Privatized police department.

[Roman Cilicia]

A privatized police force is a load of crock, like anarchism or neuroscience.

[Lomenore]

And the monopoly could in turn undercut their competitors in that area. They would just lower their prices until the competitor went out of business. The more times this happens, the harder it will be to get investors for a startup firm. Venture capitalists aren't going to invest in a new electronics store when 4 electronics stores before them were driven out of business.

I already addressed predatory pricing earlier in the thread.

Yes, you lied and said it wouldn't work because it would flood the market with cheap goods. But if we're talking about a monopoly vs a startup, there are only two types of goods flooding the market. The monopoly can afford to operate at a loss for a longer period then a startup can. And since the monopoly has a wider area of operations then the startup, they can keep prices the at the normal high rate elsewhere.

[ZombieRothbard]

.

But sib both systems (the private one and the current public one) work based on whatever laws are in place regulating whatever we want to call "police"

I'm not so sure Norstal is missing the point. In both systems we have laws/contracts which regulate/specify law enforcement priorities. If the problem is with the way current law enforcement prioritizes enforcement of these laws then it's a valid question:
"Why not just change the way current law enforcement priorities?" For example:
80% Violent crime.
20% petty theft/property crimes.
0% victimless crimes

Id be a minarchist if I thought it was that simple. The problem is that you cannot trust a piece of paper (constitution) to prevent a coercive monopoly from discovering new powers, and new ways to enforce those powers. Also, the taxation part is unethical. If I am rich, but I am rather self sufficient and have an impressive collection of firearms, I should have the option to refuse police services.


EDIT: I said "rich" to show that the reasons why some people don't have protection wouldn't necessarily be because they were too poor to afford it.

[ZombieRothbard]

I already addressed predatory pricing earlier in the thread.

Yes, you lied and said it wouldn't work because it would flood the market with cheap goods. But if we're talking about a monopoly vs a startup, there are only two types of goods flooding the market. The monopoly can afford to operate at a loss for a longer period then a startup can. And since the monopoly has a wider area of operations then the startup, they can keep prices the at the normal high rate elsewhere.

I lied? I laid out pretty plainly why it wouldn't work, and why virtually all economists, Austrian and otherwise, agree that predatory pricing is an economic fallacy. Even if the company managed to put that one startup out of business, the would have to put the other ones out of business also. I am not even going into the vested interests that suppliers have to prevent monopolies in the market.

[Terra Agora]

But sib both systems (the private one and the current public one) work based on whatever laws are in place regulating whatever we want to call "police"

I'm not so sure Norstal is missing the point. In both systems we have laws/contracts which regulate/specify law enforcement priorities. If the problem is with the way current law enforcement prioritizes enforcement of these laws then it's a valid question:
"Why not just change the way current law enforcement priorities?" For example:
80% Violent crime.
20% petty theft/property crimes.
0% victimless crimes

Id be a minarchist if I thought it was that simple. The problem is that you cannot trust a piece of paper (constitution) to prevent a coercive monopoly from discovering new powers, and new ways to enforce those powers. Also, the taxation part is unethical. If I am rich, but I am rather self sufficient and have an impressive collection of firearms, I should have the option to refuse police services.


EDIT: I said "rich" to show that the reasons why some people don't have protection wouldn't necessarily be because they were too poor to afford it.

I like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I want to see them elected. But in the end all your doing is turning back the clock.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I already addressed predatory pricing earlier in the thread.

Yes, you lied and said it wouldn't work because it would flood the market with cheap goods. But if we're talking about a monopoly vs a startup, there are only two types of goods flooding the market. The monopoly can afford to operate at a loss for a longer period then a startup can. And since the monopoly has a wider area of operations then the startup, they can keep prices the at the normal high rate elsewhere.

Okay, lets take this logically. A small start-up company starts up in order to compete with a monopoly (assuming the monopoly exists). To defeat this small start-up company, the monopoly either A) Buys out the competitor or B) drops the price on its own goods so that the competitor loses. Logically, the smaller company (as you say) can't compete and closes. At this point either the monopoly A) Raises the price back to its original level or higher (inviting competition) or B) Keeps the price where it is/raises slightly and operates at a loss/break-even profit margin to keep out the competition, weakening the monopoly or providing the good they sell at a neutral price.

What the hell is the problem with predatory pricing?
Edit: See Zombie Rothbard's post from sometime ago for more on this amazing process!

[Lomenore]

You didn't explain why competing police services would share evidence when they have a financial incentive to solve the problem on their own.

You didn't explain how courts would deal with the conflict of interest caused by criminal investigations being undertaken the same group someone hired for their defense.

You didn't explain how a smaller startup company would compete with a monopoly's greater financial assets, business expertise, economies of scale, and lower prices.

I'm just compiling a list here. I get the feeling it's going to get much longer. and "I have faith in the free market" isn't an answer. The Soviets had faith in Communism, and look how well that turned out.

[Natapoc]

But sib both systems (the private one and the current public one) work based on whatever laws are in place regulating whatever we want to call "police"

I'm not so sure Norstal is missing the point. In both systems we have laws/contracts which regulate/specify law enforcement priorities. If the problem is with the way current law enforcement prioritizes enforcement of these laws then it's a valid question:
"Why not just change the way current law enforcement priorities?" For example:
80% Violent crime.
20% petty theft/property crimes.
0% victimless crimes

Id be a minarchist if I thought it was that simple. The problem is that you cannot trust a piece of paper (constitution) to prevent a coercive monopoly from discovering new powers, and new ways to enforce those powers. Also, the taxation part is unethical. If I am rich, but I am rather self sufficient and have an impressive collection of firearms, I should have the option to refuse police services.

Ah but then that's a totally different argument from the private police argument. One of the difficulties in this thread is a lack of definitions. Some people are talking about privatized police within a state system.

Which is totally different from a privatized police within an ancap society (which would be the ONLY type of police it could have effectively).

I of course also do not advocate for the existence of cops (as in a select group of people who exist to enforce the will of the state). But That does not mean I would not advocate for laws that reduce their power to abuse people in the meantime.

Supporting laws that reduce their power does not mean I actually support their existence at all. It just means I don't like bullies in uniform.

[ZombieRothbard]

Id be a minarchist if I thought it was that simple. The problem is that you cannot trust a piece of paper (constitution) to prevent a coercive monopoly from discovering new powers, and new ways to enforce those powers. Also, the taxation part is unethical. If I am rich, but I am rather self sufficient and have an impressive collection of firearms, I should have the option to refuse police services.

Ah but then that's a totally different argument from the private police argument. One of the difficulties in this thread is a lack of definitions. Some people are talking about privatized police within a state system.

Which is totally different from a privatized police within an ancap society (which would be the ONLY type of police it could have effectively).

I of course also do not advocate for the existence of cops (as in a select group of people who exist to enforce the will of the state). But That does not mean I would not advocate for laws that reduce their power to abuse people in the meantime.

Supporting laws that reduce their power does not mean I actually support their existence at all. It just means I don't like bullies in uniform.

I know what you are saying. I probably would agree with what your solution would be for police. But I don't think the left-anarchist solution is a viable one. I know you are approaching this from an ethical angle, and I will agree that injustice would still occur. But I arrived at this conclusion out of resignation that the world will never be perfect, and as a result, this is the best we've got for how to better control police.

[Lomenore]

Yes, you lied and said it wouldn't work because it would flood the market with cheap goods. But if we're talking about a monopoly vs a startup, there are only two types of goods flooding the market. The monopoly can afford to operate at a loss for a longer period then a startup can. And since the monopoly has a wider area of operations then the startup, they can keep prices the at the normal high rate elsewhere.

I lied? I laid out pretty plainly why it wouldn't work, and why virtually all economists, Austrian and otherwise, agree that predatory pricing is an economic fallacy. Even if the company managed to put that one startup out of business, the would have to put the other ones out of business also. I am not even going into the vested interests that suppliers have to prevent monopolies in the market.

But the more startups go out of business, the fewer new startups there will be. Each time a competitor to the monopoly fails, it will become that much harder to scrape together investment capital for a business that in all likelyhood, will fail like all the businesses before it.

You keep appealing to authority, saying a bunch of nameless Austrian economists agree with you about predatory pricing. Well, if there's so much overwhelming evidence for it, provide some. Don't just say "All the authorities claim it's a bad idea!"

If they mean predatory pricing in today's economy, then they are making sense. But our economy has multiple competing businesses, and governments strong enough to exert some control over prices. In a discussion of a startup firm vs a monopoly, their analysis is meaningless because we're not talking about an economy with multiple competing businesses. A monopoly is a monopoly because it has no competitors, and stomps on any potential competitors. So any economic theories applying to today's regulated market don't apply to a market where a monopoly is dominant.

[ZombieRothbard]

You didn't explain why competing police services would share evidence when they have a financial incentive to solve the problem on their own.

You didn't explain how courts would deal with the conflict of interest caused by criminal investigations being undertaken the same group someone hired for their defense.

You didn't explain how a smaller startup company would compete with a monopoly's greater financial assets, business expertise, economies of scale, and lower prices.

I'm just compiling a list here. I get the feeling it's going to get much longer. and "I have faith in the free market" isn't an answer. The Soviets had faith in Communism, and look how well that turned out.

I think I might be done on this topic, not because I am ceding the point, but because this topic is not one we can really discuss. I almost feel like it is de-legitimizing the concept of private defense, to run through all these scenario's.

I will say in response to your line about economies of scale and lower prices: As long as it isn't predatory pricing, lower prices are a good thing. So if the monopoly is charging fair prices, who the hell cares that they are the only business? As long as they are selling high quality goods and services, for a low cost, who cares?

[Natapoc]

Ah but then that's a totally different argument from the private police argument. One of the difficulties in this thread is a lack of definitions. Some people are talking about privatized police within a state system.

Which is totally different from a privatized police within an ancap society (which would be the ONLY type of police it could have effectively).

I of course also do not advocate for the existence of cops (as in a select group of people who exist to enforce the will of the state). But That does not mean I would not advocate for laws that reduce their power to abuse people in the meantime.

Supporting laws that reduce their power does not mean I actually support their existence at all. It just means I don't like bullies in uniform.

I know what you are saying. I probably would agree with what your solution would be for police. But I don't think the left-anarchist solution is a viable one. I know you are approaching this from an ethical angle, and I will agree that injustice would still occur. But I arrived at this conclusion out of resignation that the world will never be perfect, and as a result, this is the best we've got for how to better control police.

Within a state system?

[Lomenore]

You didn't explain why competing police services would share evidence when they have a financial incentive to solve the problem on their own.

You didn't explain how courts would deal with the conflict of interest caused by criminal investigations being undertaken the same group someone hired for their defense.

You didn't explain how a smaller startup company would compete with a monopoly's greater financial assets, business expertise, economies of scale, and lower prices.

I'm just compiling a list here. I get the feeling it's going to get much longer. and "I have faith in the free market" isn't an answer. The Soviets had faith in Communism, and look how well that turned out.

I think I might be done on this topic, not because I am ceding the point, but because this topic is not one we can really discuss. I almost feel like it is de-legitimizing the concept of private defense, to run through all these scenario's.

I will say in response to your line about economies of scale and lower prices: As long as it isn't predatory pricing, lower prices are a good thing. So if the monopoly is charging fair prices, who the hell cares that they are the only business? As long as they are selling high quality goods and services, for a low cost, who cares?

Because the very fact that they are a monopoly means they don't have to do any of those things. They can sell some dead rat between two slices of stale bread and call it a burger, and since they're the only game in town, they'll stay in business. They can charge 50 grand per liter of gasoline and if there's no one else providing oil, then you have no choice but to pay their price. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

A monopoly means there's no freedom of choice in the market. If there's no freedom of choice in the market, they can put any defective POS on the shelf and it'll sell because it's all that anyone has for sale.

EDIT: And anyone who tries to create a competing business with better quality or lower prices can be forced out of business by the same monopoly.

Conversely, If the police are doing a good job, who the hell cares that they are the only law enforcement group? I've never been the victim of any crime. I've never walked the streets at night and been attacked. In short, I have absolutely no problems with the state's monopoly on law enforcement.

[ZombieRothbard]

I know what you are saying. I probably would agree with what your solution would be for police. But I don't think the left-anarchist solution is a viable one. I know you are approaching this from an ethical angle, and I will agree that injustice would still occur. But I arrived at this conclusion out of resignation that the world will never be perfect, and as a result, this is the best we've got for how to better control police.

Within a state system?

If you solution was to establish a police force that put 100% of their efforts into enforcing the non-aggression principle, and nothing else, I would support it yes. The problem is that such a system would be impossible to control, and would devolve since the police (like in our system) have no oversight.


EDIT: A problem I forgot to mention though, is how it would be funded, since taxation itself violates the non-aggression principle.

[Natapoc]

Within a state system?

If you solution was to establish a police force that put 100% of their efforts into enforcing the non-aggression principle, and nothing else, I would support it yes. The problem is that such a system would be impossible to control, and would devolve since the police (like in our system) have no oversight.

Sorry I mean to address the following quote from you:


But I arrived at this conclusion out of resignation that the world will never be perfect, and as a result, this is the best we've got for how to better control police.


Do you mean this in a statist or a non statist context?

[ZombieRothbard]

If you solution was to establish a police force that put 100% of their efforts into enforcing the non-aggression principle, and nothing else, I would support it yes. The problem is that such a system would be impossible to control, and would devolve since the police (like in our system) have no oversight.

Sorry I mean to address the following quote from you:


But I arrived at this conclusion out of resignation that the world will never be perfect, and as a result, this is the best we've got for how to better control police.


Do you mean this in a statist or a non statist context?

I mean the proposition of private security is in my view the most realistic solution to cutting out the lack of oversight police suffer from.

[Lomenore]

The police do have oversight. There are internal affairs departments, and the very same people they serve are voters, which means they decide who the boss of the police will be. In the city where I live, the head of police is a democratically elected office. If someone wants the job, they have to show how they're qualified in their campaign. That means that crime statistics are more important then bank statements for the police.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch12.pdf

Speaking of crime statistics, according to this graph, the murder rate is on a massive decrease. The murder rate is the only one that's been reliably tracked over the past century, so that's why I'm looking at it. As you can see, the average murder rate in 1999 was the same as it was in the 40s and early 60s.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/cri ... index.html

According to FBI reports, crime rates are dropping, and the most significant drops are in the large cities. You know, the ones which would have the most police?

[ZombieRothbard]

Because the very fact that they are a monopoly means they don't have to do any of those things. They can sell some dead rat between two slices of stale bread and call it a burger, and since they're the only game in town, they'll stay in business. They can charge 50 grand per liter of gasoline and if there's no one else providing oil, then you have no choice but to pay their price. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

First of all, cut out the condescending tone. I don't believe I have taken such a tone with you here (beyond when I became infuriated and stepped out). Second, your rat-meat burgers are still in competition with every other food product on the market. So you might have a "monopoly" on burgers, but people will just buy chicken instead. So your company would have to monopolize the entire food industry, monopolize the farm fields, monopolize the suppliers, monopolize the grocery stores. Basically it is impossible, to be quite honest.

A monopoly means there's no freedom of choice in the market. If there's no freedom of choice in the market, they can put any defective POS on the shelf and it'll sell because it's all that anyone has for sale.

If a company managed to monopolize the entire world, then I would agree with you. But such a scenario is absurd.

EDIT: And anyone who tries to create a competing business with better quality or lower prices can be forced out of business by the same monopoly.

I feel like you have yet to refute my point on predatory pricing. So far I don't think you have demonstrated how a large business could force anybody else out of business, short of coercive means.

Conversely, If the police are doing a good job, who the hell cares that they are the only law enforcement group? I've never been the victim of any crime. I've never walked the streets at night and been attacked. In short, I have absolutely no problems with the state's monopoly on law enforcement.

Ask people living in the ghettos how well police protect them? They would be better off without police protection. The cops have declared war on poverty stricken places. Not only that, you personally have had your wealth taken from you by the police state, and you have to be raped by the TSA to fly on a damn plane anymore. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

[ZombieRothbard]

The police do have oversight. There are internal affairs departments, and the very same people they serve are voters, which means they decide who the boss of the police will be. In the city where I live, the head of police is a democratically elected office. If someone wants the job, they have to show how they're qualified in their campaign. That means that crime statistics are more important then bank statements for the police.

Can you think of anywhere outside of the magical government fantasy world oversight would be considered an "internal investigation"? Its like yeah, I might have killed those 5 hookers, im not sure, ill investigate myself and tell you what I find.

Also, democracy is a sham. It is the majority enslaving the minority. And the elected officials are more likely to represent Lockheed Martin than any actual people.

[Natapoc]

Sorry I mean to address the following quote from you:


But I arrived at this conclusion out of resignation that the world will never be perfect, and as a result, this is the best we've got for how to better control police.


Do you mean this in a statist or a non statist context?

I mean the proposition of private security is in my view the most realistic solution to cutting out the lack of oversight police suffer from.

I'm not sure how without additional laws. Corporations can keep so much secret. They fence everything off and you can't get any records that they don't want to give you. In order to even get an idea of what may be happening on the inside you need an undercover informant.

Police departments at least have public accountability processes where people can sue to get records and information.

Right now corporations when pressured by activist groups will just release misleading press releases which media echoes. Activists have NOWAY of getting reliable data about what exactly corporations are doing except by getting jobs as part of the company with intent to rat them out.

At least it is a little bit more easy then that to hold police departments accountable? But then in order to know that we really need to know more details about what exactly is meant by private police and what form exactly it would take.

[ZombieRothbard]

I mean the proposition of private security is in my view the most realistic solution to cutting out the lack of oversight police suffer from.

I'm not sure how without additional laws. Corporations can keep so much secret. They fence everything off and you can't get any records that they don't want to give you. In order to even get an idea of what may be happening on the inside you need an undercover informant.

Police departments at least have public accountability processes where people can sue to get records and information.

Right now corporations when pressured by activist groups will just release misleading press releases which media echoes. Activists have NOWAY of getting reliable data about what exactly corporations are doing except by getting jobs as part of the company with intent to rat them out.

At least it is a little bit more easy then that to hold police departments accountable? But then in order to know that we really need to know more details about what exactly is meant by private police and what form exactly it would take.

The problem is that you cannot really predict what would happen in the market. You have valid concerns though, although I would say suing police departments hasn't been very successful, at least by market anarchist activists. I am not sure if the lefties have had better luck?

[Natapoc]

The police do have oversight. There are internal affairs departments, and the very same people they serve are voters, which means they decide who the boss of the police will be. In the city where I live, the head of police is a democratically elected office. If someone wants the job, they have to show how they're qualified in their campaign. That means that crime statistics are more important then bank statements for the police.

Can you think of anywhere outside of the magical government fantasy world oversight would be considered an "internal investigation"? Its like yeah, I might have killed those 5 hookers, im not sure, ill investigate myself and tell you what I find.

Also, democracy is a sham. It is the majority enslaving the minority. And the elected officials are more likely to represent Lockheed Martin than any actual people.

... we don't have a democracy anyway. And it's true that the elected officials hold the view of Lockheed martin higher then yours and mine. What I don't understand is how police for profit would not just make it even worse.

I mean right now they at least have to PRETEND that they are interested in the people. And a few of them legitimately are. Making it all for profit will just formally write their policies in such a way that the people who pay them the most directly benefit the most without even having to throw bread crumbs to the masses (who tend to be more oppressed by the police then they are helped)

[Natapoc]

I'm not sure how without additional laws. Corporations can keep so much secret. They fence everything off and you can't get any records that they don't want to give you. In order to even get an idea of what may be happening on the inside you need an undercover informant.

Police departments at least have public accountability processes where people can sue to get records and information.

Right now corporations when pressured by activist groups will just release misleading press releases which media echoes. Activists have NOWAY of getting reliable data about what exactly corporations are doing except by getting jobs as part of the company with intent to rat them out.

At least it is a little bit more easy then that to hold police departments accountable? But then in order to know that we really need to know more details about what exactly is meant by private police and what form exactly it would take.

The problem is that you cannot really predict what would happen in the market. You have valid concerns though, although I would say suing police departments hasn't been very successful, at least by market anarchist activists. I am not sure if the lefties have had better luck?

Left anarchists have burnt some down. Not that I would ever advocate something like that. First of all, there could be a mouse infestation in that building and I don't think the mice should be burned.

But there has been luck right? I mean really minor improvements. Disgustingly minor. But yeah I can link to some cases where activists have gotten money back from the police and it's lead to at least discussion if not some slight consideration at improvement? lol. And records do get released to the public.

But we do need to keep it in context, although I hate to use the analogy, it could be much worse. The cops could have judge, jury, executioner power in this country. They don't, although sometimes their actions speak otherwise.

[Sibirsky]

.

But sib both systems (the private one and the current public one) work based on whatever laws are in place regulating whatever we want to call "police"

I'm not so sure Norstal is missing the point. In both systems we have laws/contracts which regulate/specify law enforcement priorities. If the problem is with the way current law enforcement prioritizes enforcement of these laws then it's a valid question:
"Why not just change the way current law enforcement priorities?" For example:
80% Violent crime.
20% petty theft/property crimes.
0% victimless crimes

Victimless crimes are far easier to address. They do so to increase their budgets.

[Natapoc]

But sib both systems (the private one and the current public one) work based on whatever laws are in place regulating whatever we want to call "police"

I'm not so sure Norstal is missing the point. In both systems we have laws/contracts which regulate/specify law enforcement priorities. If the problem is with the way current law enforcement prioritizes enforcement of these laws then it's a valid question:
"Why not just change the way current law enforcement priorities?" For example:
80% Violent crime.
20% petty theft/property crimes.
0% victimless crimes

Victimless crimes are far easier to address. They do so to increase their budgets.

Then change the way they are paid by law such that they do not get paid for stopping victimless crimes.

I still don't see why the market approach would change this in a way that simply making the government follow the same laws you would make the private security follow would not.