A few questions for anarcho-capitalists

[Socialist Federative Slavia]

First of all I want this to be a decent discussion I do not mean to offend anyone. I do not think you are stupid. In order to reach such an extreme and detailed conclusion as anarchocapitalism one has to do a lot of an annoying thing called thinking so I think you deserve to be heard out.

1) A lawyer has a client who has been accused of a crime. He knows that his client will most likely get condemned in court. If you give him the option of not going to court, obviously he will do it.

Why would security companies not do the same? Refuse arbitration because they know their client will loose.
Would their other clients boycott them? How would they know the person their company is defending is a criminal? Do you really think people will harm their own interests (if they selected that firm it is because they wanted to) by boycotting a security firm just because that security firm is protecting its client and refusing to hire arbitrators? People(in this case security companies) tend to be quite loyal to those who pay them. In ancient Rome, Roman soldiers gladly fought each other in order to serve their employers(generals). I know, I know, if it was not for taxes the generals would not have had the money to hire the soldiers, but that does not disprove the point of people are loyal to those who pay them

2) I am on the run, and facing prison time if I get caught. If I go to the Mafia and offer them a huge amount of cash or even a much needed favor they would not even think of protecting me. Because that would give the government an excuse to arrest them all. The government is big enough to utterly crush the Mafia if they have an excuse to do so.

If we had smaller security companies instead, they would not be strong enough to crush organized crime so effectively. As you yourself say, war would be expensive for private security companies. The mafia would not have to take over society, it would just have to be strong enough to make a war against it unprofitable. It could even make a partnership with some corrupt security companies. Something like this:
You have two companies: A&B
The mob only attacks people with security company A
Only protects criminals that have harmed people under the protection of company A
The Mob feigns attacks on company B`s clients and lets its members get arrested by company B(only to have them secretly released obviously)
People switch en mass to company B and the Mob gets a share of the profits.
What`s to stop something like this from happening?

3) We`ve had stateless society before and there are stateless societies now. They are and were almost always tribal with people banding together with their cousins and neighbors to take care of each other. This makes people very biased towards their clan members, so conflicts between tribes could easily escalate into blood feuds. Here on the Balkans a country called Montenegro(heard of it?) was a tribal society up to the 19th century and had rampant blood feuding, traces of which exist today. (I hear Albania also has a similar problem, but I am not well informed about that )
Why would tribal society not arise again with its chronic plague of blood feuds? I mean most criminal gangs are just clans anyway
``Don`t you ever take sides with anyone against the family again`` to quote ``The Godfather``

[The New Sea Territory]

1) A lawyer has a client who has been accused of a crime. He knows that his client will most likely get condemned in court. If you give him the option of not going to court, obviously he will do it.

Why would security companies not do the same? Refuse arbitration because they know their client will loose.
Would their other clients boycott them? How would they know the person their company is defending is a criminal? Do you really think people will harm their own interests (if they selected that firm it is because they wanted to) by boycotting a security firm just because that security firm is protecting its client and refusing to hire arbitrators? People(in this case security companies) tend to be quite loyal to those who pay them. In ancient Rome, Roman soldiers gladly fought each other in order to serve their employers(generals). I know, I know, if it was not for taxes the generals would not have had the money to hire the soldiers, but that does not disprove the point of people are loyal to those who pay them

The fact that people are loyal to those who pay them is an argument against the state's existence, because the state is not exempt from that statement either. On to the point, contracts would likely be signed before the whole event or trial happened, since this arbitration would be more like insurance, and the company would be contracted to protect the client regardless of he's likelihood of winning.

2) I am on the run, and facing prison time if I get caught. If I go to the Mafia and offer them a huge amount of cash or even a much needed favor they would not even think of protecting me. Because that would give the government an excuse to arrest them all. The government is big enough to utterly crush the Mafia if they have an excuse to do so.

If we had smaller security companies instead, they would not be strong enough to crush organized crime so effectively. As you yourself say, war would be expensive for private security companies. The mafia would not have to take over society, it would just have to be strong enough to make a war against it unprofitable. It could even make a partnership with some corrupt security companies. Something like this:
You have two companies: A&B
The mob only attacks people with security company A
Only protects criminals that have harmed people under the protection of company A
The Mob feigns attacks on company B`s clients and lets its members get arrested by company B(only to have them secretly released obviously)
People switch en mass to company B and the Mob gets a share of the profits.
What`s to stop something like this from happening?

Really inaccurate. Considering organized crime exists and carries out plenty of crimes, I think this whole first hypothetical is meaningless. The point that also needs to be made is that government is just organized crime that is socially acceptable. Lysander Spooner wrote a lot about the parallels between organized crime and the state.

What's to stop the same thing from happening with the state? Corruption exists in any society, and your entire hypothetical is based on an assumption - the state can't have this happen to it.

3) We`ve had stateless society before and there are stateless societies now. They are and were almost always tribal with people banding together with their cousins and neighbors to take care of each other. This makes people very biased towards their clan members, so conflicts between tribes could easily escalate into blood feuds. Here on the Balkans a country called Montenegro(heard of it?) was a tribal society up to the 19th century and had rampant blood feuding, traces of which exist today. (I hear Albania also has a similar problem, but I am not well informed about that )
Why would tribal society not arise again with its chronic plague of blood feuds? I mean most criminal gangs are just clans anyway
``Don`t you ever take sides with anyone against the family again`` to quote ``The Godfather``

We (anarchists in general) aren't calling for a tribal society, so your point is attacking what I call Strawmanarchism. You're unintentionally strawmanning the anarchist claim.

[Sanctissima]

1) A lawyer has a client who has been accused of a crime. He knows that his client will most likely get condemned in court. If you give him the option of not going to court, obviously he will do it.

Why would security companies not do the same? Refuse arbitration because they know their client will loose.
Would their other clients boycott them? How would they know the person their company is defending is a criminal? Do you really think people will harm their own interests (if they selected that firm it is because they wanted to) by boycotting a security firm just because that security firm is protecting its client and refusing to hire arbitrators? People(in this case security companies) tend to be quite loyal to those who pay them. In ancient Rome, Roman soldiers gladly fought each other in order to serve their employers(generals). I know, I know, if it was not for taxes the generals would not have had the money to hire the soldiers, but that does not disprove the point of people are loyal to those who pay them

The fact that people are loyal to those who pay them is an argument against the state's existence, because the state is not exempt from that statement either. On to the point, contracts would likely be signed before the whole event or trial happened, since this arbitration would be more like insurance, and the company would be contracted to protect the client regardless of he's likelihood of winning.

2) I am on the run, and facing prison time if I get caught. If I go to the Mafia and offer them a huge amount of cash or even a much needed favor they would not even think of protecting me. Because that would give the government an excuse to arrest them all. The government is big enough to utterly crush the Mafia if they have an excuse to do so.

If we had smaller security companies instead, they would not be strong enough to crush organized crime so effectively. As you yourself say, war would be expensive for private security companies. The mafia would not have to take over society, it would just have to be strong enough to make a war against it unprofitable. It could even make a partnership with some corrupt security companies. Something like this:
You have two companies: A&B
The mob only attacks people with security company A
Only protects criminals that have harmed people under the protection of company A
The Mob feigns attacks on company B`s clients and lets its members get arrested by company B(only to have them secretly released obviously)
People switch en mass to company B and the Mob gets a share of the profits.
What`s to stop something like this from happening?

Really inaccurate. Considering organized crime exists and carries out plenty of crimes, I think this whole first hypothetical is meaningless. The point that also needs to be made is that government is just organized crime that is socially acceptable. Lysander Spooner wrote a lot about the parallels between organized crime and the state.

What's to stop the same thing from happening with the state? Corruption exists in any society, and your entire hypothetical is based on an assumption - the state can't have this happen to it.

3) We`ve had stateless society before and there are stateless societies now. They are and were almost always tribal with people banding together with their cousins and neighbors to take care of each other. This makes people very biased towards their clan members, so conflicts between tribes could easily escalate into blood feuds. Here on the Balkans a country called Montenegro(heard of it?) was a tribal society up to the 19th century and had rampant blood feuding, traces of which exist today. (I hear Albania also has a similar problem, but I am not well informed about that )
Why would tribal society not arise again with its chronic plague of blood feuds? I mean most criminal gangs are just clans anyway
``Don`t you ever take sides with anyone against the family again`` to quote ``The Godfather``

We (anarchists in general) aren't calling for a tribal society, so your point is attacking what I call Strawmanarchism. You're unintentionally strawmanning the anarchist claim.

I'll point out that the vast bulk of anarchist rhetoric is based on what should be done, but rarely how to do it.

[Distruzio]

I'll point out that the vast bulk of anarchist rhetoric is based on what should be done, but rarely how to do it.

That reality is a large contributing factor that led me back towards statism from anarchism (also, the inevitable synthesis of my religious perspectives into my political perspectives).

[Genivaria]

I'll point out that the vast bulk of anarchist rhetoric is based on what should be done, but rarely how to do it.

That reality is a large contributing factor that led me back towards statism from anarchism (also, the inevitable synthesis of my religious perspectives into my political perspectives).

Welcome back to reality friend.

[Socialist Federative Slavia]

1)

Customers pay for security company.
Security company biased in favor of own clients.
Refuses to send own clients to court if it thinks they will loose.
Can get away with that because there is no higher authority.
People don`t go to trial don`t go to jail, get away with crime.
What part of that do you not understand?

Sigh... How do you prevent society from devolving into tribalism? That is sort of the de facto condition of mankind. What force do you think will prevent human society getting there, regardless of what you advocate or don`t

[Camelza]

edit; nevermind, I thought the OP referred to communitarian anarchists.

[Sosi]

Ha!

[Shilya]

Sigh... How do you prevent society from devolving into tribalism? That is sort of the de facto condition of mankind. What force do you think will prevent human society getting there, regardless of what you advocate or don`t

Effectively, you'd more likely get a return to fragmented feudalism. Tiny kingdoms all over the place, ruled by whoever owns the land in the area.

[Socialist Federative Slavia]

1) A lawyer has a client who has been accused of a crime. He knows that his client will most likely get condemned in court. If you give him the option of not going to court, obviously he will do it.

Why would security companies not do the same? Refuse arbitration because they know their client will loose.
Would their other clients boycott them? How would they know the person their company is defending is a criminal? Do you really think people will harm their own interests (if they selected that firm it is because they wanted to) by boycotting a security firm just because that security firm is protecting its client and refusing to hire arbitrators? People(in this case security companies) tend to be quite loyal to those who pay them. In ancient Rome, Roman soldiers gladly fought each other in order to serve their employers(generals). I know, I know, if it was not for taxes the generals would not have had the money to hire the soldiers, but that does not disprove the point of people are loyal to those who pay them

The fact that people are loyal to those who pay them is an argument against the state's existence, because the state is not exempt from that statement either. On to the point, contracts would likely be signed before the whole event or trial happened, since this arbitration would be more like insurance, and the company would be contracted to protect the client regardless of he's likelihood of winning.

2) I am on the run, and facing prison time if I get caught. If I go to the Mafia and offer them a huge amount of cash or even a much needed favor they would not even think of protecting me. Because that would give the government an excuse to arrest them all. The government is big enough to utterly crush the Mafia if they have an excuse to do so.

If we had smaller security companies instead, they would not be strong enough to crush organized crime so effectively. As you yourself say, war would be expensive for private security companies. The mafia would not have to take over society, it would just have to be strong enough to make a war against it unprofitable. It could even make a partnership with some corrupt security companies. Something like this:
You have two companies: A&B
The mob only attacks people with security company A
Only protects criminals that have harmed people under the protection of company A
The Mob feigns attacks on company B`s clients and lets its members get arrested by company B(only to have them secretly released obviously)
People switch en mass to company B and the Mob gets a share of the profits.
What`s to stop something like this from happening?

Really inaccurate. Considering organized crime exists and carries out plenty of crimes, I think this whole first hypothetical is meaningless. The point that also needs to be made is that government is just organized crime that is socially acceptable. Lysander Spooner wrote a lot about the parallels between organized crime and the state.

What's to stop the same thing from happening with the state? Corruption exists in any society, and your entire hypothetical is based on an assumption - the state can't have this happen to it.

3) We`ve had stateless society before and there are stateless societies now. They are and were almost always tribal with people banding together with their cousins and neighbors to take care of each other. This makes people very biased towards their clan members, so conflicts between tribes could easily escalate into blood feuds. Here on the Balkans a country called Montenegro(heard of it?) was a tribal society up to the 19th century and had rampant blood feuding, traces of which exist today. (I hear Albania also has a similar problem, but I am not well informed about that )
Why would tribal society not arise again with its chronic plague of blood feuds? I mean most criminal gangs are just clans anyway
``Don`t you ever take sides with anyone against the family again`` to quote ``The Godfather``

We (anarchists in general) aren't calling for a tribal society, so your point is attacking what I call Strawmanarchism. You're unintentionally strawmanning the anarchist claim.

By ``refuse arbitration because their client is likely to loose`` I don`t mean desert him when things get tough, quite the opposite.

Client of firm A commits crime against client of firm B.

Firm B does an investigation and wants to punish client of firm A.

Firm A refuses to let their client stand trial, because they don`t want to pay (a loss of money) for a trial which would cost them one of their clients (a loss of money).

War is to expensive (duh) Client of firm A gets away with crime.

All security firms would be biased IN FAVOR of their own clients and would protect them even if they are guilty, and there would be no higher authority to stop them from doing this.

Professionally defending other criminals for a fee is something the Mafia does not currently dare to do, because if it did, the state would crush it. Individual security companies on the other hand could not, as they would not be as strong. Ergo the Mafia would do what it already does plus this. Which is bad.

But why do you think humanity will not devolve into tribalism? I know that is not what you are advocating. What I said is, most societies that do not have states have tribes instead. That is the de facto human condition. What force in society would prevent that?

[Kainesia]

My question would be:

Do you have any fucking clue how the aggregate demand in the economy would be effected if you removed all government spending?

[Threlizdun]

To answer these questions, "anarcho-capitalists" would have to actually exist first. Given that the ideology is a contradiction of terms, that's impossible, so you can't get any meaningful answers.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The fact that people are loyal to those who pay them is an argument against the state's existence, because the state is not exempt from that statement either. On to the point, contracts would likely be signed before the whole event or trial happened, since this arbitration would be more like insurance, and the company would be contracted to protect the client regardless of he's likelihood of winning.

This exact situation plays out every day in the world of insurance. I'm not an ancap, but I understand the principles of insurance and modern ancap theory is basically based on those principles. Here's how it actually works out:

Security companies A and B would require as a part of their contract with you that you don't do certain things, like attack other people or their property.

You would have liability insurance to cover your legal settlements if you did those things, probably also provided through the security company.

If client A does something to client B that would cause company B to dispatch security assets to stop him or bring him in, he's almost certainly also in violation of his security company's contract.

On the ground in the developing situation, both security teams have an interest in defusing/neutralizing the situation as quickly as possible while doing as little damage as possible, so they're likely to use warnings and nonlethal methods before resorting to force.

After the situation is resolved, Client A's security company's continued protection now comes with a stipulation that their client abide by their arbitration rules outlined in the contract.

Those arbitration rules, which most security companies would have worked out beforehand, would be for the companies to look at the situation and try to determine fault, and assess damages. If they disagree, they would bring the matter to a neutral third party, most likely a legal team that already had a contract with both of them to do that. It may in some cases come down to a 'courtroom scene' in front of this third party, especially if company A wants to be seen as heroically defending its client's interests.

If damages are assessed, client A's liability insurance pays the settlement, and raises client A's premiums becuase he has proven to be a riskier client to carry. If client A persists in this sort of behavior, he may become uninsurable, or his security company may mandate therapy or even institutionalization for him to maintain his contract.

[Natapoc]

I'll point out that the vast bulk of anarchist rhetoric is based on what should be done, but rarely how to do it.

That reality is a large contributing factor that led me back towards statism from anarchism (also, the inevitable synthesis of my religious perspectives into my political perspectives).

The reason anarchists don't focus a lot on the "how" is not because we don't have ideas of "how" but rather because it would be wrong to speak for everyone. Anarchists of today have no right to tell the anarchist communities of the future how they will go about daily life. That is a choice best left to them and them alone.

The only people who have a right to decide "how" are those impacted by "how".

Also, one of the great and wonderful things about collaborative problem solving is that several people, working together, can devise concepts that would have been impossible for any one individual to devise him or her self. If I say "the world will operate in way x" I'm actually hurting myself even if I believe that x is the best way.

This is because it's almost certain that together we will come up with ever changing improvements in how we structure and operate society.

[Conserative Morality]

The reason anarchists don't focus a lot on the "how" is not because we don't have ideas of "how" but rather because it would be wrong to speak for everyone. Anarchists of today have no right to tell the anarchist communities of the future how they will go about daily life. That is a choice best left to them and them alone.

Quite convenient for the anarchists today, but past experiences show that to be a very poor plan for just about anything.

[Natapoc]

The reason anarchists don't focus a lot on the "how" is not because we don't have ideas of "how" but rather because it would be wrong to speak for everyone. Anarchists of today have no right to tell the anarchist communities of the future how they will go about daily life. That is a choice best left to them and them alone.

Quite convenient for the anarchists today, but past experiences show that to be a very poor plan for just about anything.

It's really not convenient at all. It's difficult when one has so many ideas about how things would work best to acknowledge that one really can't know.

This is why so many leftists end up hurting their own cause: they declare themselves vanguards or leaders and enact their own preferred policies sometimes harming the very people they care about the most. Some get so caught up in their own version of the best way to do things that they "purge" the people who are ideologically closest to them. This type of closed minded conservationism ends up costing lives and has no place in an anarchist movement.

Anarchists do have plans but won't enforce these plans on anyone and there are probably about as many ideas of how anarchist society could operate as their are anarchists (and this is a GOOD thing). We simply understand that any plan must involve the consent of everyone involved and can't be dictated in a top down fashion.

Indeed a leader without a plan tends to do very badly and this is what you are mistaking anarchist philosophy for. But anarchists do have plans but we realize that the details will need to be resolved by discussion with all those impacted by them. I'm unsure why this seems like a bad thing to you.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Such is life in ancap utopia.

[Conserative Morality]

Quite convenient for the anarchists today, but past experiences show that to be a very poor plan for just about anything.

It's really not convenient at all. It's difficult when one has so many ideas about how things would work best to acknowledge that one really can't know.

This is why so many leftists end up hurting their own cause: they declare themselves vanguards or leaders and enact their own preferred policies sometimes harming the very people they care about the most. Some get so caught up in their own version of the best way to do things that they "purge" the people who are ideologically closest to them. This type of closed minded conservationism ends up costing lives and has no place in an anarchist movement.

Anarchists do have plans but won't enforce these plans on anyone and there are probably about as many ideas of how anarchist society could operate as their are anarchists (and this is a GOOD thing). We simply understand that any plan must involve the consent of everyone involved and can't be dictated in a top down fashion.

Indeed a leader without a plan tends to do very badly and this is what you are mistaking anarchist philosophy for. But anarchists do have plans but we realize that the details will need to be resolved by discussion with all those impacted by them. I'm unsure why this seems like a bad thing to you.

You're unsure as to why I consider a bunch of people who refuse to elaborate on their plans for the future, are without any unified goal except a vague declaration against something that no one can agree on the definition on, have no unified plan to achieve or maintain the state of affairs they desire, and have no leader to eventually straighten things out, is a bad thing?

I'm unsure as to why you're unsure.

That's like asking why I think a team of arctic explorers would fare better than a couple of people from the suburbs down at one of the poles.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Sigh... How do you prevent society from devolving into tribalism? That is sort of the de facto condition of mankind. What force do you think will prevent human society getting there, regardless of what you advocate or don`t

Effectively, you'd more likely get a return to fragmented feudalism. Tiny kingdoms all over the place, ruled by whoever owns the land in the area.

On the bright side (if anything in such a world could be called 'bright'), if we got some guns together and formed a militia, we could probably seize a bunch of land from a few local lords and form our own little petty despotate.

[Natapoc]

Such is life in ancap utopia.

Sounds like a place where the only true legal profession is that of a criminal.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Such is life in ancap utopia.

Sounds like a place where the only true legal profession is that of a criminal.

In Ancapistan, "crime" isn't really a thing because nothing is really universally illegal.

If you're enough of a sociopath, then with a little lucky, some friends, and some guns you can carve out your own little fiefdom of ill gotten gains and "property". Hell, you could probably bribe some folks to even recognize your claim.

[Natapoc]

That's like asking why I think a team of arctic explorers would fare better than a couple of people from the suburbs down at one of the poles.

And now you answered your own question.

Of course the arctic explorers know better how to live in the poles so they should get to decide how they will do that.

On the other hand the people living in the suburbs know more about the needs of the suburbs so they should be the ones deciding how they will live in the suburbs.

That's all.

[Socialist Federative Slavia]

This exact situation plays out every day in the world of insurance. I'm not an ancap, but I understand the principles of insurance and modern ancap theory is basically based on those principles. Here's how it actually works out:

Security companies A and B would require as a part of their contract with you that you don't do certain things, like attack other people or their property.

You would have liability insurance to cover your legal settlements if you did those things, probably also provided through the security company.

If client A does something to client B that would cause company B to dispatch security assets to stop him or bring him in, he's almost certainly also in violation of his security company's contract.

On the ground in the developing situation, both security teams have an interest in defusing/neutralizing the situation as quickly as possible while doing as little damage as possible, so they're likely to use warnings and nonlethal methods before resorting to force.

After the situation is resolved, Client A's security company's continued protection now comes with a stipulation that their client abide by their arbitration rules outlined in the contract.

Those arbitration rules, which most security companies would have worked out beforehand, would be for the companies to look at the situation and try to determine fault, and assess damages. If they disagree, they would bring the matter to a neutral third party, most likely a legal team that already had a contract with both of them to do that. It may in some cases come down to a 'courtroom scene' in front of this third party, especially if company A wants to be seen as heroically defending its client's interests.

If damages are assessed, client A's liability insurance pays the settlement, and raises client A's premiums becuase he has proven to be a riskier client to carry. If client A persists in this sort of behavior, he may become uninsurable, or his security company may mandate therapy or even institutionalization for him to maintain his contract.

OK I go to a security firm.The deal is I give them money, they give me:

Defense from crime(what it defines as crime)
Justice if I am a victim of crime(and compensation maybe)
Protection before court, if I am accused of committing a crime. Unless of course, they believe the accusations are trumped up. In that case they treat the accusations as a normal crime.

I commit a crime, and after an investigation my victim`s company decides to sue me.

My company can:

Defend me in court (spend money) and risk having me sent to prison if I am found guilty (risk losing more money)

OR

Say the charges are false and just keep protecting me. If that means beefed up protection costs they can just ask me for more money. I`m hardly in a position to refuse. spends but also gets more money

I assume my company will go for the latter option.

What I believe anarchocapitalists fail to realize is that the fundamental difference between insurance companies and their hypothetical police companies is that insurance companies do not have private forces of armed men, as security companies would have

[The Nuclear Fist]

OK I go to a security firm.The deal is I give them money, they give me:

Defense from crime(what it defines as crime)
Justice if I am a victim of crime(and compensation maybe)
Protection before court, if I am accused of committing a crime. Unless of course, they believe the accusations are trumped up. In that case they treat the accusations as a normal crime.

I commit a crime, and after an investigation my victim`s company decides to sue me.

My company can:

Defend me in court (spend money) and risk having me sent to prison if I am found guilty (risk losing more money)

OR

Say the charges are false and just keep protecting me. If that means beefed up protection costs they can just ask me for more money. I`m hardly in a position to refuse. spends but also gets more money

I assume my company will go for the latter option.

What I believe anarchocapitalists fail to realize is that the fundamental difference between insurance companies and their hypothetical police companies is that insurance companies do not have private forces of armed men, as security companies would have

Or if someone brings up charges against you, since they're coming from a private company and "lol errything voluntary", you could just as easily tell them to go fuck themselves, and if they try and force your hand throw a molotov through their window.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

OK I go to a security firm.The deal is I give them money, they give me:

Defense from crime(what it defines as crime)
Justice if I am a victim of crime(and compensation maybe)
Protection before court, if I am accused of committing a crime. Unless of course, they believe the accusations are trumped up. In that case they treat the accusations as a normal crime.

I commit a crime, and after an investigation my victim`s company decides to sue me.

My company can:

Defend me in court (spend money) and risk having me sent to prison if I am found guilty (risk losing more money)

OR

Say the charges are false and just keep protecting me. If that means beefed up protection costs they can just ask me for more money. I`m hardly in a position to refuse. spends but also gets more money

I assume my company will go for the latter option.

What I believe anarchocapitalists fail to realize is that the fundamental difference between insurance companies and their hypothetical police companies is that insurance companies do not have private forces of armed men, as security companies would have

If they do that, they risk going to war. Do you really think Client B's company is going to take that lying down? If they're a big company, they would lose major face, if they're a small company, this could make their reputation

The other company will look really good to it's prospective clients if they roll in, shoot up your company's guys, extradite you by force, and punish you according to their own procedures.

War is really, really expensive, and carries lots of unknown risks. It probably costs more than it's worth to you to settle the matter.

Of course the real problem with this model is that there's nothing to stop an oligopoly of companies, or a single company, from growing large enough to push anyone else out of the market by force.