That was probably one of the most cordial endings to an internet discussion I’ve ever seen.
The idea behind my question was really a means by which I can understand how the security forces will operate in various situations. In war, things can and do happen that are unexpected. Assuming that the security forces are the towns main defense against professional plunder’s or invading forces, the question arises as to how the security companies will handle a crisis such as this one. The thing I was trying to really understand is the strategic nature of the security forces not so much the specifics. I was concerned that the security forces would merely apply a fabian strategy in order to defend the people. This strategy has proven ineffective in many wars in the past and I saw disaterous consequences for the security force if such methods were employed.
TThe question was merely made to gather information not make stand (as I yet have one). Sieben has already helped to come to a conclusion I can find exceptable. However, Z through a monkey wrench for me to consider on the issue of security and anarcho capitalism.
I don’t see the point in arguing semantics at length, but I tend to lean toward the idea that the concepts of state and government are separate, and that anarchists must oppose the former, but not necessarily the latter. That is, there can be such a thing as a non-state government, being an apparatus that enforces law (preferably law respecting property rights) but which can make no law; and which has no confiscatory powers, and which does not have a territorial monopoly on the services it provides.
Generally though, I don’t like to use the term government to describe such an apparatus, because to most people the concept is as heavily linked to the state as anarchy is to chaos and lawlessness. So how about this: I am a voluntaryist, and I favor polycentric order.