Market Anarchy, Self Defence, Private Defence and Property

Economics Political Theory
1

I was wondering if some of you could help me solidify and strengthen arguments for private/self defence;

(a) Can the rich attack the poor with impunity?

(b) Will competing security agencies wage war for market share?

(c) Should we, and how could we, impose rules on what people can do to trespassers?

(d) How do “home alone old women” defend themselves?

(e) Will we end up detached from eachother in gated communities (e.g. Johannesburg)?

2

a. Does the government protect the poor?

b. I could see this as a problem, I’l see if anyone else can explain this better.

c. Being your private property other people by trespassing know that it being your they are under your jurisdiction.

d. By investing in a private agency that can sufficiently protect her

e. Good question, I would say our need for other peoples good would prevent this from happening.

3

The rich get rich by catering to the demands of lower socio-economic strata, so it wouldn’t come up.

Sometimes, but war is awfully expensive and if you pick the wrong fight, you’re a lot worse off than just broke. Also, so long as the war is between the agencies and doesn’t implicate their customers, who cares? The customers can just pay their subscription to the victors, like lion prides stay the same while the alpha males come and go.

Why is this a concern? Is there some sort of spree where property owners tie up trespassers and torture them that I don’t know about? The common law sets out the adequate rules which would probably carry over into the fees established by PDA’s.

By hiring these guys: http://www.blackwaterusa.com/alumni/alumni_overview.html if they’re rich enough. Or they can cook and clean for a wealthy family in exchange for food, board and protection. Or become wards of their Church or Family.

Gated communities are a rational response to anarcho-tyranny so why is that even a concern? But the fact of the matter is the state perpetuates criminality. Without state-sponsored judges and lawyers and police and the penal system, most criminals would be vagrants in no-man’s lands or shot dead in the act–not posing enough harm to justify gated communities.

4

No, because the poor are free to defend themselves. People who think that poor people can’t defend themselves have another thing coming! In reality, people who are poor tend to be tougher, nastier fighters than people who are rich for one simple reason: they have a higher tendency to be raised scrapping. Rich people may have access to training options, but those don’t do you a hill of beans good because most training options that will cater to the rich are low-risk environments. Self-defense, though, is extreme-risk…it’s all or nothing. You can’t just throw a few punches in a ring, score a few points and expect to be able to act under pressure. No, you have to be under pressure and when people are competing the hardest for the scarcest apparent resources (as is the case with the poor) they tend to fight a whole lot harder.

To answer your own question, I suggest you delve into the history of mercenary armies in the middle ages, renaissance, and the early colonial period.

No, we should not. If you trespass on the property of another person, then what they do is up to them. You should never have been there and if you get hurt as a result then it’s your own fault.

Simple, they buy guns and learn to use them, or they try to stay in shape and learn to fight. Tow examples of such:

  1. Dee Kettleson (not sure if that’s right on the last name) was an elderly lady my dad knew in her college years. At 80 years old, she was a practicing martial artist. She got mugged on her way home once and put the mugger in a body cast and broke his arm in about five different places. Yes, many old ladies can defend themselves.
  2. In a Texas case, an elderly woman’s house was broken into. Being old, she no longer cared if the thief took everything. She calmly sat on her couch and watched the man steal virtually everything she owned until he made one fatal mistake: he told her that if she told the cops, he would kill her. At this point, she removed her old revolver from beneath the cushion and gunned the man down.

Yes, old women home alone can defend themselves. It’s called not being as helpless as they seem.

If we so choose to do so, then yes we would. However, I doubt that this would happen at all since humans tend to be social creatures. In feeling safer (it has been proven that people in low crime environments feel safer and it has further been proven that greater protection of self defense rights reduces crime), people would be less paranoid and more open to each other in the community and to outsiders.

5

Can you imagine the insane self-defense systems you could have in a free and open private market?

Forget spraying Mace. You could spray a deadly nerve toxin. You could mark someone for life with it.

You could have a flame thrower built into the door frame. You cover your lawn in a substance that would be the human equivalent of fly paper.

Granny could live in an underground bunker, with bank vault doors.

She could code entrance to her abode to different genetic profiles.

The reason why people terrorize the weak public is that they (bad guys) have all of the force in the confrontation. That’s why “bad guys” don’t wage assaults on police stations except in the movies. No criminal in his right mind is going to attack the police station, regardless of how much heroin is in the basement.

6

Of course. It’s much easier to just phone the cops and offer them a deal.