Nice of you to pop by!

Looks like you are a little rusty though, coming back with loaded questions jam-packed with strawmen... for intance, your implication that libertarians do not consider the implication of the use of private security forces in the military is clearly made of straw... a five second search of Google revealed an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute who has written a book on the use of private contractors in the military , for instance. 

I personally am troubled by the implications of our extensive use of private armed security forces in our military actions.  But as the Cato institute points out:

If people don't want to use private contractors, the choices are simple. Either scale back U.S. geopolitical commitments or enlarge the military, something that will entail more gargantuan expenditures and even, some argue, a return to the draft down the road.

Personally, I prefer the former. But most people prefer substituting contractors for draftees. As former Marine colonel Jack Holly said, "We're never going to war without the private security industry again in a non-draft environment."

Still, what I would really like to see is a national debate on this. Instead, we bury our heads in the sand and bemoan the presence of private contractors. That is a waste of time. Private security contractors, after all, are just doing the job we outsourced to them.

I mostly agree with this, particularly that we ought to scale back our military commitments abroad to a level that is sustainable and affordable without resorting to private security forces, and that if we do not want to use private security forces for future wars, we ought to go to a draft.

As far as the "über-fantastico" private sector and "bad" government thing, you've never heard that from me.  Just yesterday, I was arguing that it is possible to build a culture in government financial regulatory bodies that would allow them to effecively police the highly compensated "talent" of the private sector; as a model for this, I chose other government organizations of past and present, such as the FBI (Hoover's G-men) and the Marines.  And at the risk of speaking for yellow-bar types and small-government libertarian leaning conservatives, don't these groups typically allow for national defense as one of the few legitimate and constitutional roles of the Federal government?  And since they do allow that the provision of national security is a rightful role of government, doesn't that implicitly answer your loaded question as to why they are not pounding the table for "bad" government military to be replaced by "fantastico" private sector forces?

Finally, while claiming that libertarian types have avoided this question of private contractors in the military, I would point out that you've effectively avoided both the issues bought forth in the video and my side issue about unions in government. Care to offer your views on those subjects?

and best not provided by the private sector.

It doesn't work the same way.

The idea of dispersed benefits plays a role.

There is also a trend in libertarian that is in favor of a small state, rather than being anti-state. Since state powers rest upon the threat of violence, the state will necessarily include armed forces.

A state that is focused on the defense of persons and property would be small, and easier to control than a state that gets involved in all types of things.

• It will be easier for the public to monitor how the armed forces are used.
• It will be easier to hold politicians accountable for misuse of armed forces, because it will be the only issue in an election; we won't be choosing politicians based on the fact that they are the lesser of two evils with respect to other issues.
• government officials will have less tools with which to manipulate the public (e.g. propaganda, patronage)

So from this perspective, the expansion of government is bad specifically because it increases the chance that the armed forces will be misused.