What strikes me as most unrealistic about some schools of libertarianism is the proposition that a free society can function effectively, or even remain free, without a common defense of natural resources and law.
Putting aside military for the moment, how can it be supported that a private police force would protect the public interests, ie. an objective body of laws–paid, as they would be, by private interests?
Is this potential “news” scenario really so absurd:
“…And in a related story, today live rounds were again exchanged downtown between Walgreens security and nearby CVS forces, as reprisals continue from the recent arrest of the Walgreens CEO by a CVS SWAT team last Tuesday night…”
So, who steps in to restore peace and order again? Wal Mart?
So your scenario is that a ‘Walgreens’ (that’s a supermarket, right?) and a private security agency start shooting at each other because of a legal dispute?
My question would be why would they settle it with guns, rather than apeal horizontally to a different court?
The police services paid for by the people living in that area step in to restore order. Don’t confuse private security services, of the kind employed by businesses to protect their property, with private police services, the kind paid for by residents of an area to enforce local laws. The people wouldn’t pay to support police services that act solely in the interests of this or that corporation; would you pay for a police force that arrests the Walgreens CEO or shoots live rounds at your local CVS? Walgreens and CVS also wouldn’t be too happy with the massive disruption to business and to their reputations that would occur if their employees started firing live rounds around downtown, so they’d likely step in to restore peace and order by firing said security staff, who’d most likely have committed some breach of contract (as their contract would likely not allow them to do things that could be so harmful to their employer’s business).
The scenario is that people aren’t forced to pay for police protection, through taxes or otherwise, in this libertarian society; so private companies and individuals are forced to provide their own.
My assertion is that once private law enforcement becomes the prevailing rule, then competition between business enterprises will lead to retaliatory harassment–pulling people aside for interrogation, refusing some to enter establishments, etc.–though likely not to the absurd extent indicated in that “news” story.
My point is that the ideal protection of law is what we have now: Public officers, publicly funded by all.
The police services paid for by the people living in that area step in to restore order. Don’t confuse private security services, of the kind employed by businesses to protect their property, with private police services, the kind paid for by residents of an area to enforce local laws. The people wouldn’t pay to support police services that act solely in the interests of this or that corporation.
Then your scenario differs from what exists now only in that people pay voluntarily to support a public law enforcement apparatus, rather than through taxation? And what of those who refuse to pay?
People who refuse to voluntarily support a public law enforcement apparatus? Then they don’t necessarily receive protection by any of the competing law-enforcement companies, except to the extent that said companies indirectly protect them by protecting others, or protect them as a means for gaining good reputation, gaining their business, etc. Their choice. They’d also have the choice to arm themselves, and provide their own protection. If I don’t buy surge protectors, there’s a power outage, and my laptop gets fried, do I demand public provision of surge protectors so that it doesn’t happen again? No, I go to the shop and buy one.
And what makes public police officers be able to enforce the law objectively?
Some don’t. That’s human nature. But there is a whole state apparatus of hierarchical authority to help safeguard against abuses, one that would be absent if private forces were the only law enforcement.
Why the hell doesn’t the army enslave us? It’s a frickin monopoly for crying out loud!
You’re making my point for me. Publicly-funded protection of law and of natural resources, through publicly-funded police and national military, is an necessary, if unfortunate, monopolization of force. Our army could enslave us, but it does not enslave us.
But there is a whole state apparatus of hierarchical authority to help safeguard against abuses, one that would be absent if private forces were the only law enforcement.
Why do you think so?
Publicly-funded protection of law and of natural resources, through publicly-funded police and national military, is an necessary, if unfortunate, monopolization of force. Our army could enslave us, but it does not enslave us.
No, you’re dodging the question. You never explained why private is different from public. We’re talking about fundamentals of human nature here.
Plus, rememberer - war is hella expensive. It doesn’t pay to go to war. Firms know this.
People who refuse to voluntarily support a public law enforcement apparatus? Then they don’t necessarily receive protection by any of the competing law-enforcement companies, except to the extent that said companies indirectly protect them by protecting others,
But who protects everyone from the abuses of any private law enforcement agency? And if two separate agencies show up on the same scene, who has jurisdiction? If citizen A is caught in the security area of citizen B, can he be extradited to A area, where he pays for protection?
But there is a whole state apparatus of hierarchical authority to help safeguard against abuses, one that would be absent if private forces were the only law enforcement.
Why do you think so?
Why would a private individual or company voluntarily pay separately for a second policing body to check the first one? Sounds like a racket.
No, you’re dodging the question. You never explained why private is different from public. We’re talking about fundamentals of human nature here.
Human nature applies equally to people in public and private positions, generally. Both are prone to abuses of authority. So any extra checks on those abuses are a positive–checks like a public FBI, state bureaus, internal affairs, etc. Not to mention the strict hierarchy of the military, controlled at the top by a civilian leader, duly elected.
In case you guys didn’t know, CVS is a convenience store much like Walgreens.. And apparently they have a SWAT team in this scenario.. And apparently they used it to kidnap the CEO of their competitor (lol).. And apparently they’re going to war over it.. And apparently this would be quite commonplace in a voluntary society..
By the way, I’m completely setting aside the question of who makes the laws that are enforced, who chooses who makes such laws, and how people choose to opt in or out of being subject to them. These are more libertarian details I’ve never seen well addressed.
The over-arching point is that democracy and some form of compulsory contribution to the protection of laws, through a military and a police force, are unavoidable in a modern society.
If interested, check out a preview of my alternative:
And apparently this would be quite commonplace in a voluntary society
I’ve already conceded that that was an exaggeration. My point was that businesses don’t act in everyone’s interests; police are supposed to. Police have plenty of discretion as to whether to arrest someone or not; whether to detain and interrogate them; etc. And if their checks are paid by a private interest, they’re more likely to show a bias in favor of their employers.
The over-arching point is that democracy and some form of compulsory contribution to the protection of laws, through a military and a police force, are unavoidable in a modern society.
Well… I gues de facto you are correct, what with the US going out of its way to bring democracy to the middle east through a monopoly on force…
You can’t go anywhere without that democracy catching up to you.
(jk)