If so, I would have to say it is a misconception you have if you think that is something which libertarian law approves of, to engage in war, just because it is a private subcontractor doing it.
Also, if this part from a wikipedia entry is what you are talking about, pay attention to who it is in power who forgives MM:
>However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be incredibly profitable, he hires an expensive lawyer who is able to convince the court that it was capitalism which made America great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the congressional committee investigating what the enormous profit he made by dealing with the Germans was.
Thanks for that link! It has been 15 years since I read Catch 22 and I don't happen to own a copy right now.
Yes, that is exactly the section of which I was thinking.
I didn't intend my comment to mean that libertarian law approves of mercenaries or for-hire militaries (honestly, I'm not sure what "libertarian" law's stance on the topic is). I merely meant it as illustrative of the inherent problems associated with mercenaries, privateers, and rogue for-hire military forces to the body politic - that these forces owe their loyalty not necessarily to the nation, but to the highest bidder.
And, M&M Enterprises was not exactly a private subcontractor, as I understand it, but an international cooperative of soldiers who switched loyalty from their respective national forces to the cooperative for their own mutual benefit.
