But that's what we have now with state-run security, as codename said, "monopoly of force and no alternative means of articulating justice".
Private security would preclude that monopoly through competition, private security companies competing to provide security, while they also cooperate by negotiating agreements and settlements.
Security would not just involve police, fire, ambulance protection, but also private arbitrators to provide a sort of private justice system.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Because the state has a monopoly on force so it can. Without it, if I am being harassed I can hit a button on my smart phone app and a bunch of badasses will who up with ARs.
Actually, depending on the township and the type of application you can do away with a private security company. For example, in the area we are moving into the town is small and the number of gun owners is 100%.
If everyone who wants security agrees to participate you can use an application that calls a "militia" for a crime in progress or emergency.
Check this out and we should all support him if we put our money where our philosophy is http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/peacekeeper
Yup. No private security firm would be successful if their agents acted like cops. Most unreasonable confrontations would be eliminated just by taking state law out of the picture. Most confrontations initiated by police don't involve a prior victim, or even a potential victim. The state calls itself the victim in the vast majority of those confrontations. Private security never needs to initiate those kinds of confrontations, which also frees up a great deal of time that the private security agents can spend on something less destructive. I would say more productive, which is also true, but I think less destructive is more appropriate in this case.
I don't know of any real monopolies that aren't caused by the state. None of the classic examples that people point to are monopolies. WalMart and Microsoft have never been monopolies. Even if there were no other department stores WalMart still wouldn't be a monopoly because they are not the exclusive provider of anything they sell. Real monopolies are things like your utility companies, Monsanto, the Federal Reserve and the state, itself, all state created. Yes, private security would inevitably face competition without the state.
I mean I think citizens should pool to be their own security or have no exclusive contracts.
XL and I to an extent are raising man's nature into this scenario. My friend (aldo) on the other site is an aggro dude. He is great at theater bad at garrison and if he were a cop without USMC constraints I would pity the town. I have had to $#@! him up several times because of his attitude and he actually calms down after he takes a beating and will buy you beers that day.
The only way to keep those types from running amok is your ability to beat the $#@! out of him if he puts a hand on you.
Guerilla (10-06-2013)
Yep. I walked into the room he was in, pulled him out of his chair and beat the $#@! out of him. He comes back later with a bushel of crabs, beer, and a new game and says he was sorry for getting mouthy.
Yes, I guess. I still think some communities don't need it. Like the one we're all moving to within a year will have 24 ex special operations people aged 24-32 living there. If we were all on some hand held alert it wouldn't even be necessary. Hell, we'd be racing to the scene of an event that's what sort of adrenalin junkies we all are.
Yes, people should keep themselves and neighbors can do that as a unit. But, ultimately, people end up dividing labor. Without a state, which is what we're talking about here, security companies are inevitable.
@Mr. Evil am I wrong?