Privatized police department.

[ZombieRothbard]

Why do cops stop armed people now? Why wouldn't they in a privatized society lol? If you don't, you get fired. You need to support your family somehow.

Police are motivated by a sense of duty to the community that they serve. With a few exceptions, they're not hired guns. They put their lives on the line for an ethic of public service.

Why do people assume that in a privatized society, people would cease caring for each other? Why do you need to brainwash people with the public good shit to make them care about others? I think caring about others makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I enjoy doing it. Caring about others is completely selfish for me, I don't need this whole "public good" to convince me to do something I already want to do.

[TheRightWay]

Can someone please explain to me how that's different from a protection racket?

The protection racket causes the harm when payment is not received ... a private police department just will not respond.
While I am not necessarily a fan thats a big difference

All this is assuming their is correct structure and supervision in place that they don't start causing harm for profit which is a big task in and of itself

[Terra Agora]

Because say I buy from my local company. Now I go to new york which is on the opposite side of the country.

I don't even WANT to be in NY. I'm just there for a stupid stopover to get somewhere else. I don't even like new york. But I grab something to eat and my wallet is stolen. So what do I do?

I call up my private police agency. They tell me: I'm sorry but we have no ability to send investigators to the other side of the country.

I contact the nearest cop looking person who says: Are you a client? Then GTFO!

Now I'm late for my flight and stranded in New york and the police won't talk to me till I sign a contract with their office which is open from 9 to 5 monday to friday.

Why do other an-caps ignore you? I think I might repost this in case they keep repeating the same argument over and over again.

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

[ZombieRothbard]

Forced? How so?

Because say I buy from my local company. Now I go to new york which is on the opposite side of the country.

I don't even WANT to be in NY. I'm just there for a stupid stopover to get somewhere else. I don't even like new york. But I grab something to eat and my wallet is stolen. So what do I do?

I call up my private police agency. They tell me: I'm sorry but we have no ability to send investigators to the other side of the country.

I contact the nearest cop looking person who says: Are you a client? Then GTFO!

Now I'm late for my flight and stranded in New york and the police won't talk to me till I sign a contract with their office which is open from 9 to 5 monday to friday.

That is a good point. I can think of some theoretical scenario's where companies would work together in a case like that. I have never heard that scenario mentioned before though in any sort of reading materials.

[Natapoc]

Why do other an-caps ignore you? I think I might repost this in case they keep repeating the same argument over and over again.

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

How so?

[Norstal]

Why do other an-caps ignore you? I think I might repost this in case they keep repeating the same argument over and over again.

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

What do you mean? She's right in that it might impede on how private police coordinate on a national level. Not to mention that visitors or vacationers did not pay for their services.

[Terra Agora]

Using that logic if the US became laissez faire it wouldn't actually be laissez faire because there is infrastructure that was created by the gov before hand.

Uh, okay. The crux of the argument of how megacorporations formed, such as Standard Oil, is because of government intervention.

Yet, when attacked by the fact that the Wild West could not have been created from a megacorporation (the railroad companies cough cough) you say it's not from government intervention?

Wtf.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_West# ... d_the_West

Oh look, its not so laissez faire anymore, does it?

No people would of went to the west either way with or without gov help. There would have been railroads with or without government help.

They protected what does that have to do with regulation? Which actually is quite debatable.
Also this: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

[ZombieRothbard]

Why do other an-caps ignore you? I think I might repost this in case they keep repeating the same argument over and over again.

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

I disagree, it is a good point actually. Id say that the companies would cooperate in investigations just like countries do. Ill do you a favor in the future, if you do one for me now etc. That certainly would not guarantee an investigation though, especially for something as menial as a wallet.

[Terra Agora]

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

What do you mean? She's right in that it might impede on how private police coordinate on a national level. Not to mention that visitors or vacationers did not pay for their services.

I've said this a billion times.

You would get help but you would be charged.

6 Flags (its a theme park) for example, if you dont have season passes they will still let you in but you need to buy tickets.

[Terra Agora]

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

I disagree, it is a good point actually. Id say that the companies would cooperate in investigations just like countries do. Ill do you a favor in the future, if you do one for me now etc. That certainly would not guarantee an investigation though, especially for something as menial as a wallet.

Why wouldn't one of the companies in that area help the person out then charge them?

[ZombieRothbard]

What do you mean? She's right in that it might impede on how private police coordinate on a national level. Not to mention that visitors or vacationers did not pay for their services.

I've said this a billion times.

You would get help but you would be charged.

6 Flags (its a theme park) for example, if you dont have season passes they will still let you in but you need to buy tickets.

If somebody is going on a quick visit, they wouldn't have time to go through all that bullshit though. Natapoc makes a good point, but I am not convinced that this problem would be unique to private security/law. If you go to visit another country, and your wallet gets stolen, you are basically considered SOL. So I think it is a good point, but it is not mutually exclusive to privatized security.

[Terra Agora]

I've said this a billion times.

You would get help but you would be charged.

6 Flags (its a theme park) for example, if you dont have season passes they will still let you in but you need to buy tickets.

If somebody is going on a quick visit, they wouldn't have time to go through all that bullshit though. Natapoc makes a good point, but I am not convinced that this problem would be unique to private security/law. If you go to visit another country, and your wallet gets stolen, you are basically considered SOL. So I think it is a good point, but it is not mutually exclusive to privatized security.

That argument is like saying that if you you get robbed in another country you would have to call the police back in your home country.

If you were at place x you could go to one of the companies in that area tell them what happened (lets say you got mugged) they would do what they would do. You would leave the country (unless it finishes in your time there) they would send you whatever the claim is or if you do get your things back they can send that.

[ZombieRothbard]

If somebody is going on a quick visit, they wouldn't have time to go through all that bullshit though. Natapoc makes a good point, but I am not convinced that this problem would be unique to private security/law. If you go to visit another country, and your wallet gets stolen, you are basically considered SOL. So I think it is a good point, but it is not mutually exclusive to privatized security.

That argument is like saying that if you you get robbed in another country you would have to call the police back in your home country.

If you were at place x you could go to one of the companies in that area tell them what happened (lets say you got mugged) they would do what they would do. You would leave the country (unless it finishes in your time there) they would send you whatever the claim is or if you do get your things back they can send that.

I get that, but the point was more like it is unreasonable to assume a private company could investigate something that small. Especially under the insurance model, when that wallet isn't really the responsibility of the neighboring company to protect. Paying for an investigation specifically for a stolen wallet would probably be a bit absurd, unless there was a separate investigation industry or something for such cases.

I am not saying that there isn't a solution to this issue, I am sure brilliant entrepreneurs would find out a way around this problem. But it is an interesting idea to think about, because I haven't heard a scenario like that ever mentioned in a discussion on private defense, or in any theories about how private defense would operate.

[Gethi]

I think people are disturbed by the possibility of unequal protection from crimes. If I ran a privatized police force, I'd definitely start offering "protection" in tiers for a larger customer base. Because the privatized police force is a company first, the people who are able to pay will supposedly be better protected than those who cannot. Of course who's to say that the private cops won't be running protection rackets on the side...

[Natapoc]

Because its one of the most ridiculous arguments used against this.

I disagree, it is a good point actually. Id say that the companies would cooperate in investigations just like countries do. Ill do you a favor in the future, if you do one for me now etc. That certainly would not guarantee an investigation though, especially for something as menial as a wallet.

And this does have some precedent. But normally only when the two companies view each other as "peers" and even then at huge expense (see cell phone companies which charge each others customers huge amounts of money for using the others network but do have contracts allowing it)

What this would do though is put a significant barrier to entry for the private security forces. Most people do travel to other towns, often with little or no notice. And most people will stop in a town for 5 minutes or so that they know nothing about just to get gas or something to eat real quick.

In order to help customers have basic police protections (the ability to report theft which will result in an investigation for example) police companies would need to form agreements with every other police agency.

Even today we have this problem to a much lessor extent police from different states, counties, and cities, will often conflict with jurisdiction. Can you imagine the contract disputes involved? Private police agencies will need to hire twice as many lawyers as security personnel.

[Lomenore]

I hope you realize that the size of the start up business doesn't matter at all. You make it sound like it is David v Goliath. Even if the startup started with 5 employee's, there is no way the monopoly can touch them.

The size of a startup business does matter. If a huge megacorp has a monopoly, and someone starts a firm to challenge them, supposing the startup does get business. Supposing the US Armed forces sign a contract with a startup soda company, and they give the startup an exclusive contract for their soda machines. The US military will only buy soft drinks from the smaller company, so the smaller company gets all the money. That's 1.5 to 2 million customers for this startup company. Seems everything is going swimmingly, and that big, greedy monopoly will soon be out on its ass.

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook98/ch1a.htm

According to this, the average American drinks about 52 gallons of soda a year. Assuming our customers are somewhat abstemious, we'll reduce this to 25 gallons a year. So the small startup has to produce 37 and a half million gallons of soda to meet their order. That's over 100,000 gallons of soda each day. So this small company has to produce enough soda to fill ten tanker trucks, and they have to do it every day! If they can't do it, then someone else will. Since there's a small startup firm trying to challenge a monopoly, the only other choice for the customer is to buy from the monopoly or go without. And you were saying business size doesn't matter?

A monopoly can offer them higher pay, more benefits, a company car, etc. Not everyone would remain with the smaller company. Or, it could simply buy the startup and their product. At which point, the startup businessman is now part of the monopoly.

And it is also doubtful a startup would be of 5 employee's. If a business came up with an idea for a product that could sell for less than a monopolists product, and is higher quality than a monopolists product, they would gain nearly all of the market share.

It doesn't have to be 5 employees specifically. If someone wanted to create a startup to rival Walmart, they would not have, at the very beginning, the millions of employees Walmart has.

It's not simply about quality of product. If they can make a better product, then they need to market this. Can a startup firm afford TV commercials, billboards, internet ads? Can they afford to sponsor a sports team or fill a government contract for something? They are smaller, and can do less.

So it is natural to assume venture capitalists would invest heavily, because of the great opportunities to make money that would be available (since you have captured nearly the total of the market share).

No, venture capitalists would see that the monopoly has most of the customers, and the smaller business is more likely to fail, and less likely to turn a profit. A business venture that is unlikely to turn a profit is not a good investment.

Your hypothetical of predatory pricing is absurd. Predatory pricing has been rejected, even by neo-classical economists. This is because, for one, price wars would flood the market with goods.

If it's just a monopoly and a startup, the goods flooding the market would all be the monopoly's products. If a small startup prices its goods like it has the economy of scale a multinational corporation has, it would soon go bankrupt. A new business just doesn't have the assets or currency reserves that a big monopoly would.

This would incur huge losses, both presently and in the future. It would take a long period of time for that "flood" of goods to dissipate. Secondly, if you look at the market share for a product, you will realize that predatory pricing is a bunch of baloney. If a startup company captures 5% of the market share, and the monopolist has 95% of the market share, the monopolist would be even more crippled than the startup in a price war (assuming their goods are the same). That is because, obviously, the company losing on 95% of their market share would be losing far more than the company losing on 5% of the market share.

No, if a monopoly has 95% of the Market, and a startup has 5%, then the Monopoly has more customers and is making more money. By any rational standard, the company with 95% of the market is making more money and is being more successful. If a startup only has 5% of the market share, it is smaller and is making less money. It's basic mathematics.

[Terra Agora]

That argument is like saying that if you you get robbed in another country you would have to call the police back in your home country.

If you were at place x you could go to one of the companies in that area tell them what happened (lets say you got mugged) they would do what they would do. You would leave the country (unless it finishes in your time there) they would send you whatever the claim is or if you do get your things back they can send that.

I get that, but the point was more like it is unreasonable to assume a private company could investigate something that small. Especially under the insurance model, when that wallet isn't really the responsibility of the neighboring company to protect. Paying for an investigation specifically for a stolen wallet would probably be a bit absurd, unless there was a separate investigation industry or something for such cases.

I am not saying that there isn't a solution to this issue, I am sure brilliant entrepreneurs would find out a way around this problem. But it is an interesting idea to think about, because I haven't heard a scenario like that ever mentioned in a discussion on private defense, or in any theories about how private defense would operate.

State police dont even investigate stolen wallets. Well at least mine...
If anything maybe they can have "wallet insurance" but like you said thats up to the entrepreneurs.

[Natapoc]

I get that, but the point was more like it is unreasonable to assume a private company could investigate something that small. Especially under the insurance model, when that wallet isn't really the responsibility of the neighboring company to protect. Paying for an investigation specifically for a stolen wallet would probably be a bit absurd, unless there was a separate investigation industry or something for such cases.

I am not saying that there isn't a solution to this issue, I am sure brilliant entrepreneurs would find out a way around this problem. But it is an interesting idea to think about, because I haven't heard a scenario like that ever mentioned in a discussion on private defense, or in any theories about how private defense would operate.

State police dont even investigate stolen wallets. Well at least mine...
If anything maybe they can have "wallet insurance" but like you said thats up to the entrepreneurs.

What state do you live in? Sounds like the perfect place to start a crime syndicate involving only stealing wallets.

[Lomenore]

Even today we have this problem to a much lessor extent police from different states, counties, and cities, will often conflict with jurisdiction. Can you imagine the contract disputes involved? Private police agencies will need to hire twice as many lawyers as security personnel.

There's a difference between quality and efficiency. A government monopoly on law enforcement may not have the quality a personal security service has, but there are fewer conflicts with jurisdiction. It's not perfect, since we do have conflicts between city, state, and national authorities. But adding law enforcement groups would add one more to that list. Is adding more layers of jurisdiction really the way to make things more efficient?

[ZombieRothbard]

I disagree, it is a good point actually. Id say that the companies would cooperate in investigations just like countries do. Ill do you a favor in the future, if you do one for me now etc. That certainly would not guarantee an investigation though, especially for something as menial as a wallet.

And this does have some precedent. But normally only when the two companies view each other as "peers" and even then at huge expense (see cell phone companies which charge each others customers huge amounts of money for using the others network but do have contracts allowing it)

What this would do though is put a significant barrier to entry for the private security forces. Most people do travel to other towns, often with little or no notice. And most people will stop in a town for 5 minutes or so that they know nothing about just to get gas or something to eat real quick.

In order to help customers have basic police protections (the ability to report theft which will result in an investigation for example) police companies would need to form agreements with every other police agency.

Even today we have this problem to a much lessor extent police from different states, counties, and cities, will often conflict with jurisdiction. Can you imagine the contract disputes involved? Private police agencies will need to hire twice as many lawyers as security personnel.

I see your point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a barrier to entry, per-se. People can still hypothetically start protection services, and state that it does not cover places outside of their jurisdiction (and charge accordingly).

You are right though, that cooperation between companies would be crucial, not only for investigations against criminals in other territories, but for crimes committed against persons away on vacation or what have you.

[Terra Agora]

State police dont even investigate stolen wallets. Well at least mine...
If anything maybe they can have "wallet insurance" but like you said thats up to the entrepreneurs.

What state do you live in? Sounds like the perfect place to start a crime syndicate involving only stealing wallets.

NJ haha

[ZombieRothbard]

Even today we have this problem to a much lessor extent police from different states, counties, and cities, will often conflict with jurisdiction. Can you imagine the contract disputes involved? Private police agencies will need to hire twice as many lawyers as security personnel.

There's a difference between quality and efficiency. A government monopoly on law enforcement may not have the quality a personal security service has, but there are fewer conflicts with jurisdiction. It's not perfect, since we do have conflicts between city, state, and national authorities. But adding law enforcement groups would add one more to that list. Is adding more layers of jurisdiction really the way to make things more efficient?

There are conflicts amongst public police though on jurisdiction. There was one that was quite humorously referred to by market anarchists as "criminal gang turf war". Unfortunately it appears they took the video down...

[Lomenore]

I see your point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a barrier to entry, per-se. People can still hypothetically start protection services, and state that it does not cover places outside of their jurisdiction (and charge accordingly).

You are right though, that cooperation between companies would be crucial, not only for investigations against criminals in other territories, but for crimes committed against persons away on vacation or what have you.

But with privatized companies out to make a profit, information on crimes becomes a trade secret. If they share information with other private security firms, they risk the other firm arresting the criminal. What if one company wanted to solve a murder, but the other company had custody of the murder weapon?

[Natapoc]

What state do you live in? Sounds like the perfect place to start a crime syndicate involving only stealing wallets.

NJ haha

NJ, Official Vacation Home of La Cosa Nostra. And you had my homes up... I'm afraid there is already a established crime syndicate in that particular niche market in NJ.

[Natapoc]

There's a difference between quality and efficiency. A government monopoly on law enforcement may not have the quality a personal security service has, but there are fewer conflicts with jurisdiction. It's not perfect, since we do have conflicts between city, state, and national authorities. But adding law enforcement groups would add one more to that list. Is adding more layers of jurisdiction really the way to make things more efficient?

There are conflicts amongst public police though on jurisdiction. There was one that was quite humorously referred to by market anarchists as "criminal gang turf war". Unfortunately it appears they took the video down...

Ahh. I wanted to see it! Someone must have saved the video.