The Public Good Paradox

Why Markets Can’t Defend a Nation

Part 1 — The Mirage of Market Defense

Libertarians fantasize about private armies.
Technocrats fantasize about efficient procurement.
But anyone who’s stared down a war plan knows:
Markets don’t defend nations.

They never have.
Not because we haven’t tried hard enough —
but because they weren’t built for it.

Defense is the canonical public good.
And the modern state is its imperfect, indispensable steward.

Yet the paradox persists:
We simulate markets anyway.

• We use competitive grants to fund missile innovation

• We use dual-use rhetoric to launder classified bets through commercial infrastructure

• We use cost-plus contracts as if they’re price signals

• We speak of “efficiency” in the language of logistics, not survivability

We cling to price — because we don’t know how to coordinate without it.

The Great Graft

Modern defense policy is an act of conceptual grafting:
Attach market-like incentives to a domain that fundamentally resists them.
Pray that output follows structure.

This is why we have:

• Advance market commitments for biosecurity

• Prizes for missile detection

• ARPA-style push funding for “valleys of death”

• VCs funding drone startups that will never survive without government anchors

Each structure mimics market logic —
but none is actually a market.

Why do we persist?

Because the alternative — centralized planning under extreme uncertainty — terrifies liberal democracies.
Markets are supposed to distribute risk.
But defense concentrates it.
And we have no clean theory for that.

Security Is the One Product We Can’t Opt Out Of

In a consumer economy, you can abstain.
You can not buy the phone.
You can cancel the subscription.
You can opt out of the app.

But you cannot opt out of your nation’s airspace.
You cannot unsubscribe from your geography.
You cannot “go private” on defense in a great-power conflict.

Security is not a preference.
It is a precondition.

And that makes it almost uniquely misaligned with every incentive that markets optimize for:

• Excludability

• Rivalry

• Consumption-linked feedback

• Time-consistent returns

Defense offers none of these.
And so: markets break.

Part 2 — Why Defense Resists the Market

Markets work when goods can be priced.
Defense can’t.

That’s not a policy challenge — it’s a category error.

Defense resists markets for the same reason fire insurance resists auction:
The value only exists when nothing happens.
And success means zero observable payoff.

Three Fatal Incompatibilities

Let’s be precise. National defense violates three of the core assumptions that make markets legible and price signals work:

1. Non-Rivalrous:

My safety does not reduce yours.

• If my city is shielded by anti-missile systems, your nearby city is safer too.

• If my intelligence agency thwarts an attack, your population benefits — regardless of whether you contributed.

There is no natural scarcity in safety.
That breaks the logic of supply and demand.

2. Non-Excludable:

You can’t be kicked out of defense infrastructure.

• Fighter jets don’t discriminate between taxpayers and freeloaders.

• Radar systems cover whole airspaces — not just subscription zones.

This makes it impossible to tie payment to benefit.
You can’t gate access.
You can’t charge per use.
You can’t meter security.

No exclusion = no pricing power = no market discipline.

3. Time-Inconsistent Payoffs:

Defense investments don’t deliver returns — they prevent costs.

• Missile silos are valuable only if unused.

• Cyber capabilities matter most when they’re never seen.

• Early detection systems produce value by averting crises that never materialize.

Markets crave visible ROI.
Defense thrives on invisible success.

The Result? Chronic Underprovision

When goods are:

• Non-rival

• Non-excludable

• Future-oriented

• Catastrophe-hedging

…markets do what they always do:
They underprovide.

Not because of malice.
Because of design.

Defense isn’t just hard to price.
It is structurally unpriceable.

Why We Still Pretend

And yet… we persist.

We run “cost-per-kill” metrics.
We apply value-for-money audits to stealth drone programs.
We invoke phrases like “return on deterrence investment.”

These are cargo cult rituals.

They resemble economic analysis.
But they mask strategic blindness.

We are benchmarking shadows,
because we can’t accept that the light has no price.

Part 3 — Simulated Markets and Their Fragile Fiction

Governments know defense resists real markets.
But they can’t admit it.

So they simulate them instead — and hope that’s close enough.

These quasi-markets don’t emerge from competition.
They are constructed performances — designed to placate economists, satisfy auditors, and give politicians numbers to point to.

We don’t get markets.
We get theater.

Procurement as Faux Demand

Take defense procurement.

• In a real market: demand comes from distributed buyers with voluntary choices.

• In defense: there’s a single buyer — the state — and it also defines the rules, writes the specs, sets the price, and often backs the supplier.

It’s not demand. It’s choreography.

The illusion persists because contracts change hands, RFPs get issued, and vendors compete —
but the entire system exists within state-defined boundaries.

Subsidies as Simulated Supply Curves

Next, consider how we subsidize key technologies:

• Missile materials

• Rare earth magnets

• Hypersonic testbeds

• Secure compute fabs

Governments inject capital to simulate private-sector traction.
But it’s non-fungible supply.
You can’t reallocate it, price it dynamically, or trade it globally.

Subsidies don’t create markets.
They reveal where markets won’t form.

Advance Market Commitments as Incentive Theater

Advance market commitments (AMCs) are a favorite tool:
“We promise to buy X if you build it.”

This worked for vaccines.
Why not for stealth drones or cyber shielding?

Because:

• Vaccine development has clear endpoints, private-sector analogs, and direct consumption

• Defense tools often lack all three

You can’t “commit” to buy strategic surprise.
You can only guess, pre-position, and gamble.

The Limits of Dual-Use Rhetoric

What about dual-use tech?
Surely there’s a market for that.

Yes — until you need:

• Sovereign control

• Classified reliability

• Denial-resistance under conflict

• Resilience under hostile logistics

At that point, dual-use collapses into defense-unique —
and the market disappears.

You can only borrow the market’s credibility for so long.
Eventually, you’re back to monopoly state demand.

Fragility as a Feature

These simulations aren’t robust.
They aren’t meant to be.

They’re designed to fail slowly —
to extract just enough innovation from the private sector,
without surrendering critical control.

But in a real war, with real costs and compressed timelines?
They break.

Part 4 — The Price Illusion and the Edge of War

Try putting a price on:

• Nuclear second-strike credibility

• The resilience of a drone swarm in GPS-denied airspace

• The cohesion of an alliance during AI-accelerated misinformation

• The probability that a false positive doesn’t trigger a preemptive launch

You can’t.
Not seriously.
Not meaningfully.
Not in units that mean anything outside a spreadsheet.

These aren’t goods. They’re conditions.
They can’t be bought — only upheld.

The Absurdity of Strategic ROI

And yet, we try.

We ask:

• What’s the cost per intercepted warhead?

• Is this system more “efficient” than the last generation?

• Can we replace analysts with AI and reduce personnel overhead?

This isn’t strategy.
It’s defense-as-consulting-report.

Because when markets can’t value outcomes, bureaucracies panic —
and reach for the only math they trust.

Efficiency becomes the opiate of uncertain regimes.
The more unknowable the stakes, the more seductive the benchmark.

Intelligence Defies Commodification

If there’s any defense input that seems market-friendly, it’s intelligence.
Data. Analysts. APIs. Fusion tools. Feeds. Visualization dashboards.

And yet:

• The most valuable signals are secrets

• The most crucial insights are singular

• The most trusted judgments are non-fungible

Liquidity dies in the presence of secrecy.
Markets can’t form when knowledge is asymmetric by design.

There is no futures market for troop intentions.
No hedge fund can short an adversary’s will to escalate.
You cannot arbitrage a whisper.

Price Cannot Coordinate Trust

Modern warfare is not just about capability.
It’s about confidence:

• Does your ally really mean what they promised?

• Will your sensor flag what matters — and filter what doesn’t?

• Will your autonomy cascade fail safe, or fail silently?

These are not things you can benchmark.
They are not priced.
They are earned, rehearsed, and stressed under pressure.

Markets coordinate choice.
Defense must coordinate belief.

The Clarity of Conflict, the Illusion of Cost

In the end, it’s war — not economics — that reveals the lie.

No one in a bunker calculates marginal deterrence utility.
No drone operator pauses to ask about procurement ROI.
No alliance survives because of perfect price signals.

They survive because:

• Someone planned for ambiguity

• Someone practiced under strain

• Someone committed before it was rational

And those actions are not market outcomes.
They are civic acts performed under uncertainty.

Part 5 — Toward a Post-Market Defense Logic

It’s time to stop pretending.
There is no efficient market for national defense.
There never was.
And the harder we try to simulate one, the more brittle our posture becomes.

But that doesn’t mean we abandon structure.
It means we rearchitect it.

Not to price better —
but to align under uncertainty.

What’s Needed: Not Markets, but Mechanisms

Markets assume scarcity, legibility, and equilibrium.
Defense lives in a world of:

• Externalities

• Black swans

• Strategic opacity

• First-mover entanglement

• Irreversible commitments under radical uncertainty

This calls not for pricing but mechanism design —
with externalities and ambiguity as first-class citizens.

A New Toolkit for Strategic Incentives

What might this look like?

1. Red-Team Bounty Systems

Don’t reward production.
Reward disruption.

• Offer bounties for breaking procurement assumptions

• Incentivize adversarial thinking inside the system

• Pay for pathology discovery, not just capability delivery

Resilience begins when the defenders act like attackers.

2. Epistemic Wargames

Most war games model capabilities.
But the real bottleneck is decision-making under confusion.

We need simulations that surface:

• Cognitive overload

• Misaligned heuristics

• Premature escalation

• Misread intent

These aren’t “cost per kill” metrics.
They’re tests of judgment.

Our enemies won’t just target weapons.
They’ll target belief formation itself.

3. Synthetic Adversaries for Procurement Agility

Use LLMs and AI agents not just for support, but as generative adversaries:

• Simulate cognitive warfare and economic coercion

• Model disruption chains, not just supply chains

• Test procurement agility under unfamiliar constraints

The future of defense isn’t about speed of production.
It’s about speed of adaptation.

4. Incentivize Disalignment Exploration

Most R&D assumes alignment with existing doctrine.
We need incentives that surface strategic heresy:

• Incentivize proposals that contradict procurement assumptions

• Fund "option value" projects explicitly not optimized for efficiency

• Preserve ambiguity as a design input, not a bug

Alignment to current systems is not neutral.
It is an anchoring trap.

A Doctrine for Misaligned Domains

This is what a post-market logic looks like:

• Incentives that reward anticipation over optimization

• Systems that tolerate friction as a form of discovery

• Mechanisms that produce robustness in the absence of legibility

• Institutions that don’t collapse when the spreadsheet runs out

Some domains can’t be measured.
They can only be survived.

Part 6 — The Hardest Public Good is Also the Most Revealing

If you want to understand the limits of markets,
study national defense.

It is the public good that markets can’t fake, can’t underwrite, and can’t escape.

Every other failure — in health, infrastructure, AI governance — contains a fallback.
Delay, patch, iterate.

Defense does not.
It operates at the boundary where systemic error becomes existential outcome.

The Invisible Hand Can’t Pull a Trigger

Markets coordinate incentives.
But deterrence requires commitment.
Security requires sacrifice.
And trust under fire requires institutional memory, not just price discovery.

The invisible hand can’t pull a trigger.
It can’t absorb a first strike.
It can’t decide not to escalate.

Quasi-Markets Are a Telltale Sign

Look closely at any sector where quasi-markets arise:

• Defense

• Pandemic response

• Space security

• Climate resilience

• AI alignment

In each case, you’ll find:

• Asymmetric information

• Catastrophic externalities

• Policy latency

• Coordination collapse under stress

And you’ll find states, desperately trying to mimic market-like behavior —
not because it works,
but because it legitimizes failure.

From Ideology to Engineering

This is the shift we need:

• From faith in market primacy
  → to fitness for strategic function

• From benchmarking what can be priced
  → to modeling what must be preserved

• From optimizing inside the spreadsheet
  → to designing outside the curve

Defense is not just a budget item.
It is a stress test for our political imagination.

Civic Design for a Misaligned World

The deepest implication isn’t about missiles.
It’s about institutions.

We need governance models that:

• Accept uncertainty as native, not anomalous

• Incentivize foresight without legibility

• Tolerate ambiguity without collapsing

• Coordinate action before price is possible

Markets didn’t build the Manhattan Project.
Markets didn’t orchestrate Apollo.
Markets won’t secure AI futures, or resist cyber collapse.

Markets follow clarity.
Defense demands action before clarity arrives.

What This Demands

A new generation of:

• Institutional engineers

• Mechanism designers for adversarial contexts

• Strategic generalists who understand markets — and know when to transcend them

Because the next war — kinetic or cognitive, silent or visible —
won’t be won by whoever priced it best.

It will be won by whoever designed for the failure of price itself.

Security is not a product.
It is a commitment made under uncertainty.
And it’s the one commitment markets cannot make.

If this resonated:

• Share the essay with a founder, policymaker, or strategist

• Subscribe for weekly essays on AI, systems, and techno-industrial strategy

• Reach out if you’re building, designing, or researching around these edge cases