"..The Captain is to have two full shares; the Master is to have one Share and one half; The Doctor, Mate, Gunner and Boatswain, one Share and one Quarter..”
"A cartel head travels by private jet on a regular basis and some enterprising people find a way to divert it to a US jurisdiction?"
I think this was an episode on West Wing, except Delta/SEALs gave him 2 in the chest and 1 in the head before the Jet became little pieces on the ocean floor
Sal- what about lawfare?!? Lawyers can be harnessed on a contingency fee basis to sue and collect from baddies…or would this be considered illegal/immoral/fattening?
Imagine the scrambling among our enemies and so-called friends if America brings back privateers and – dare we hope? – switches openly from "nation building" to the use of punitive expeditions.
Great suggestions but you are not thinking big enough.
We need to change the 'rules of the road'. The USN provides shipping protection and ships pay a fee. Unprotected ships will not be defended. If the the ship and goods on the ship are taken by 'pirates' or even nation states, the USA position is that title passes to the taker. This really sharpens the focus of everyone:
[] The USN gets massive permanent funding.
[] Ships get protection
[] Insurance companies eliminate a category of risk
[] 99% will pay because the insurance is tiny compared to the value of a single loss.
[] And 'pirates' have incentives that support our desired outcomes
and yes, aircraft could be put under the same regime.
Land based privateering and banking related needs more thought. Lots of opportunity to accidently damage non participants in size or a risk to harm to critical infrastructure or critical social systems (like banking). But maybe something.
The path should start with the navy and it should definitely create a paid 'insurance' program that funds the USN. Note there is potential for lots of nuance like countries paying for insurance in bulk or making a payment in kind. It would be ok if some of the money went to destroyer and aircraft enforcement fleets of 'friendly countries' patrolling their neighborhoods (think Japan and Korea). But under direct supervision of the USN and following USN protocols and operating standards.
The solution is to return to a measure of mercantilism and to think big.
trade networks protected by being in the USA network AND with payment. a bit different from traditional mercantilism of only trade with the big guy country and only if you are substantially controlled by the big guy country.
a lighter hand...insurance instead of a free ride and a general belief in the 'western' commercial model.
It is free enterprise and free trade which allowed our nation to rise to the position we currently hold. Tariffs and mercantilism are based on the idea that planners, whether in the Republican, or Communist Party, can out-think the free market.
"It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbours, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.
What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage."
[1] We have a trade system that was based on an agreement with Europe post WW2. The raised armies to be the point of first contact with the USSR and we gave them freedom of the seas and access to the USA market. This arrangement spread over time to cover many countries.
[2] While the USA gave in [1] above, Europe and other countries took advantage by placing tariffs and import taxes as well as non financial barriers to the import of USA goods. This is not fair trade in the classical sense. It's unbalanced against the USA.
The USA can ship agricultural goods to Canada at prices very below local production. And they don't because of huge one sided tariffs. The USA no longer needs this old system. Russia does not directly threaten the USA. It no longer needs Euro military support and this military support no longer exists.
It's time for real free trade.
[A] You want to ship goods around the world without concern about theft or piracy? Then you will need a world wide navy. Or you can rent the USA navy.
[B] If you artificially prohibit the sale of USA goods in your country, be prepared for the USA to do the same to yours. If this is a problem, drop your tariffs on USA exports.
That is what free trade looks like. No more free rides.
And if you look at the cost of national defense, the cost of a merchantlike protection navy, and the value of exporting to the USA, you might want to consider opening your markets and paying your fair share for defense and the navy.
We could have a much longer discussion about how our country rose to its current position of wealth and it doesn't much include free trade. But this is already too long.
OK. Explain to me how privateering protects anyone from other countries prosecution? The US allows for LoMaR, but the rest of the world has pretty much signed onto the treaty of Paris (1856?) which disallows privateering, and LoMaR, and treats practitioners as pirates (sui generis). So, the US says go ahead, and China or Iran or Russia or pretty much anyone else says hang them from the yardarm (the traditional way of dealing with pirates that survived the encounter).
Then I'd respectfully suggest that their theater of operations be physically restricted to US waters against the cartels for now, and given both Russia and China have similarly used deniable operations within their own borders for cyber attacks and hacks against the US the precedent has already been established for cyber.
If Mexico and Colombia wish to go to war over sinking cartel vessels in US waters, I would think the relations part of international relations has failed miserably.
And I care surprisingly little for the feelings of Mexico, Columbia or indeed any other nation besides the United States: Treating third world crapholes like they matter simply gives them an inflated sense of importance.
Lately I've seen people claiming that the time for "Pax Americana" has ended. I say its never happened - yet. I don't care if these other truly unimportant nations care about me or the US, respect us, or what, but they will by damned FEAR us if that's what it takes.
I read some time ago that modern pirates still exist along the Straits of Malacca.
Since China's PLA navy often deployed grey zone tactics against their neighboring countries like the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, some form of privateering could be launched against the Chinese merchant fleet in some small retaliations.
Piracy curbs are going to require close cooperation from all countries and that might humble the Chinese to tone down their boorish behaviors.
It is reported that the Chinese paid the Houthis some monies for a safe passage way through the Red Sea. Maybe similar "protection fees" can be collected for Chinese vessels.
Discussed it in my Fall 2007 Orbis article, "Blackwaters for the Blue Waters: The Promise of Private Naval Companies." Clarified it in my Nov 2007 article, "Contracts of Marque," that while the US was not a signatory of the Treaty of Paris, it WAS a signatory of the 1907 Hague Convention which in part restricts the use of privateers. Discussed many times at conferences and multiple articles. It's the basis of my novels. I wrote a cautionary tale about it last year: https://claudeberube.substack.com/p/letter-of-marque-6-privatizing-the
But every law can be changed. And privateering could return in a modified form. The president can't do it because it's only possible through Congress since there's specifically an enumerated power about it, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
If there's a maritime issue that can be dealt with without the Navy or Coast Guard, contract it out with the following guidance:
1) Regulate: this means vetting
2) Incorporate: identify means of their supporting national goals and objectives
YES! I mentioned this 10-15 years ago and people acted like I was trying to describe a Bulgarian rodeo to a Martian in Urdu… Why not unleash private contractors with the appropriate authority to end land/sea pirates? In addition, while we’re at it, why not change the definition and penalties of piracy back to “hostis humani generis” and place pirates where they belong…outside the range of civilized law. That was an effective deterrent in the past…At least consider it…. Getting hung on the spot cuts down on piracy in two ways…
It works for me. Nasty piracy needs to be terminated
A former Naval Aviator wrote a novel pointing this out.
If Ukraine wants more help, enabling American citizens to get the Russian crude our refineries need would be a great start.
With the thawing of US - Russian relations, this seems very unlikely.
Well said! I agree completely!
"..The Captain is to have two full shares; the Master is to have one Share and one half; The Doctor, Mate, Gunner and Boatswain, one Share and one Quarter..”
I like the way you think… or should I say, the cut of your jib?
"A cartel head travels by private jet on a regular basis and some enterprising people find a way to divert it to a US jurisdiction?"
I think this was an episode on West Wing, except Delta/SEALs gave him 2 in the chest and 1 in the head before the Jet became little pieces on the ocean floor
Sal- what about lawfare?!? Lawyers can be harnessed on a contingency fee basis to sue and collect from baddies…or would this be considered illegal/immoral/fattening?
-DamnJag
What do you call 50,000 lawyers buried up to their necks at the bottom of the Mariana Trench?
A mere scratch, but still a good thing. Letters of Marque against Lawyers would be a good thing.
For those wondering how privateering can work in cyberspace, I wrote up a scenario:
https://gallagherstories.substack.com/p/marque
Imagine the scrambling among our enemies and so-called friends if America brings back privateers and – dare we hope? – switches openly from "nation building" to the use of punitive expeditions.
Lots of excellent mariners out there looking for something to do in retirement.
Great suggestions but you are not thinking big enough.
We need to change the 'rules of the road'. The USN provides shipping protection and ships pay a fee. Unprotected ships will not be defended. If the the ship and goods on the ship are taken by 'pirates' or even nation states, the USA position is that title passes to the taker. This really sharpens the focus of everyone:
[] The USN gets massive permanent funding.
[] Ships get protection
[] Insurance companies eliminate a category of risk
[] 99% will pay because the insurance is tiny compared to the value of a single loss.
[] And 'pirates' have incentives that support our desired outcomes
and yes, aircraft could be put under the same regime.
Land based privateering and banking related needs more thought. Lots of opportunity to accidently damage non participants in size or a risk to harm to critical infrastructure or critical social systems (like banking). But maybe something.
The path should start with the navy and it should definitely create a paid 'insurance' program that funds the USN. Note there is potential for lots of nuance like countries paying for insurance in bulk or making a payment in kind. It would be ok if some of the money went to destroyer and aircraft enforcement fleets of 'friendly countries' patrolling their neighborhoods (think Japan and Korea). But under direct supervision of the USN and following USN protocols and operating standards.
The solution is to return to a measure of mercantilism and to think big.
Mercantilism leads to the death of nations.
a measure of mercantilism...
trade networks protected by being in the USA network AND with payment. a bit different from traditional mercantilism of only trade with the big guy country and only if you are substantially controlled by the big guy country.
a lighter hand...insurance instead of a free ride and a general belief in the 'western' commercial model.
It is free enterprise and free trade which allowed our nation to rise to the position we currently hold. Tariffs and mercantilism are based on the idea that planners, whether in the Republican, or Communist Party, can out-think the free market.
"It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbours, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.
What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage."
What other fairy tales do you believe? Rising tide lifts all boats? Housing prices never fall?
We do not have free trade.
[1] We have a trade system that was based on an agreement with Europe post WW2. The raised armies to be the point of first contact with the USSR and we gave them freedom of the seas and access to the USA market. This arrangement spread over time to cover many countries.
[2] While the USA gave in [1] above, Europe and other countries took advantage by placing tariffs and import taxes as well as non financial barriers to the import of USA goods. This is not fair trade in the classical sense. It's unbalanced against the USA.
The USA can ship agricultural goods to Canada at prices very below local production. And they don't because of huge one sided tariffs. The USA no longer needs this old system. Russia does not directly threaten the USA. It no longer needs Euro military support and this military support no longer exists.
It's time for real free trade.
[A] You want to ship goods around the world without concern about theft or piracy? Then you will need a world wide navy. Or you can rent the USA navy.
[B] If you artificially prohibit the sale of USA goods in your country, be prepared for the USA to do the same to yours. If this is a problem, drop your tariffs on USA exports.
That is what free trade looks like. No more free rides.
And if you look at the cost of national defense, the cost of a merchantlike protection navy, and the value of exporting to the USA, you might want to consider opening your markets and paying your fair share for defense and the navy.
We could have a much longer discussion about how our country rose to its current position of wealth and it doesn't much include free trade. But this is already too long.
Sign me up . . .
OK. Explain to me how privateering protects anyone from other countries prosecution? The US allows for LoMaR, but the rest of the world has pretty much signed onto the treaty of Paris (1856?) which disallows privateering, and LoMaR, and treats practitioners as pirates (sui generis). So, the US says go ahead, and China or Iran or Russia or pretty much anyone else says hang them from the yardarm (the traditional way of dealing with pirates that survived the encounter).
Then I'd respectfully suggest that their theater of operations be physically restricted to US waters against the cartels for now, and given both Russia and China have similarly used deniable operations within their own borders for cyber attacks and hacks against the US the precedent has already been established for cyber.
Why not just use the military? If Mexico or Colombia want to go to war with us, well.....that would be an interesting afternoon.
If Mexico and Colombia wish to go to war over sinking cartel vessels in US waters, I would think the relations part of international relations has failed miserably.
Why US waters?
And I care surprisingly little for the feelings of Mexico, Columbia or indeed any other nation besides the United States: Treating third world crapholes like they matter simply gives them an inflated sense of importance.
Lately I've seen people claiming that the time for "Pax Americana" has ended. I say its never happened - yet. I don't care if these other truly unimportant nations care about me or the US, respect us, or what, but they will by damned FEAR us if that's what it takes.
IMO? US territory would simplify operations and legal issues as the concept gets fleshed out operationally.
I read some time ago that modern pirates still exist along the Straits of Malacca.
Since China's PLA navy often deployed grey zone tactics against their neighboring countries like the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, some form of privateering could be launched against the Chinese merchant fleet in some small retaliations.
Piracy curbs are going to require close cooperation from all countries and that might humble the Chinese to tone down their boorish behaviors.
It is reported that the Chinese paid the Houthis some monies for a safe passage way through the Red Sea. Maybe similar "protection fees" can be collected for Chinese vessels.
Source: https://izreloaded.blogspot.com/2007/10/interview-with-national-geographics.html
Discussed it in my Fall 2007 Orbis article, "Blackwaters for the Blue Waters: The Promise of Private Naval Companies." Clarified it in my Nov 2007 article, "Contracts of Marque," that while the US was not a signatory of the Treaty of Paris, it WAS a signatory of the 1907 Hague Convention which in part restricts the use of privateers. Discussed many times at conferences and multiple articles. It's the basis of my novels. I wrote a cautionary tale about it last year: https://claudeberube.substack.com/p/letter-of-marque-6-privatizing-the
But every law can be changed. And privateering could return in a modified form. The president can't do it because it's only possible through Congress since there's specifically an enumerated power about it, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
If there's a maritime issue that can be dealt with without the Navy or Coast Guard, contract it out with the following guidance:
1) Regulate: this means vetting
2) Incorporate: identify means of their supporting national goals and objectives
3) Coordinate
YES! I mentioned this 10-15 years ago and people acted like I was trying to describe a Bulgarian rodeo to a Martian in Urdu… Why not unleash private contractors with the appropriate authority to end land/sea pirates? In addition, while we’re at it, why not change the definition and penalties of piracy back to “hostis humani generis” and place pirates where they belong…outside the range of civilized law. That was an effective deterrent in the past…At least consider it…. Getting hung on the spot cuts down on piracy in two ways…
Hmm...I may have heard of some suggestions when working "Counter Threat Finance" a few years/decades back...