Police force

[Quacawa]

(This is arguing from an anarcho capitalist standpoint, a thing I'm yet undecided upon)

With regards to the police force: without any government interference, what motive is there for a private security company to abide by any reasonable code of conduct?

Say a security company operates in an area inhabited by a poor black community (that, purely for the sake of argument, commits 90% of the region’s crime) and a wealthy white community. What is there to stop this company operating a policy of setting a curfew for all black citizens and no such curfew for white citizens. Or giving longer prison sentences to black citizens. The white community can happily enjoy reduced crime. The security company enjoys huge profits because the white community is far wealthier than the oppressed black community. Everyone is happy and profits boom. Except if you’re born black.

Let's take a look at the hypothetical situation where there's only one security company in action, controlled (like in your case) by a wealthy majority. What would happen to minorities under such a situation?

Oh wait, we've seen exactly what happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)! Or imagine a security force that gives longer prison sentences to black citizens. Oh wait, we already have this (http://www.zmag.org/racewatch/znet_race ... ional6.htm)! It's called the state police!

Let me explain why policing under a free market would be a lot better. The basic idea is this: it costs a lot of money to impose illiberal laws on people. You want to stop people taking drugs in their own home? You have to pay someone to detect and enforce this law. You want the law to discriminate against black people? You have to hire a security company that is willing to take the extra risks, pay the extra penalties and fight with the victims' firms. All this costs money - and, when it comes down to it, I think most people care more about having an extra few hundred quid in their pocket than invading the civil liberties of others. And if enough people really are willing to spend the money, ask yourself: would the situation really be any better in a representative democracy?

[Aggicificicerous]

It's not the laws set out by a hypothetical private security firm that are the problem. It's what they can do off the records if they have nobody controlling them.

[Saardium]

In a privatized world the security force would only be interested in protecting the closed community. They're a defense force, not an assault force, so they would have no reason to patrol outside communities.

[Quacawa]

It's not the laws set out by a hypothetical private security firm that are the problem. It's what they can do off the records if they have nobody controlling them.

In a society where we all bear arms, I don't think any private security firm would be in a position to abuse any power like a state could.

[Quacawa]

In a privatized world the security force would only be interested in protecting the closed community. They're a defense force, not an assault force, so they would have no reason to patrol outside communities.

Isn't it their job to protect people?

[Mandolore the Enraged]

In a privatized world the security force would only be interested in protecting the closed community. They're a defense force, not an assault force, so they would have no reason to patrol outside communities.

Mine's an assault force when someone is doing something they shouldn't or aren't at work or are out after 9:00 (end of work curfew) they will be tased beaten and sent to a labour camp for a week to life they can also (depending on the seriousness of the matter or have 3 strikes) b executed

[Aggicificicerous]

In a society where we all bear arms, I don't think any private security firm would be in a position to abuse any power like a state could.

I fail to see the difference.

But as we all know, people in a position of power would never act to abuse or exploit it in any way, right? Especially when they aren't at all accountable?

[Chrobalta]

Private security force would be motivated by money. And those with the money would be the ones pulling the strings for their agenda.

I personally would rather have police doing the job, not private security.

[Dinaverg]

They could just oppress them for fun. I hear it's a great way to pass the time.

[Quacawa]

The point about economic power is that it is far, far (far!) more decentralized than political power in even the most democratic of systems. Bill Gates has a fraction of the power that Barack Obama (or even Timothy Geitner) has - and this is not an accident. This is why it's so essential to abolish political power, even if it means that some people become very rich (and this is not even a bad thing in itself). What can you do with economic power and no political power? Buy things, and pay people to do things that they voluntarily agree to. What can you do with political power and no economic power? Quite a lot of evil things, it turns out.

I don't think there's a system known to man under which the wealthy and powerful don't have the ability to influence the laws - just look at the corporatist/State-capitalist *********** going on in the States at the moment. That being said, I think we should minimize this ability to the greatest extent possible. If there is political power available, it is inevitably going to be captured by the wealthy and powerful, and the more political power there is the more rewarding capturing it will be. This is the fundamental mistake of most of the statist left: they (rightly) complain about abuses of power when the other guys are in charge, but they think that the answer is to get into power themselves rather than to curb the power in the first place and make it impossible and undesirable for the power to be abused at all.
Reply With Quote

[Dinaverg]

If I was a rich guy, I'd make sure political power stuck around, if all that's true.

[Land of greed]

This seems like a corporate anarchist scenario. In which case the black community would simply elect to hire a different security force.
Also the police force doesn't make the laws, they enforce them.

[Conserative Morality]

Also the police force doesn't make the laws, they enforce them.

"Power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

[Dinaverg]

This seems like a corporate anarchist scenario. In which case the black community would simply elect to hire a different security force.

With what?

[Letat]

Police are usually regarded as a textbook example of something the market can't provide well.

Let's suppose there are two groups, the A's and the B's, living together in one community. The A's decide they don't want to be mugged in broad daylight, so they hire a security firm, A-Corp, to put a stop to it. Here we run into the freerider problem. A hires A-Corp, but both the A's and the B's benefit from A-Corp's work keeping muggers off the streets. Why pay for the service if someone else will do it first? One group benefits at the expense of the other.

Another problem: what if the two groups have contesting interests? The A's hires A-Corp to keep drug-dealers off their streets. The B's, though, don't appreciate interference with their legitimate business concern, so they hire B-Corp to protect merchants from harassment by A-Corp. Here, introducing private competition actually is counterproductive, as the desired product - security - is abolished in the ensuing war between the A's and the B's.

So with a police force, we need (1) to ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the security they receive and (2) agreement on what constitutes "security." So far the best way to do that is to establish a policing monopoly, i.e. a state.

[Skothia]

In a society where we all bear arms, I don't think any private security firm would be in a position to abuse any power like a state could.

Nonsense. The Private Security Firm would probably be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-managed. A random citizen with an AK-47 would be no match against a Merc with a riot shield, tear gas, gas mask and an G3 or something superior to the AK-47.

[Dinaverg]

In a society where we all bear arms, I don't think any private security firm would be in a position to abuse any power like a state could.

Nonsense. The Private Security Firm would probably be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-managed. A random citizen with an AK-47 would be no match against a Merc with a riot shield, tear gas, gas mask and an G3 or something superior to the AK-47.

Unless the citizen works in another security firm? Like stealing office supplies.

[Conserative Morality]

Nonsense. The Private Security Firm would probably be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-managed. A random citizen with an AK-47 would be no match against a Merc with a riot shield, tear gas, gas mask and an G3 or something superior to the AK-47.

*grabs Skothia by the collar* Do you realize what you've started?!? *hides in his bomb shelter*

[Skothia]

Nonsense. The Private Security Firm would probably be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-managed. A random citizen with an AK-47 would be no match against a Merc with a riot shield, tear gas, gas mask and an G3 or something superior to the AK-47.

*grabs Skothia by the collar* Do you realize what you've started?!? *hides in his bomb shelter*

ODIN'S BALLS! YOU'RE RIGHT.

DISCLAIMER TO GUN NUTS :

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GUNS. DO NOT COME IN HERE AND START A DEBATE. I WAS ONLY USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.

Unless the citizen works in another security firm? Like stealing office supplies.

Why would a Security Firm steal office supplies?

[Dinaverg]

Nonsense. The Private Security Firm would probably be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-managed. A random citizen with an AK-47 would be no match against a Merc with a riot shield, tear gas, gas mask and an G3 or something superior to the AK-47.

*grabs Skothia by the collar* Do you realize what you've started?!? *hides in his bomb shelter*

ODIN'S BALLS! YOU'RE RIGHT.

DISCLAIMER TO GUN NUTS :

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GUNS. DO NOT COME IN HERE AND START A DEBATE. I WAS ONLY USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.

Unless the citizen works in another security firm? Like stealing office supplies.

Why would a Security Firm steal office supplies?

I mean, some guy could take home the fancy equipment, and then yeah, some random citizen could stand up to a security firm. Just hypothetically speaking.

[Skothia]

I mean, some guy could take home the fancy equipment, and then yeah, some random citizen could stand up to a security firm. Just hypothetically speaking.

Oh! I didn't get your original meaning.

Well, one man wouldn't be able to take out an entire security firm, but I would imagine someone could steal supplies from the firm that they are working at, distribute it to others, and from there, attack the enemy firm directly.

But then, the other firm would have a reason to attack that group that is attacking the firm, because it has obviously stolen quite a few valuable assets and you can't just let that thing go unpunished.

So, instead of one firm to fight, you would have two, and you also would need to come up with an alternative way to fund your weaponry. Otherwise no one's going to be fighting but you. Which is an automatic lose.

So stealing from your firm in the first place would be an unwise move.

Hypothetically speaking.

[Dinaverg]

I mean, some guy could take home the fancy equipment, and then yeah, some random citizen could stand up to a security firm. Just hypothetically speaking.

Oh! I didn't get your original meaning.

Well, one man wouldn't be able to take out an entire security firm, but I would imagine someone could steal supplies from the firm that they are working at, distribute it to others, and from there, attack the enemy firm directly.

But then, the other firm would have a reason to attack that group that is attacking the firm, because it has obviously stolen quite a few valuable assets and you can't just let that thing go unpunished.

So, instead of one firm to fight, you would have two, and you also would need to come up with an alternative way to fund your weaponry. Otherwise no one's going to be fighting but you. Which is an automatic lose.

So stealing from your firm in the first place would be an unwise move.

Hypothetically speaking.

Like something being unwise has ever made a human difference.

[Dinaverg]

I'm not actually sure what the point of this little diversion was, I need to review...

[Skothia]

Like something being unwise has ever made a human difference.

Well, I mean to say, that it's 'unwise' in the sense that while you might do it, there's not a very high percentage of you succeeding.

[United Russian State]

A privatized police force is a bad idea, the only thing worse would be a privatized military.