The big ones will, but otherwise it is the neighborhoods that will be armed, until such a day where crime has been reduced to such an extent that the expense will no longer be justifiable.
Why would anyone bomb a neighborhood or a building? Given that historically it does not happen often, I don’t see why in a free society, where criminal gangs (governments included) are gone, there would be organized groups of individuals targeting other groups. It seems that the cost of protecting against that would be way too high in the first place.
So you should be wary of buying food from anyone whose motivation is monetary. On the same account that you are making, of course - that rewards have a limited ability to motivate people. Food is way more important and critical for ones own survival and well being then the service of protection. Hired protection is a luxury compared to food. The same reasoning is used to justify coercive regulations into everything to ensure safety, quality, etc… Are you sure you want to go there?
You are making the issue way too complicated for yourself. Let me break it down into a few logical mental steps:
- There are only two ways in which you can recruit people to work for defense agencies:
a. By coercion - individual is forced by violence or threat of violence out of his home and daily job in order to fight for the agency.
b. by voluntary means - individual voluntary signs out of his own self interest, i.e., earn a wage, benefits, ideology, likes the type of work, etc…
Q: Who is more likely to perform his job better and to show greater loyalty - The conscripted soldier or the voluntary soldier?
- Regardless of method of recruitment, the agency can operate in only one of two ways:
a. By coercion - agency is financed by expropriation/taxation. Customers cannot withdraw their support from the agency.
b. by voluntary means - agency must attract and maintain customers for its operations to exist. Customers are free to withdraw their support at any time if they do not approve of the service.
Q: What type of system is more likely to provide the better service of protection? What type of service is more likely to “obey” every wish of its customers?
If you have acknowledged that the voluntary choices above are indeed the preferred choices, then you have acknowledged that the State is unnecessary and certainly undesirable.
The question of whether the agency is operated on the model of profit & loss insurance companies, or on the model of charitable “non profit” organization is immaterial to the question at hand. Both are voluntary institutions that the free market can support. The more efficient model will prevail since it is the consumers themselves who will determine this choice. I personally think it will be the former, but that is not the argument. The argument is State monopoly vs voluntary action.
Dammit am I writing these for dead air: On the nature of power
“So you should be wary of buying food from anyone whose motivation is monetary.”
Well, no, someone selling me food takes almost no personal risk. Maybe I’m passing a counterfeit note or violently insane? I can’t really think of many reasonable risks the cashier at a grocery store or the owner of a grocery chain take on when they agree to give me some eggs for some currency.
But, if I hire a bodyguard, they are potentially taking on quite a bit of risk, depending on who I am.
All I’m saying is that if I did hire a bodyguard, I wouldn’t expect them to take a bullet for me under any circumstances, nor would I be willing to take a bullet aimed at anyone who hired me as a bodyguard, because the utility of money is very low after death.
At the same time, I would be willing to take a bullet in defense of another if I saw it as integral to the defense of my community or ideals as I perceive them, and I know others would do so as well. Thus, I would feel far more comfortable knowing that my defense was safeguarded by people who see my defense as integral to the defense of their own communities, property and values than by individuals whose main motivation is monetary.
So is the truck driver you hire to deliver your stuff, and so is the skyscraper window cleaner.
And so is every policeman, soldier, and private bodyguard that voluntarily signs up for the job for whatever “profit” he is willing to work for.
All jobs have a risk and the risk is just part of the cost benefit analysis that every individual does for himself before he decides to do anything.
You are really not making any valid arguments here.
So everybody in the US army joined because they are just suckers for all of us? Or perhaps some (in not most) joined for the wage, benefits, college tuition, etc…
Does every soldier who is sent to battle believe in the cause? You have no argument.
Anyway, even your false arguments don’t show why the State is necessary. To recruit people who are ready to die for you for the sake of just dying for you and not for the sake of profit, is not somehow made easier by having a State. On the contrary, coercion plays no part in your desire to recruit such people.
So why are you arguing against anarchy? If you would are you trying to argue that nobody else will? I mean thousands of people voluntarily join the military today to fight for what they might think is to defend their community.
Ah. Good. Now since you know it, then don’t argue with yourself.
then call it money on the side so they get paid for their time away from the farm or other productive services.
I mean you’re only arguing against yourself at this point because I’ve pointed to you that what you’re saying here doesn’t have anything to do with actual community life. It’s more simply your fear that your throwing around to everybody more than anything else. Take advantage of getting educated at this site. There’s plenty of books and articles to read on the subject. Find the logical flaws and argue against them. Right now your not really saying anything other than sharing the nightmares you dream up. I mean relax. Chill out.
“So everybody in the US army joined because they are just suckers for all of us? Or perhaps some (in not most) joined for the wage, benefits, college tuition, etc…”
Certainly, and that is why their defeat by Afghani peasants who fight (as they see it) for their families, communities, nation and God is certain and inevitable.
“Does every soldier who is sent to battle believe in the cause?”
According to General Eisenhower, “morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” The side in a war which has a stronger belief in its cause has a very serious military advantage.
I agree with your last statement, but I’m not arguing for a state anymore than any private membership organization is a state. But a private club has the power to decide which members it accepts, which it expels, and what requirements it places on people who wish to remain members.
Any community threatened with serious aggression would have to be able to require its members to assist in the defense of the community or leave the threatened territory. Free riders remaining in the territory would be stealing the defense provided at very high cost by others. But then if a membership organization takes responsibility for defense of a given territory, how can it be kept accountable to its members in ways other than “voting with their feet,” which is often very difficult and unpleasant?
The only answer I can imagine is internal democracy.
If you have historical examples of effective defense forces organized along free market principles and the defensive battles they successfully fought, I would be interested to study them.
So you’ve just responded to your own thread. You’ve refuted your initial premise of the requirement for the State. Whether your dilemma is justified or not, the State obviously doesn’t solve it.
The market is a type of democracy but without coercion. Everybody “votes” with his own property. It is the only way in which individuals can cooperate in a civilized manner.
Can you provide examples of effective defense forces organized along the principles of the State?
1 - Voting with the dollar. Service is poor. Could be gone the next day.
2 - The state is the ultimate free rider.
Defense has nothing to do with territory.
Can you provide examples of effective defense forces organized along the principles of the State?
Let’s start with the battle of Thermopylae?
Defense has nothing to do with territory.
Well it sure does if the aggression is territorial. Ask von Mises, who fled Europe on account of the Nazis. He seemed to think that being safe from aggression by Nazis had something to do with the territory he was inhabiting.