understands that the most powerful defence force is the one comprised of individuals who willingly want to be there.

Instead of separating divisions into commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers, which is common today, the separation is slightly different and is organized via tactical and strategic. Tactical soldiers are on the ground, executing operations physically. Strategic soldiers are planning, organizing logistics and provide birds eye view co-ordination. Having these two divisions ensures synchronization between mind and body, intellect and physicality, planning and execution. 

Local bases form alliances with other bases who share the same values. These alliances allow a decentralized militia to operate as a centralised military if necessary. This gives the militia more flexibility and increases responsiveness and initiative by having the best of both worlds. The militia can train at the local decentralised level without needing direction from a central command, but can also participate in larger war games with a more centralized command.

This allows militia to be better equipped at fighting independently at the local level and a national level. This dual sword approach increases effectiveness and makes the militia much more powerful than a traditional, centralised only military.

The ranking works by having multiple levels of leadership at the local base level, led by a base commander, then an area commander, state commander and finally a nation commander. The power these ranks have is only over the volunteers of this hierarchy, to co-ordinate training and battle effectively. Their authority does not extend past this and their duties are primarily to lead war games and to direct the allied militia in defensive operations against foreign invasion. 

If some militia groups disagree with the orders of the elected general of an aligned force, they can simply separate and go their own way. Example: a general of 90% of the theoretical Australian militia orders a defense against china by positioning most of the troops to the norther border of the country. Militia groups in the south see the prudence to do this, but unwise to leave the south so undefended. So they reject the generals commands and only send half their forces north instead of all of them. They believe it a better strategy to leave a contingent of troops in Perth and Adelaide to defend against potential incursions from the south. 

In a private, decentralised militia system, it's possible to disagree with head command. The ranking structure is not a supreme authority which must be obeyed, or else met with punishment. It's a system of leaders elected on merit, whom the rank below willingly follows, out of inspiration and respect, not fear. The general in charge should be the one with the best strategic genius, so disagreement will be uncommon, but possible. There are no desertion laws. If some militiamen are overcome with cowardice and wish to flee from battle, let them, lest they interfere with the morale and organisation of the courageous.

Frequent cross training between roles in and across the military branches, army, navy and airforce, is crucial for effective warfare. The infantry trains with artillery, cavalry, armoured etc. The more collaborative training between roles, bases, branches, states and even nations, the better. This familiarity of real world preparatory training is critical to ensuring in the event of war, militia aren't entering engagement completely devoid of cross collaborative experience. In war, army, marines, airforce and navy typically must work together to succeed. Without adequate prior training, defeat becomes much more likely. With it, victory is inevitable.

Weapons & Defence Against Threats

If there are bans or general laxity on military advancement, do you know what will happen? What always does. The good guys stop advancing, the bad guys race ahead, achieve technological superiority and conquer the inferior nations. This is the story of most primitive tribes in history.

To prevent a peaceful nation being conquered by a hostile one, weapons ownership, from rocket launchers to tanks and f-22's is openly available to all individuals in UR. Self defence and property ownership is a right at the individual level. Of course, there are measurements in place to ensure safety and prevent accidents with such destructive weapons and vehicles.

Companies who sell handguns, machine guns or aircraft carriers, all require a certificate of competency and psych eval before completing the sale. This is to ensure whoever is purchasing the weapon or vehicle has the competence required to operate it appropriately. The standards will be much higher in UR than they are currently in most countries.

A man may know how to use a weapon competently, but may not be psychologically fit to wield it. This is also why psych evals are crucial when selling powerful weapons. The customer must be deemed mentally stable to complete the transaction. The psychologist could be held accountable if they provide dodgy certificates and their client commits a violent crime. The capacity to be sued for negligence will aid in ensuring mental fitness certificates are legitimate.

Let's examine a worst possible scenario. A man buys an f-35 fighter jet from lockheed martin, without any paperwork to prove his competency or mental health. He had just gone through a break up and is depressed. He decides to fly over Melbourne and bombs it to hell, before nosediving into the Rialto. Obviously, this case would be catastrophic and must be prevented.

Where does the fault lie? Well, lockheed martin shouldn't have sold a fighter jet to a mentally unsound man. They can and will be sued into oblivion by the survivors. By ensuring that customers possess the relevant documents declaring proficiency and stability, it's far less likely that a worst case event occurs.

Most people have cars and cars can be weaponized, but very rarely are. The more deadly the weapon, like tanks, jets and ships, the more expensive they are, meaning the less people will have access to them. This creates a fine balance between having powerful defence decentralised across a nation and limiting access to anyone and everyone.

In today's monopolised system, it's only those who work for a tyrannical, thieving, untrustworthy, warmongering centralised military who have access to super weapons. The threat of mental instability is far less worrisome in comparison to the threat of unjust orders. 

It's not mental breakdowns we should be worrying about so much, but blind obedience. The quote "I was just following orders" is responsible for far more death and destruction than "I had a mental break down" ever will. Members of monopolized militaries are not immune to mental health challenges either, as evidenced by their higher suicide rates compared to the civilian population.

On more expensive sales for super weapons, such as for ships, tanks or aircraft, a number of years worth of psychological checkups are included. For instance, if you purchase an f-35, you get 20 years worth of included bi-annual mental checkups. This practice will ensure that only those mentally fit are able to keep such powerful weapons. If an owner of a super weapon is deemed unfit, they'll have their property confiscated by private security in alliance with weapons retailers, and returned once they recover.

This practice of regular checkup's is only required for super weapons, not portable manheld weapons. Super weapons are typically classified as fighting vehicles. In conjunction with safe sales and checkups, regulations will prohibit military vehicles from being used in particular zones, without prior permission from property owners. For example, owners of military aircraft are not permitted to fly over cities or densely populated areas. If they do so without the correct permissions, they can be shot down by the cities defenses. 

By allowing all individuals to access and own the most powerful military equipment, the threat of foreign invasion significantly decreases. It would be a fools errand for a centralized military to attack a Utopian Realism nation. Not only would they face resistance from every town and city, but it's defenders have professional training and the most advanced armaments money can buy.

If individuals only have access to rifles and other small arms, then an invading airforce or navy will tear them to pieces. But if individuals and militias have javelins, AA guns, laser defence systems and their own jets and warships, then invading enemies won't have a choice but to be defeated.

By decentralizing power and allowing all individuals access to weapons of their choice, it levels the playing field. Civil wars would be far less likely as there's no ruling monopoly to rebel against. The dominant threat and worst possible scenario would be a group of thugs who wish to form a new ruling dictatorship, ie government. By spreading the power via individual weapons ownership and decentralised militia, the possibility of serious internal conflict is dramatically reduced. 

A people who know freedom, sovereignty and independence, whilst being armed to the teeth, are a force to be reckoned with. Enslaving them to a new government ruling class is next to impossible. 

In reality, when bad groups or individuals want to commit crimes, like mass shootings, assassinations or forming governments, those bad guys get access to weapons, regardless of laws or regulatory prohibitions. The more powerful weapons in the hands of good guys, the better. The bad guys are going to have automatic weapons, so it's nonsensical to restrict the good guys to only semi-automatic. Limiting the scale of weapons which the goods guys can lawfully purchase and own is a recipe for disaster.

To prevent school shootings, the teachers must carry weapons. To prevent or deter criminals from burgling homes, the owners must have weapons. Without a gun, a little old lady is no match for a burly man. With a gun, now they're on a closer playing field. When we look at countries like, Switzerland, Norway, Finland and Canada, all with high gun ownership but low crime, we can see that more weapons can equal more safety, not less. 

Without a ruling monopoly, there's an abundance of wealthy individuals who keep each other in check. If any one of them hire an army of thugs to conquer an area, opposing wealthy individuals can hire their own militia to defend and protect the innocent. Although, for what purpose would one conquer territory within their own nation? If they want more land or resources, they can just buy it. If they can afford a private army of mercenaries, they can afford to purchase what they really want. 

If someone does becomes a mad tyrant, militia from neighboring regions can quickly respond. A wealthy individual wouldn't even need to hire and direct them. The militia who support objective law and rights would simply defend the innocent and destroy the wicked, without a thought of monetary compensation. Even if they did ask for payment, it's a little thing in comparison to being conquered by an evil warlord.

Other major threats include nuclear weapons, gasses, poisons etc. Everyone has the right to build whatever weapons they like, with the relevant certificates, but because there's a high risk of unintended catastrophe, they must do so in secluded and safe areas. If someone is caught building dangerous weapons without their certificates, then it's deemed an inchoate crime and they shall be prosecuted. If one has their certificates and is building weapons in a secure location, then they have the lawful right to. This kind of behaviour is not frowned upon, but appreciated. Enemies of freedom will always be doing the same, so it's apt that men of good spirit do it better.

If owners of powerful firearms misuse their weapons, causing harm or damage and are found negligent in an objective court of law, they may have their weapons confiscated and be prohibited from holding any weapons again in the future. If one proves they cannot be trusted to wield weapons with maturity, then they won't. If there are mitigating circumstances, appropriate retraining may be all that's necessary to remedy the situation. This can be decided at the discretion of rational judges. 

When customers purchase weapons, they're to record their identity and address with the weapons dealer. There's no need to register with 3rd parties. This is just in the case of a crime so it makes investigation easier.

Interesting doco showing swiss gun culture, although the journalists opinions are somewhat confused about the topic of rights.


This man breaks down the above doco from a different perspective.


A funny look into swiss gun culture


Back To The Utopian Realism Home Page