Privatized police department.

[ZombieRothbard]

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?

That doesn't sound like too complicated of a problem. They could share information and split the profit. In any event, the victim's estate would be compensated.

[ZombieRothbard]

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.

It was funny as hell. The cops were like GET OUTTA DARBY YOU RAZKULS! hahaha. Ill check if I can find the video somewhere.

[Natapoc]

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?

That doesn't sound like too complicated of a problem. They could share information and split the profit. In any event, the victim's estate would be compensated.

It does not sound to complicated but it actually does become very complicated unless there is very clear legally binding language in pre established contracts that allows neutral parties free view of evidence. Anything else would result in the most corrupt criminal trials imaginable.

Take what we have... and multiply it by... like... um. 2 or something.

[Lomenore]

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?

That doesn't sound like too complicated of a problem. They could share information and split the profit. In any event, the victim's estate would be compensated.

Compensated by whom? And what incentive does a company have to split the profit? It's their investigation. If they solve the crime on their own, they get all the money and all the credit. Jurisdictional turf wars are bad enough without adding money squabbles.

And who would compensate the victim's estate?

[ZombieRothbard]

GET OUTTA DARBY!

[ZombieRothbard]

That doesn't sound like too complicated of a problem. They could share information and split the profit. In any event, the victim's estate would be compensated.

Compensated by whom? And what incentive does a company have to split the profit? It's their investigation. If they solve the crime on their own, they get all the money and all the credit. Jurisdictional turf wars are bad enough without adding money squabbles.

And who would compensate the victim's estate?

The insurance company would compensate the victim's estate, because they are the ones that dropped the ball on protecting them. Companies would share information because it makes no sense to hold onto only half the information needed to solve a crime, when you could get the other half.

[The Parkus Empire]

For reasons other than shit pay and no respect.



Good luck supporting your family when you're dead.

Also, if the criminals in your scenario are willing to risk their lives to go into a bank and rob it purely for profit, your totally moronic scenario where private police wouldn't be willing to stop them for profit is a joke. I am stepping out for a bit, you guys are just infuriating.

Weren't you just the one who pointed out how pirates attack unarmed vessels? Yeah. Bank robbers tend to attack unarmed banks.

Also: a security guard makes way less money from a shoot out than a robber would make from a bank hold up (which is also far less risky).

[Lomenore]

That doesn't sound like too complicated of a problem. They could share information and split the profit. In any event, the victim's estate would be compensated.

It does not sound to complicated but it actually does become very complicated unless there is very clear legally binding language in pre established contracts that allows neutral parties free view of evidence. Anything else would result in the most corrupt criminal trials imaginable.

Take what we have... and multiply it by... like... um. 2 or something.

But a private investigator hired by the injured party to solve the crime isn't a neutral party. That's the whole point. They work for the injured party to solve the crime, they're being paid by the victim, it's a clear conflict of interest.

[The Parkus Empire]

For reasons other than shit pay and no respect.



Good luck supporting your family when you're dead.

Coming from US Army soldier...

Im assuming the only reason you do your job is because of "shit pay and no respect".

My pay and benefits are hardly shit. I am certainly respected. But I didn't join for financial reasons, anyway, which can't really be said for people take jobs as security guards.

[Lomenore]

Compensated by whom? And what incentive does a company have to split the profit? It's their investigation. If they solve the crime on their own, they get all the money and all the credit. Jurisdictional turf wars are bad enough without adding money squabbles.

And who would compensate the victim's estate?

The insurance company would compensate the victim's estate, because they are the ones that dropped the ball on protecting them. Companies would share information because it makes no sense to hold onto only half the information needed to solve a crime, when you could get the other half.

But without 20/20 hindsight, they don't know how much evidence will be needed to solve the crime. It's easy when looking back to say that the fingerprints, DNA evidence, and witness testimony were needed. But what if one company had the forensic evidence and another had the eyewitness testimony? Splitting their profits with a competitor halves their money. They don't know ahead of time how much evidence will be needed to solve the crime. And they have a profit motive guaranteeing they'll try to do as much as they can inside the company.

EDIT: With regards to insurance, how do we know the coverage will go that far? What if someone only bought theft insurance and their son was murdered? Or if their business was vandalized and they didn't have vandalism insurance. Naturally an insurance company would offer a comprehensive package, but not everyone could afford that.

[Natapoc]

It does not sound to complicated but it actually does become very complicated unless there is very clear legally binding language in pre established contracts that allows neutral parties free view of evidence. Anything else would result in the most corrupt criminal trials imaginable.

Take what we have... and multiply it by... like... um. 2 or something.

But a private investigator hired by the injured party to solve the crime isn't a neutral party. That's the whole point. They work for the injured party to solve the crime, they're being paid by the victim, it's a clear conflict of interest.

Yeah. For a "market solution" you would need some way to have "blind" funding of investigators. So that the investigator can't know who is paying him or her.

[The Parkus Empire]

No that is not a fact. Dont kid yourself. EVERY monopoly ever created was done so with the help of the government.

What about criminal ones?

[ZombieRothbard]

Also, if the criminals in your scenario are willing to risk their lives to go into a bank and rob it purely for profit, your totally moronic scenario where private police wouldn't be willing to stop them for profit is a joke. I am stepping out for a bit, you guys are just infuriating.

Weren't you just the one who pointed out how pirates attack unarmed vessels? Yeah. Bank robbers tend to attack unarmed banks.

Also: a security guard makes way less money from a shoot out than a robber would make from a bank hold up (which is also far less risky).

Hopefully "unarmed bank" would be an oxymoron.

[Natapoc]

GET OUTTA DARBY!

That's awesome. I hope they charged all of them with:


Assaulting a police officer.
Accessory to felony assault of a police officer.
Resisting arrest.
Being idiots.

The good news is that when they are spending their time fighting each other they can't spend their time hurting anyone else.

And no offence, but a cop who would hit someone over a boundary dispute is exactly the type who would hurt an innocent person and misuse his authority.

[Lomenore]

But a private investigator hired by the injured party to solve the crime isn't a neutral party. That's the whole point. They work for the injured party to solve the crime, they're being paid by the victim, it's a clear conflict of interest.

Yeah. For a "market solution" you would need some way to have "blind" funding of investigators. So that the investigator can't know who is paying him or her.

And with multiple competing private police, you have multiple beat cops doing multiple competing patrols. What happens if they discover a crime scene along two intersecting patrol paths? Who has access to the evidence?

EDIT: There's a reason cops cordon off crime scenes, and it's not just because they like playing with the yellow tape. If someone walks through a crime scene where a murderer fled, that's two sets of footprints leading away from the area. Now the investigation got twice as complicated. If the pedestrian so much as spits out some gum, that's more DNA contaminating existing searches for DNA evidence. If they touch anything, those are more fingerprints in the area.

And speaking of evidence, why wouldn't private police have different DNA or fingerprint databases. If someone is arrested and imprisoned by one company, then commits another crime in a different company's area, that company wouldn't have any record of his fingerprints. Companies might post lists of past criminals they've prosecuted, but I think it would be an invasion of privacy to give out their fingerprints or DNA profiles without probably cause.

[The Parkus Empire]

The protection racket causes the harm when payment is not received

Sure about that?

... a private police department just will not respond.

What about when there isn't government oversight?

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

Yeah, it's assuming it is in place in the latter and isn't in the former, which is a big assumption to make.

[The Parkus Empire]

Weren't you just the one who pointed out how pirates attack unarmed vessels? Yeah. Bank robbers tend to attack unarmed banks.

Also: a security guard makes way less money from a shoot out than a robber would make from a bank hold up (which is also far less risky).

Hopefully "unarmed bank" would be an oxymoron.

You think banks want to defend themselves? lol You crazy, nigga.

[Natapoc]

Coming from US Army soldier...

Im assuming the only reason you do your job is because of "shit pay and no respect".

My pay and benefits are hardly shit. I am certainly respected. But I didn't join for financial reasons, anyway, which can't really be said for people take jobs as security guards.

I've never understood why people think pay and benefits in the military are so bad. They are not wall street or anything but it sure seems livable from what I've seen of people who are in the military.

[The Parkus Empire]

My pay and benefits are hardly shit. I am certainly respected. But I didn't join for financial reasons, anyway, which can't really be said for people take jobs as security guards.

I've never understood why people think pay and benefits in the military are so bad. They are not wall street or anything but it sure seems livable from what I've seen of people who are in the military.

Plus paid for housing and utilities. That equates to a lot more disposable income.

[Natapoc]

Yeah. For a "market solution" you would need some way to have "blind" funding of investigators. So that the investigator can't know who is paying him or her.

And with multiple competing private police, you have multiple beat cops doing multiple competing patrols. What happens if they discover a crime scene along two intersecting patrol paths? Who has access to the evidence?

I vote they fight it out like this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/get-out ... ly-suburb/

And whomever survives gets to keep the evidence as a reward for their loyalty to the company?

[ZombieRothbard]

The insurance company would compensate the victim's estate, because they are the ones that dropped the ball on protecting them. Companies would share information because it makes no sense to hold onto only half the information needed to solve a crime, when you could get the other half.

But without 20/20 hindsight, they don't know how much evidence will be needed to solve the crime. It's easy when looking back to say that the fingerprints, DNA evidence, and witness testimony were needed. But what if one company had the forensic evidence and another had the eyewitness testimony? Splitting their profits with a competitor halves their money. They don't know ahead of time how much evidence will be needed to solve the crime. And they have a profit motive guaranteeing they'll try to do as much as they can inside the company.

EDIT: With regards to insurance, how do we know the coverage will go that far? What if someone only bought theft insurance and their son was murdered? Or if their business was vandalized and they didn't have vandalism insurance. Naturally an insurance company would offer a comprehensive package, but not everyone could afford that.

Theoretically, companies would work together and share information. Perhaps companies will sell each other evidence? I don't know how they would solve it. The divide between us, is that I have faith in entrepreneurship and markets, and you don't. A topic like private defense probably isn't the best topic to discuss if we are going to jump into anarcho-capitalist theory. If we really wanted to have a hardcore discussion on private defense, it would first be necessary to discuss why it is that I have so much faith in the market and entrepreneurship, which requires a separate discussion entirely (one we will have in the future, when I get around the making the topic, I promise!).

The problem with murder, is that it is an act of finality. I can't really answer that question, because the worth of a life is relative. In a free market system, a price would be put on human life. Some people would find that disgusting. I personally don't, because to not put a price on human life, is to make it worth zero. To prove my point, take an army unit. If every soldier who died, required the general of the army to pay 40,000 dollars in compensation to the victims estate, it is a logical conclusion to reach that he would try his hardest to minimize casualties, where as before he might take a riskier approach that could endanger more lives than necessary.

But to your question about life insurance. I would say that if they cannot afford to have it, they shouldn't have it.

[ZombieRothbard]

Hopefully "unarmed bank" would be an oxymoron.

You think banks want to defend themselves? lol You crazy, nigga.

It isn't a question of whether they WANT to or not, it is a question of whether they NEED to.

[The Parkus Empire]

You think banks want to defend themselves? lol You crazy, nigga.

It isn't a question of whether they WANT to or not, it is a question of whether they NEED to.

They don't. They won't. They shouldn't. They're Federally insured.

[Norstal]

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.

It might be incredibly stupid and I know that the law of physics may not exist in your world, but, you can't pay someone without your wallet.

[ZombieRothbard]

GET OUTTA DARBY!

That's awesome. I hope they charged all of them with:


Assaulting a police officer.
Accessory to felony assault of a police officer.
Resisting arrest.
Being idiots.

The good news is that when they are spending their time fighting each other they can't spend their time hurting anyone else.

And no offence, but a cop who would hit someone over a boundary dispute is exactly the type who would hurt an innocent person and misuse his authority.

Lol, I am sure none of them got charged with anything. At least they aren't out there raping transexual sex workers and getting a year for it like in another recent facepalm worthy police abuse story.