The Production of Security

[Axiomatic]

From Gustave de Molinari's 1848 essay, The Production of Security:


If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this:


That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible needs of the consumer, it is in the consumer's best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and of trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price.


And this:


That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer.


Now in pursuing these principles, one arrives at this rigorous conclusion:


That the production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition.



Whence it follows:


That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.


Nevertheless, I must admit that, up until the present, one recoiled before this rigorous implication of the principle of free competition.
One economist who has done as much as anyone to extend the application of the principle of liberty, M. Charles Dunoyer, thinks "that the functions of government will never be able to fall into the domain of private activity."


Now here is a citation of a clear and obvious exception to the principle of free competition.


This exception is all the more remarkable for being unique.


Undoubtedly, one can find economists who establish more numerous exceptions to this principle; but we may emphatically affirm that these are not pure economists. True economists are generally agreed, on the one had, that the government should restrict itself to guaranteeing the security of its citizens, and on the other hand, that the freedom of labor and of trade should otherwise be whole and absolute.


But why should there be an exception relative to security? What special reason is there that the production of security cannot be relegated to free competition? Why should it be subjected to a different principle and organized according to a different system?
On this point, the masters of the science are silent, and M. Dunoyer, who has clearly noted this exception, does not investigate the grounds on which it is based.


SECURITY AN EXCEPTION?


We are consequently led to ask ourselves whether his exception is well founded, in the eyes of the economist.


It offends reason to believe that a well established natural law can admit of exceptions. A natural law must hold everywhere and always, or be invalid. I cannot believe, for example, that the universal law of gravitation, which governs the physical world, is ever suspended in any instance or at any point of the universe. Now I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.


But, if this is the case, the production of security should not be removed from the jurisdiction of free competition; and if it is removed, society as a whole suffers a loss.
Either this is logical and true, or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid.


THE ALTERNATIVES


It thus has been demonstrated a priori, to those of us who have faith in the principles of economic science, that the exception indicated above is not justified, and that the production of security, like anything else, should be subject to the law of free competition.

Once we have acquired this conviction, what remains for us to do? It remains for us to investigate how it has come about that the production of security has not been subjected to the law of free competition, but rather has been subjected to different principles.
What are those principles?


Those of monopoly and communism.


In the entire world, there is not a single establishment of the security industry that is not based on monopoly or on communism.



Political economy has disapproved equally of monopoly and communism in the various branches of human activity, wherever it has found them. Is it not then strange and unreasonable that it accepts them in the security industry?

Read more (http://mises.org/page/1432).

[Germanicus]

I will finish reading that in a second.

But you know, to a Norman, if you conquer, then it is Gods will. If you crusade and happen to become wealthy, then that must have been what God wanted you to do. It was your divine right to crusade. Clearly.

And another thing that I really hate is Police Unions right? Motherfuckers. Who the fuck do they think they are anyway? The Praetorian Guard or something? A teachers union? I think that these people must learn their places. Right? (:

edit Police Unions. Such motherfuckers. You are the public motherfuckers. Deal with it. Right? (:
edit- Im thinking there is some kind of Iron Food Bowl type solution. Anyway, I will let you know in a minute.

edit- ok, artificial organization is the way of the future. Know it. We are better than god. Us god-kings. Our seeds are not wasted and scattered upon rocky places.


The Parable of the Sower (http://biblehub.com/mark/4.htm)
…4 (http://biblehub.com/mark/4-4.htm)as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 (http://biblehub.com/mark/4-5.htm)"Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. 6 (http://biblehub.com/mark/4-6.htm)"And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.…

http://biblehub.com/mark/4-5.htm

Us God-Kings protect order. God-Kings do not waste any seeds. We plant them at the correct depth, with correct spacing. We are the new sowers.

( Im pretty sure Im the anti-christ. Like did I just say that? Im not so sure )

What else? Wait a second. Mao Zedong was a peasant before I forget..


Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries. In small districts a single entrepreneur could suffice.

edit- Ok, so the so-called 'small entrepreneur' is an enemy of the trusts. They want to bust the trust. Fuck them. Little mini-capitalists. Corporations should extend services to isolated regions at a loss in the name of the Pubic Good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Do you see.

Small entreprenuers are bad combinations. They must be replaced. By a better combination.

edit- this is key. Public expectation in the west is far too high. It must be reduced. A drastic reduction is in order. Citizens must be compelled to ask not. Good citizens will respect the use of force at the right time.

edit- The State has the right to kill. Even God knows that. Thou shalt not kill does not apply to the State. It never has. It never will. Individuals are more dangerous to the State than groups. At the end of the say force must be used to maintain order. All good citizens can understand that. Western publics have a much bigger bark than bite.

edit things must get worse before they can get better. Citizens can be encouraged to ask not. Citizens can be encouraged to appreciate their standard of living. It must be reduced a great deal before our God-King emergency measures are put into action. Things must be so bad that they will never again dream about complaining ever again. They will appreciate any gains that they can make from the future base level secutity that future US citizenship will afford them

edit- alright, Im stopping this now. Im starting to freak myself out again. I thought I was looking to make a deal with the devil.. (:

edit- I will come back to this. Relax. I look after my own. (: Everything will be fine. It will be easy to restore an open Nobility if we bend our backs. Right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VD_dpidfjQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lK4cX5xGiQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwwU_CvS8NA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30DMi866ThM

[Germanicus]

The military are not exactly the public.

A military class will be created. It will consist of families from the upper and l blah blah.

Short term solutions will be in order.

People in North Korea are very happy mostly. People in China are happy. People in China are not stupid plus they also come and go.

China has so-called 'Princlings'. What is wrong with that? They do more than Prince Harry and Wills. The new noblity will be somewhat of a meritocracy within itself. Anyway, Im sure it is.

The people can accept an end to democracy. the peasants do not know what dow or nasdaq is. And they do not want to or believe themselves capable of understanding well enough even if they suspected they were somehow being bamboozled. Good honest working class people like to work and fee a sense of worth. They feel of value. Work is a blessing for them. Without work they would have nothing to fill the week in. Many would volunteer to drive trucks and dig holes for up to 6 hours a day at the very least, especially part-time. People need work. Certain people need certain kinds of work.

Unions should be illegal. Enough is never enough for them and they are to blame for a modern society that has become unsustainable. Workers cannot demand a pay rise each year and have regular strikes each and every year just to show their power to the State. This must become criminal behaviour. And serious. Loss of pay is not a good enough consequence for selfish strike action by public workers or any section of society.

There must be a sharp gap between the wealth of nobility and the next class but the nobility of each nation cant be too large. See it shouldnt look like a pyramid. More like a christmas tree.

Anyway, most people are communal types. This is why North Korea and China work so well. In China things would be even better if the west would stop encouraging stupid dissidents(and cooperate. USA and China can rule together. China has a certain noble class of sorts. They should be encouraged to be even more unapologetic about it than they are.

It is these petty bourgeoisie motherfuckers that are always the real enemy of the State though right? This is why the so-called small businessman should be made obsolete in certain important sectors of economy. No more day traders or mom and pop investors. They will become a part of the speculative economy through citizenship benifits..All of their insurance will be deducted from their account each week as well as investment credits and superannuation etc etc.. (: Each citizen will be a part of the empire and good citizens will be encouraged and rewarded with various investment and savings credit schemes.

To be a citizen of the empire will be almost as great as being a god-king, or nobility or whatever we call ourselves. ((:

It is more than possible to return to an open class system. A healthy rivalry between classes should be encouraged but so should respect between classes. Sydney rugby league is safe and sensible class warfare that hurts no body too bad. Wests vs Manly was like rich vs poor but when the mapies lost its not like fans wanted to overthrow Manly or anything. And in the past before aspirational propaganda and the death of respect between classes people from the West were not ashamed of where they were from but proud. Why does the ruling class want the entire population to 'aspire' again? I do not get it. (:

The wealth of the lower classes should be capped. The nobility will not exactly need currency. The investor/merchant/private class will be regulated by the State.

edit- respect between classes. Isnt it a beautiful concept? Think about it. ((:

5920


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1XqbopXH5M

edit- western publics are soft. In a social unrest state of emergency situation all power to the city should be cut and citizens should be aware of this. If unrest/striking continues for more than a day the black out will continue for more than a day. I predict counter protests? Do you reckon? A public rabble will never threaten government. Only loss of recognition from the global economy. A State must maintain that. And a loyal military.

Each class should live in their own communities which will be secured by the State.

edit- the big thing is this Artificial Organization. This is important for our new International Law. Backward nations will be allowed to have elected rulers and savage class system if they wish but if a nation falls into debt then the management of their economt must fall to a independent extranational body. ( do you like that? )

edit- to add balance, cultural humility and compromise will be important. The western empire will be a virtue based empire. Citizens that show loyalty and worth will have access to mobility within their class.

edit- Private security is a stupid idea. Especially with all that money China has.. What is USA? Carthage? The military must be loyal and the State must be loyal to the military. This is a good example of why the State and Capitalists must become one.

edit- imagine how slow you would need to be to allow a situation where a private army is needed to counter the public army. That is absurd. And not particularly conservative. (: Or to encourage it. The people accept some charity giving cocksucker billionaire? Better if the people do not know who he is. Let plebs be famous. And cap their wealth. Why pay Shaq $100 million to play basketball? He would play for less.

It should be beneath the nobility to entertain. Performers will not be part of the upper class. They will be the upper class of the lower class.

edit- economy will be secondary in a noble virtue based empire.

Station will be more important than wealth.

edit- people can accept nobility. If you are born noble then you are born noble. Plebs will have their own version of nobility. That homo thing.



edit- but yeah, Carthage did not have loyal soldiers. Mercs are not that loyal. Or trustworthy. Or reliable. The National Military should be controlled by the State. The army must be loyal to the State alone and consider it their duty as a citizen. Their loyalty must be to the nation and not to money.

edit- Carthaginians were not exactly an honourable people/society. Honour is important and all citizens should be taught to defend the honour of the State.

edit- I forgot, compatablity will be encouraged. Nations will be encouraged to cooperate with new Global Law and non-compatible will suffer a partial sanction/global tax for failing to update whatever part of their economy. An independent extranational body will offer them assistance to update.

All nations should agree to the new laws if USA-China announce the New Plan together. Who would fuck with a united conservative non-democratic emergency USA-China? Not me. Who would dare? What nation? What nation could resist? No nation can afford to be excluded from the Asian Century.

[Chris]

True economists are generally agreed, on the one had, that the government should restrict itself to guaranteeing the security of its citizens, and on the other hand, that the freedom of labor and of trade should otherwise be whole and absolute.

But why should there be an exception relative to security? What special reason is there that the production of security cannot be relegated to free competition? Why should it be subjected to a different principle and organized according to a different system?

On this point, the masters of the science are silent,,,


It is odd that the most vociferous opponents of monopoly adhere to the exception of the state's monopoly in force.



Gustave de Molinari's 1848 essay, The Production of Security, is on my reading list.

My introduction to private security and private defense was Robert P. Murphy's humorously titled Chaos Theory, available for download here: https://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf.

[Germanicus]

If you are born noble it is the will of the universe. Some people are attractive some are not. Some people are smart, some are not. Some people are smart and attractive. People must accept it. ( edit- what are you going to do? Get an extreme make over? Best schools? Who can afford all of that? (: )And some people are born wealthy and noble. A ruling class is needed for any society. But a virtue based society must extend to the nobility. It must be at least somewhat genuine. The idea is to shear the sheep not skin them or something right? This is sensible. Like tikkun olam. There is no need to stomp on the proletariat. After the austerity and emergency measures of course. The mini-capitalist is the problem. Wealth disparity between classes is too much of a spectrum. Too much uncontrolled new money wealth and power. There must be a stark gap between the wealthy, the middle and the base citizen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag8Yqvs8h54


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWDhGl88Xkk

[Germanicus]

We need to leave democracy in the long yard. It is done.

Thailand and Ukraine are proof that so-called 'democracy' is nothing more than than US imperialism. And the propagandists from the US side are getting desperate..
I mean god. Thailand Government and Ukraine are doing all they can to use 'democracy' to maintain order. Emergency measures should always have the option of becoming permanent. If they happen to be a success. They must also be adaptibe/flexible. Any transition away from emergency measures must be safe and steady.

edit- and hey... wait for it........wait....... FUCK THE EU! COMIN STRAIGHT FROM THA UNDEGROUND!!!!!!!!

HA!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51t1OsPSdBc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgtMCg7ftU

[Chris]

Back to the production of security, the Mises wiki provides the following summary, Private defense agency (http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency):


As proponents of free-market anarchism, Benjamin Tucker[1][2] and Gustave de Molinari first explicitly proposed for-profit private defense agencies. The concept later was advanced and expanded upon by anarcho-capitalists who consider the state to be illegitimate, and therefore believe defense is something that should be provided or determined privately by individuals and firms competing in a free market. The Mises Institute published a book of essays entitled The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production.[3] Murray N. Rothbard in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto and David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom expand substantially on the idea. Both hold that a PDA [private defense agency] would be part of a privatized system of law, police, courts, insurance companies and arbitration agencies who are responsible for preventing and dealing with aggression. In this environment, victimless crimes and "crimes against the state" would be rendered moot, and the legal realm would be limited to contractual disputes and tort damages, as from assault, burglary, pollution, and all other forms of aggression.[4][5] This concept is similar to Polycentric law. Within economics, discussion of the concept largely has been confined to the Austrian School, as in Hans Hoppe's article "The Private Production of Defense" published by the Mises Institute.[6]

These authors emphasize that PDAs have different motives from existing statist defense agencies. Their survival depends on quality of service leading to a wide customer base, rather than the ability to extract funds via the force of law, as is true of states. Customers and markets would thus dictate that PDAs minimize offensive tendencies and militarization in favor of a pure defense. Anarcho-capitalists believe such privatization and decentralization of defense would eliminate the credibility of, and popular support for, the state.

As a private firm offering individually determined defense, the PDA provides a model for how an entirely private defense would work in a free market. John Frederic Kosanke argues that the need for large-scale defense is minimized in direct inverse proportion to the extent of domestic control by the state. Since the greater number of proprietors makes surrender more costly to an aggressor than a relatively authoritarian region, vulnerability to attack is less likely. Furthermore, since individuals minding their own business pose little threat to neighboring regions, official or ideological justification by those neighbors for attacking them is also proportionately diminished.[7]

[The Wash]

Why should you have something you aren't willing to defend yourself?