[AFAIK]

In Cambodia violent mobs rapidly overwhelm thieves who fail to escape.
The suspect has little opportunity to argue his innocence or beg for mercy whilst being beaten to death. Police will force their way through the crowd with AK 47s held aloft to retrieve the body and deliver it to hospital.

Just a reality check.

Evey building has barbed wire, barred windows and solid locks.

[Oakwood]

I largely think that no civil wars or isolation of any areas will occur. 'white guilt' is quite high among whites; many whites are fine in paying for the country's (abysmal) welfare programs. You never see whites campaigning or complaining publicly; literally out of fear.

I’ve got no doubt it’s out of fear. A combination of reward and fear is what keeps a people in order no matter what the country- without the fear of the punishment for breaking the law, we would be reduced to a state of anarchy and savagery. Something else that is connected with that fear is the use of propaganda in controlling people which I think is something the average person doesn’t understand the extent of. The most blatant contradictions and abuses against a group will be ignored (or even defended) when you factor in the right books, newspapers, TV programs and education in schools. If South Africa is bombarded with documentaries and fictional TV programs about the horrors of apartheid and how the problems of today are inextricably linked with white behaviour of the past and present, it’s going to take a lot to get the whites to make some sort of stand for themselves- even more so if the white population are quite economically comfortable and don’t want to risk what they still have. But again, propaganda is an unbelievably powerful tool, it would only take the nucleus of revolutionary activity, internet articles, literature etc to get a movement snowballing as we have seen in the past and also in the present with the Arab Spring.

On the point of employment equity. Whites here have to practically finish in the top percentile to even be considered to be accepted into medical school. If you're black, you're granted privileges. But it's a tricky situation. As mentioned, uneven development is very tricky to solve due to its systemic nature.

I don’t think that employing lower skilled applicants based on their skin colour is likely to do much to solve the situation or help South Africa progress. To me, there’s nothing wrong with uneven development so long as everyone is given a fair chance at success. If people just accept this undisguised discrimination it will only lead to further oppression and feelings of rage- one of the reasons that for now, I support capitalism. With capitalism people have an outlet for their talents and aren’t frustrated by being held back by a system that won’t let them rise above those who don’t have the same talents. But as stated earlier, fear is such a powerful force and will pacify even the most unruly people- it’s when there’s a let up in the oppression and terror that they actually start rising up against the oppressors.

[Eran]

When brutality originates from the official police force it’s actually easier to monitor, target and hold accountable than a myriad of organistations which aren't properly connected.

I don't think you are familiar with the reality of official police brutality. It is actually the norm in most countries on Earth, and persists for years and decades. It is obviously not easy to monitor, target or hold accountable.

But it’s when you perform the role of a guardian of an area, thinking that you have the right to judge whether someone in the street needs to be shot or doesn’t need to be shot, whether a crowd needs to be smashed to pieces or be allowed to protest or whether to allow the controlled selling of drugs in an open air market or not is when things become tricky. Basically, having the power to decide what is “just” and “unjust”.

Here is the point. Everybody has the right, always and everywhere, to uphold justice.

That doesn't mean that everybody has the right to do whatever they think is consistent with upholding justice. People don't have the right to make innocent mistakes in the enforcement of justice.

That is why, while it is everybody's right to uphold justice, it is probably a bad idea for most non-professionals under typical, non-emergency circumstances, to do so.

Note, btw, that the rule that good intentions don't justify miscarriage of justice is universal - it holds not just with respect to informal, vigilante action, but also with respect to official actions.

Thus as it is unjust to cage people for years for activities that harm nobody (such as selling Marijuana), state legislators, police, courts, juries and prison officials who collaborate in the practice are unjust and even criminal in their actions.

I heard private military contractors were the worst perpetrators of war crimes in Iraq because they enjoyed an immunity and lack of scrutiny that the regular army didn’t.

Who gave them that immunity?

[Oakwood]

I don't think you are familiar with the reality of official police brutality. It is actually the norm in most countries on Earth, and persists for years and decades. It is obviously not easy to monitor, target or hold accountable.

I don’t think you’re familiar with it either to be honest. However, I would imagine police brutality is the norm in most countries on earth when you consider how many countries there are that are less advanced/developed than a lot of Western countries. I’m guessing you’ll mention the United States as a country that practices police brutality, but how much of the “norm” is it? Indeed it isn’t easy to monitor etc but it is “easier” which is what I said in my post.

Here is the point. Everybody has the right, always and everywhere, to uphold justice.

That doesn't mean that everybody has the right to do whatever they think is consistent with upholding justice. People don't have the right to make innocent mistakes in the enforcement of justice.

That is why, while it is everybody's right to uphold justice, it is probably a bad idea for most non-professionals under typical, non-emergency circumstances, to do so.

What do you think is acceptable to do in upholding justice then? Is it what the law would tell you is just? Which emergency circumstances would you accept the upholding of justice by civilians?

Thus as it is unjust to cage people for years for activities that harm nobody (such as selling Marijuana), state legislators, police, courts, juries and prison officials who collaborate in the practice are unjust and even criminal in their actions.

I personally would legalise most drugs so I couldn’t justify imprisoning someone for years for selling Marijuana. But as for the “that harm nobody” comment, that is going to be a matter of opinion which will be justified in all manner of ways by the government and law enforcement. Even though the particular example you gave needs to have the law changed regarding it, allowing the breaking of a law is a sign of a weak government and would lead to more law breaking.

Who gave them that immunity?

The government. My comment was a response to you saying that historically contractors have been less likely to commit violent acts in the name of justice. If private forces are subject to exactly the same rules as government forces, they essentially are government forces.

[Eran]

Indeed it isn’t easy to monitor etc but it is “easier” which is what I said in my post.

What makes you think it is easier? The US is an excellent example - there are many thousands of different police forces. Why is monitoring them easier than monitoring the activities of private organisations?

More to the point, the "holding accountable" part is much more difficult. The problem is that police brutality is often legal, while private brutality rarely is.

When police brutality is legal, holding police agents accountable for such brutality is very difficult.

Since private brutality is much more rarely legal, holding its perpetrators accountable is much easier.

What do you think is acceptable to do in upholding justice then?

That depends on circumstances. It is always just to uphold justice, though it isn't always either legal (given we live under legislated rather than just law) nor prudent.

I advocate a system in which the law is justice, with justice understood as the protection (and, if necessary, restoration) of (justly-acquired) property rights.

With the exception of very simple cases (e.g. grabbing one's just-stolen wallet back from a pick-pocket), what is "just" can be difficult to ascertain. That is why it is rarely prudent for individuals to enforce justice on their own - the risk of making an error is too great. The prudent thing to do is to leave justice to professionals.

Is it what the law would tell you is just?

Clearly not in our current society, with "law" being whatever comes out of the legislative "sausage factory". In an ideal society, the law would correspond to justice in that only actions consistent with justice would be legal, and vice-versa.

Which emergency circumstances would you accept the upholding of justice by civilians?

That is clearly circumstantial. When professional guardians of the law aren't available, and a greater miscarriage of justice is likely to result from civilians doing nothing, civilians should do something.

But as for the “that harm nobody” comment, that is going to be a matter of opinion which will be justified in all manner of ways by the government and law enforcement

Strictly speaking, I should have said "violates no person's property rights" instead of "harms nobody". The "harm" criterion is far too loose to justify use of force to prevent. For example, I may be harmed by you opening a competitive business near me. That doesn't justify imprisoning you.

With respect to some drugs (Marijuana, for example), even self-harm is so minimal as to make pro-criminalisation arguments transparently false.

allowing the breaking of a law is a sign of a weak government and would lead to more law breaking.

That assumes that people cannot tell the difference between a just and unjust law. I am not sure that is the case. In any event, if government enforces unjust laws, weakening it is a good thing.

The government.

Indeed. Going back to your original assertion that "private military contractors were the worst perpetrators of war crimes in Iraq", this is clearly false, unless one takes a very technical definition of "war crimes". After all, the US military was directly responsible for the murder of many thousands of civilians, far greater number than private military contractors.

If killing innocent children isn't official brutality, what is?

[Oakwood]

What makes you think it is easier? The US is an excellent example - there are many thousands of different police forces. Why is monitoring them easier than monitoring the activities of private organisations?

Because they’re much more a part of the government system and the government have the ability to investigate abuses and correct them more than they would within a private organisation that had very little to do with them. Think of the analogy of owning a fairly large company, are you suggesting it’s going to be harder to keep tabs on your own employees than it would be the employees of someone else’s company?

More to the point, the "holding accountable" part is much more difficult. The problem is that police brutality is often legal, while private brutality rarely is.

When police brutality is legal, holding police agents accountable for such brutality is very difficult.

Since private brutality is much more rarely legal, holding its perpetrators accountable is much easier.[/quote]

Again, this is much easier investigated and dealt with within your own sphere than in someone else’s. And when you’re faced with the context that we’re talking about, where the official police are so corrupt and inept that you have to resort to a private police force, what are the official police going to do about the contractor’s brutality? Even if the officials had the will, the mere existence of contractors tells you the officials won’t have the resources or ability to resolve much.

That depends on circumstances. It is always just to uphold justice, though it isn't always either legal (given we live under legislated rather than just law) nor prudent.

I advocate a system in which the law is justice, with justice understood as the protection (and, if necessary, restoration) of (justly-acquired) property rights.

You might need to explain that a bit further. Saying “the law is justice” and then saying immediately after that “with justice understood as the protection of property rights” sounds to me as though you’re saying the law should only reach as far as property rights, which I’m sure is not what you actually think.
But even if this is what you think, who is going to ensure and protect these rights for you?

With the exception of very simple cases (e.g. grabbing one's just-stolen wallet back from a pick-pocket), what is "just" can be difficult to ascertain. That is why it is rarely prudent for individuals to enforce justice on their own - the risk of making an error is too great. The prudent thing to do is to leave justice to professionals.

I agree, but will add that justice ideally would come from a regulated governmental source who have actually been trained in what justice is according to the law of the country.

Clearly not in our current society, with "law" being whatever comes out of the legislative "sausage factory". In an ideal society, the law would correspond to justice in that only actions consistent with justice would be legal, and vice-versa.

That is how it would be in an ideal society, and this is a matter of opinion on what justice is again. No one is going to fully agree on what justice is but it’s important that everyone is subject to the same laws I’m sure you’ll agree.

That is clearly circumstantial. When professional guardians of the law aren't available, and a greater miscarriage of justice is likely to result from civilians doing nothing, civilians should do something.

Yes I’ll go with that.

Strictly speaking, I should have said "violates no person's property rights" instead of "harms nobody". The "harm" criterion is far too loose to justify use of force to prevent. For example, I may be harmed by you opening a competitive business near me. That doesn't justify imprisoning you.

Is it seriously only property rights that have any sway here? What about acts of violence? Causing someone distress through antagonism and threats? Noise disturbances, pollution…

With respect to some drugs (Marijuana, for example), even self-harm is so minimal as to make pro-criminalisation arguments transparently false.

I don’t particularly believe that the government should be intrusive even if someone is harming themselves and no one else by their actions. But this can be left open to so many arguments such as with the use of marijuana - “if they have children and they spend a great deal of their time stoned, the children are certainly going to suffer because of it.”

That assumes that people cannot tell the difference between a just and unjust law. I am not sure that is the case. In any event, if government enforces unjust laws, weakening it is a good thing.

People actually can’t tell the difference because there is no such thing as universal justice. There are certain things which seem almost universal though- such as treating people in the way you would like to be treated but even that will have exceptions. I agree with the last sentence as well, but I only want to see the laws that I disagree with weakened and not necessarily the ones you want to see weakened. It’s only a good thing for me and anyone else if we agree with you.

Indeed. Going back to your original assertion that "private military contractors were the worst perpetrators of war crimes in Iraq", this is clearly false, unless one takes a very technical definition of "war crimes". After all, the US military was directly responsible for the murder of many thousands of civilians, far greater number than private military contractors.

If killing innocent children isn't official brutality, what is?

This might have something to do with the huge difference in numbers of US soldiers compared to contractors.

[Eran]

Because they’re much more a part of the government system and the government have the ability to investigate abuses and correct them more than they would within a private organisation that had very little to do with them.

Ability - perhaps. But what about motivation?

Government is much more motivated, generally speaking, to root out competitors (i.e. those private organisations) than to go through the painful process of identifying internal corruption.

And when you’re faced with the context that we’re talking about, where the official police are so corrupt and inept that you have to resort to a private police force, what are the official police going to do about the contractor’s brutality?

Very little. However, other contractors might help. The point is that if the brutality isn't officially sanctioned (and private brutality can also be officially-sanctioned), it can be resisted. In fact, private contractors in this context emerged precisely as means for resisting the private brutality of ordinary criminals.

You might need to explain that a bit further. Saying “the law is justice” and then saying immediately after that “with justice understood as the protection of property rights” sounds to me as though you’re saying the law should only reach as far as property rights, which I’m sure is not what you actually think.

Libertarians often say "all rights are property rights". I believe the same, given a broad understanding of "property rights" to include:
1. First and foremost, a right over one's own body. That right prohibits others from killing, assaulting, enslaving, conscripting, jailing for victimless crimes and prohibiting one from engaging in one's chosen profession without "license".
2. Right to use natural resources as "easement". For example, Britain is criss-crossed with countless public pathways. Those aren't owned by the public, but the public has a right to use them.

I must also stress that only justly-acquired property rights are protected under libertarian justice. Thus if an aristocrat owns millions of acres because his ancestors received those as a grant from a king, those acres are probably not justly-acquired, and belong, rather, to the tenant farmers.

But even if this is what you think, who is going to ensure and protect these rights for you?

Well, various private agencies, specialising potentially in protection, insurance, detection, apprehension, conviction, adjudication and extraction of restitution from those attempting to violate my rights.

I agree, but will add that justice ideally would come from a regulated governmental source who have actually been trained in what justice is according to the law of the country.

I agree that justice ideally would come from trained people familiar with the law of the land. But why "government source"?

There is an inherent problem with designating one organisation ("government") as having monopoly over dispute resolution. Why would anybody expect government judges to be neutral when adjudicating disputes between ordinary people and government itself?

Would you trust the dispute resolution arm of Wal-Mart as the sole agencies entitled to resolve disputes between yourself and Wal-Mart? Would you trust them much more if you had one vote in millions to elect Wal-Mart's Board of Directors?

No one is going to fully agree on what justice is but it’s important that everyone is subject to the same laws I’m sure you’ll agree.

I do agree, but I don't think you are. Specifically, do you really think you are subject to the same laws as government officials? For example, do you have the same rights to arrest people as a police-officer? Do you have the same rights to confiscate people's property as an IRS agent?

As for "justice", while there may be differing interpretations (just as there are varied interpretations of the US Constitution), we should all agree on certain core aspects of justice.

For example, can we all agree that it is unjust to punish innocent people, i.e. people who have harmed nobody else?
Can we all agree that confiscating people's property when they have acted peacefully is wrong?
Can we all agree that "might makes right" is an unjust principle, and that, consequently, people shouldn't be entitled to property merely because they used force to secure it?

No country on Earth comes even close to respecting these broad principles in their system of so-called "justice".

Is it seriously only property rights that have any sway here? What about acts of violence? Causing someone distress through antagonism and threats? Noise disturbances, pollution…

Violence is a violation of one's property rights in one's own body (see above). Noise disturbance and pollution are also violations of property rights (in the sense of creating physical invasion that materially detracts from one's ability to enjoy one's property - technically a "nuisance").

Credible threats of using force counts as aggression.

However, "causing someone distress through antagonism" isn't necessarily a violation of property rights - either in current or in my desired societies.

But this can be left open to so many arguments such as with the use of marijuana - “if they have children and they spend a great deal of their time stoned, the children are certainly going to suffer because of it.”

Indeed. The point to take from this is that coming up with arguments is very easy. If we allow government to perform acts of aggression (e.g. jailing somebody for smoking a joint) merely because its spokespeople can articulate a plausible reason for the action, nothing is safe.

That is why the "harm principle" is far too vague and flexible.

What property does is delineate fairly precise, concrete, objective and ascertainable boundaries between different people. Without those boundaries, people and their peaceful projects ought to be safe from interference.

People actually can’t tell the difference because there is no such thing as universal justice.

Just because we don't have a perfect consensus over a perfect theory of justice doesn't mean we know nothing about it. As pointed above, certain principles ("it is wrong to punish innocent people", "it is wrong to forcibly take other people's property") are very broadly accepted and can often be applied with reasonable certainty.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This might have something to do with the huge difference in numbers of US soldiers compared to contractors.

Or the firepower placed in the hands of US soldiers (e.g. those controlling bombers and drones) compared with contractors. Or the nature of the mission - US soldiers are often tasked with killing people, while contractors tend to kill in (sometimes over-zealous) self-defence.

[Oakwood]

Ability - perhaps. But what about motivation?
Government is much more motivated, generally speaking, to root out competitors (i.e. those private organisations) than to go through the painful process of identifying internal corruption.

If we’re talking about a democracy, the government should have enough reason to stamp out corruption in the police force because it makes them look like some sort of crusaders of justice. Added to that, a clean police force is going to police the country better and give them better chance of re-election. And the idea of rooting out competitors obviously applies more to private organisations that actually have competitors rather than an organisation with a monopoly. I have to point out an earlier argument I made as well, the government/police are supposedly extremely corrupt and incompetent in this scenario and these armed private organisations see themselves as the real distributors of justice. They’re unlikely to step down in this situation.

Very little. However, other contractors might help. The point is that if the brutality isn't officially sanctioned (and private brutality can also be officially-sanctioned), it can be resisted. In fact, private contractors in this context emerged precisely as means for resisting the private brutality of ordinary criminals.

Like any other business, these other contractors have to get paid by the public and are vying for business against each other. I would imagine that if they could see their competitors be exposed as ineffective, thus taking them out of the market they wouldn’t want to help each other. Capitalism is a very ruthless system, even where people’s lives are concerned, unfortunately it makes people selfish. Allowing armed units to openly compete like that is not going to end well. This is why I think capitalism/profit motive has to be kept away from certain industries such as the police.

Libertarians often say "all rights are property rights". I believe the same, given a broad understanding of "property rights" to include:

If “all rights” are property rights, why call them property rights? Does that not sometimes cause confusion when talking about property in the conventional use of the word?

1. First and foremost, a right over one's own body. That right prohibits others from killing, assaulting, enslaving, conscripting, jailing for victimless crimes and prohibiting one from engaging in one's chosen profession without "license".

Does this include conspiracy to commit mass murder even though you don’t go through with it in the end? Technically there is no victim.

and prohibiting one from engaging in one's chosen profession without "license".

What do you mean by “without license”? If you mean without “a license” do you not think the police and especially a doctor should at least have some form of license?

I must also stress that only justly-acquired property rights are protected under libertarian justice. Thus if an aristocrat owns millions of acres because his ancestors received those as a grant from a king, those acres are probably not justly-acquired, and belong, rather, to the tenant farmers.

And if they were gained from someone other than a king? Like someone who has had their fortune passed down from generation to generation but ultimately it was first earned by someone through business?

Well, various private agencies, specialising potentially in protection, insurance, detection, apprehension, conviction, adjudication and extraction of restitution from those attempting to violate my rights.

See other arguments about various private agencies competing against each other for this particular field.

I agree that justice ideally would come from trained people familiar with the law of the land. But why "government source"?

Because as previously stated, you shouldn’t have competing organisations for this area. If the direction is going to come from one group, it would have to be the government.

There is an inherent problem with designating one organisation ("government") as having monopoly over dispute resolution. Why would anybody expect government judges to be neutral when adjudicating disputes between ordinary people and government itself?

Who said they would be government judges? An independent judiciary is always preferable

I do agree, but I don't think you are. Specifically, do you really think you are subject to the same laws as government officials? For example, do you have the same rights to arrest people as a police-officer? Do you have the same rights to confiscate people's property as an IRS agent?

If the law states “only a police officer can…” then we actually are subject to the same law. Me not being a police officer means I can’t do it, someone else being one means they can. Someone needs to have the authority to carry out certain tasks, the system would break down if people were free to do all the things a governmental force (among others) were authorised to do.

As for "justice", while there may be differing interpretations (just as there are varied interpretations of the US Constitution), we should all agree on certain core aspects of justice.
Can we all agree that confiscating people's property when they have acted peacefully is wrong?
Can we all agree that "might makes right" is an unjust principle, and that, consequently, people shouldn't be entitled to property merely because they used force to secure it?

If by “confiscating” you mean just taking without compensating them, then yes I agree. “Might makes right” is actually necessary in some instances because to protect people, you have to be able to use force to do it. In the long run, not many people will respect your property rights if they don’t fear the consequences of violating them.

Credible threats of using force counts as aggression. However, "causing someone distress through antagonism" isn't necessarily a violation of property rights - either in current or in my desired societies.

I don’t know, I’m sure there are laws against bullying, which is what that description means. What do you think to laws against bullying through verbal harassment/insulting language?

Indeed. The point to take from this is that coming up with arguments is very easy. If we allow government to perform acts of aggression (e.g. jailing somebody for smoking a joint) merely because its spokespeople can articulate a plausible reason for the action, nothing is safe.
That is why the "harm principle" is far too vague and flexible.

It's true that anyone can come up with articulate arguments. But who would you rather be laying down the law of the land? An articulate tribal leader?

What property does is delineate fairly precise, concrete, objective and ascertainable boundaries between different people. Without those boundaries, people and their peaceful projects ought to be safe from interference.

It’s hard to tell if you’re using “property” in the conventional manner or the libertarian manner.

Just because we don't have a perfect consensus over a perfect theory of justice doesn't mean we know nothing about it. As pointed above, certain principles ("it is wrong to punish innocent people", "it is wrong to forcibly take other people's property") are very broadly accepted and can often be applied with reasonable certainty.

What sort of protection do you think you’ll find for the innocent under an anarchist system with no central power? I’m guessing you do believe in a written set of laws?

Or the firepower placed in the hands of US soldiers (e.g. those controlling bombers and drones) compared with contractors. Or the nature of the mission - US soldiers are often tasked with killing people, while contractors tend to kill in (sometimes over-zealous) self-defence.

I'm not saying my previous comment about the Iraq war was definitely true, but where do you get your info from that contractors tend to do this in self-defence?

[Eran]

If we’re talking about a democracy, the government should have enough reason to stamp out corruption in the police force because it makes them look like some sort of crusaders of justice

Perhaps. Or perhaps the benefits from corruption far exceed the electoral value of stamping it out.

We see many democratic countries with huge levels of corruption, both today (India) and historically (US in the 19th century).

Capitalism is a very ruthless system, even where people’s lives are concerned, unfortunately it makes people selfish.

Capitalism is less ruthless, and makes people less selfish than any other system.

Some people are ruthless and selfish under any system of government.

What Capitalism does is base human interaction predominantly (ideally - entirely) on voluntary interactions. Alternative systems include some component of coercion - of legitimized use of force by some people against others. It is the potential for such use of force that brings out and encourages ruthlessness and selfishness.

[Poelmo]

This service is amazing. If you see someone suspicious in your neighbourhood, you can call them to sort it out/ interrogate the person. In emergencies, one always calls the protection agency over the police force. Calling the protection agency is the equivalent of calling 911.

Now, if these services are anything to go by, considering they are defying all odds, by being relatively cheap and efficient, then the idea of protection agencies under libertarian anarchy is in fact a promising idea/concept.

How "cheap" are we talking here? Cheap enough for the average Soweto resident? If not then how can it be a real police force if it only caters to the relatively wealthy (a minority of the population South Africa)?

Does this "police force" patrol to prevent crime, if so, what % of the residents in a neighborhood need to be paying members before they come patrolling there?

[Husky]

I am using the largest, most reputable service. The entry cost is roughly $25 a month, with a one-off installation fee of $40.

In poorer areas, some lower-scale companies operate. I am not sure of the price.

In poor areas, people band together to form their own community watch groups, and employ a voluntary-based-roster to determine who will patrol on a set day. The approach is highly effective.

I am not sure the %, but in the area I live in, 100% of the houses use the same company, so the company patrols.

Most companies are attached to certain areas, so if your area is predominantly under the service of one service, you are going to use that service.

[Poelmo]

In poorer areas, some lower-scale companies operate. I am not sure of the price.

So the poor don't get the same level of protection, effectively making your income determine your value as a human being (perhaps based on some belief that god rewards good people with wealth?) If you got into a dispute with a poor man who is not signed up to a security company, could your security be biased in your favor (you pay them) and could this persist indefinitely (not get weeded out by the free market) because such bias would favor every (potential) client of a security company?

In poor areas, people band together to form their own community watch groups, and employ a voluntary-based-roster to determine who will patrol on a set day. The approach is highly effective.

But costs them time (they could have spent studying, making money or playing with their children) and brings them into danger.

I am not sure the %, but in the area I live in, 100% of the houses use the same company, so the company patrols.

If 99% of houses were signed up, would they still patrol, what if it was 80%, or 51% or 49%?

Most companies are attached to certain areas, so if your area is predominantly under the service of one service, you are going to use that service.

Is there some kind of neighborhood counsel that determines which company the neighborhood will sign up with (if not, how do these companies compete for neighborhoods)?


P.S. I'm not criticizing you personally, I'm just listing common critiques of privatized security to make you aware of them and to see how you respond to them.

[Husky]

So the poor don't get the same level of protection, effectively making your income determine your value as a human being (perhaps based on some belief that god rewards good people with wealth?) If you got into a dispute with a poor man who is not signed up to a security company, could your security be biased in your favor (you pay them) and could this persist indefinitely (not get weeded out by the free market) because such bias would favor every (potential) client of a security company?

Just to clarify something regarding the underlined bit.

The security agencies cannot, by law, make arrests. They are not a de facto police force. They merely offer protection. They cannot foil attempted murder plots or arrest you for swearing at them.

To address the underlying question of income determining your value as a human being: You might be missing the issue of the situation. Official police force protection is nonexistent. Of course, in my ideal situation, the police force would protect everyone equally. I'm not an anarchist like some libertarians, I support a minarchy (with the state acting as a night-watchman state). The point of this thread was to show a solution to the problem of a useless police force. Poor people are better off with some protection, rather than none. I thought this might interest those that actually support no official police force, as it shows how a cheap service can be effective.

But costs them time (they could have spent studying, making money or playing with their children) and brings them into danger.

True. But it's better than no protection, correct?

If 99% of houses were signed up, would they still patrol, what if it was 80%, or 51% or 49%?

If they have a good client base (I'd say 20%+) then they will patrol, but not super frequently. If an area has an overwhelming majority of its residents subscribed to the service, then it will most likely patrol often.

Is there some kind of neighborhood counsel that determines which company the neighborhood will sign up with (if not, how do these companies compete for neighborhoods)?

Pretty much. My neighborhood has a crime watch organization that sends information about crime news in the area, and it advises new residents to subscribe to the dominant protection service.

[Poelmo]

The security agencies cannot, by law, make arrests. They are not a de facto police force. They merely offer protection. They cannot foil attempted murder plots or arrest you for swearing at them.

You said they could hand over people to the police and aid with investigations (so there's room to at least ruin someone's day), also, if they in the future replace the police force they would get the powers of a police force.

To address the underlying question of income determining your value as a human being: You might be missing the issue of the situation. Official police force protection is nonexistent.

Yes, of course, you're just making do with what's available, but the issue would be relevant for societies with functioning state police forces that are thinking about replacing them with private security, as you allude to.

If they have a good client base (I'd say 20%+) then they will patrol, but not super frequently. If an area has an overwhelming majority of its residents subscribed to the service, then it will most likely patrol often.

That sucks if you live in a neighborhood where you are one of the few people signed up with a security company.

[Husky]

You said they could hand over people to the police and aid with investigations (so there's room to at least ruin someone's day), also, if they in the future replace the police force they would get the powers of a police force.

They can hand people over to the police. But when I say this I mean, when they rock up at your house in an emergency and find a robber in your living room, they can capture him, usually holding him in their vehicle outside, and then wait for the police to arrive. Then, subsequently, they help the police gather evidence from the crime scene (considering the police are useless).

Yes, of course, you're just making do with what's available, but the issue would be relevant for societies with functioning state police forces that are thinking about replacing them with private security, as you allude to.

The purpose of the thread was to inform those who do want a full implementation of private police about a situation in which communities rely on semi-private police forces. I understand problems that can arise from a fully privatized police force. Remember, this service cannot make arrests or take criminals to court. There's a significant difference in permitting protection services and privatized police forces.

That sucks if you live in a neighborhood where you are one of the few people signed up with a security company.

It sucks when the actual police do not show up...

Although the service might not be as comprehensive without patrolling, the fact that you can call them when you see a suspicious person, press your panic button in an emergency to alert them, etc., still makes the service worthwhile.

[Poelmo]

They can hand people over to the police. But when I say this I mean, when they rock up at your house in an emergency and find a robber in your living room, they can capture him, usually holding him in their vehicle outside, and then wait for the police to arrive. Then, subsequently, they help the police gather evidence from the crime scene (considering the police are useless).

So they can forge evidence and they can pick arrest some poor fellow you have an issue with and tell the police they caught him snooping around your house (he may be acquitted the next day but boy have you ruined his day).

There's a significant difference in permitting protection services and privatized police forces.

One which libertarians (especially the anarcho-capitalists) seem to forget about a little too often.

[Husky]

So they can forge evidence and they can pick arrest some poor fellow you have an issue with and tell the police they caught him snooping around your house (he may be acquitted the next day but boy have you ruined his day).

The police incorrectly arrest people all the time. I think it is less likely for someone to go through the effort to call their security agency on an innocent individual.

Sure, incorrect turnovers to the police via these agencies are possible, but I am convinced that the amount of times a protection service has incorrectly handed over someone to the police is much less than the number of incorrect police arrests.

If the agency arrested someone who was innocent, their reputation would be on the line.

One which libertarians (especially the anarcho-capitalists) seem to forget about a little too often.

I agree with you here.

There are costs to measure in the paradigm of privatization of governmental services that pertain to law and order.

Judging the situation from a purely economic view might suggest that the average costs of policing and enforcing may decrease with privatization, but what, as you suggested, happens to those who cannot afford anything? The anarchist answer of forming your own co-op protection arrangement is not sufficient, for reasons you mentioned, such as loss of time.

I strongly favor privatization of most key sectors of the economy, but for law and order, despite my distrust of government, and my acknowledging of government's inefficiency, I have to compromise. A universally recognized constitution and law system is the critical issue here. The competing courts argument from anarchists makes me nervous.

[Poelmo]

If the agency arrested someone who was innocent, their reputation would be on the line.

Why? The victim was some poor fellow who couldn't afford a subscription anyway. As long as the security company signals that they'll only shaft people who are not customers of any security company they'll actually make themselves more attractive to their (potential) clients.

I agree with you here.

There are costs to measure in the paradigm of privatization of governmental services that pertain to law and order.

Judging the situation from a purely economic view might suggest that the average costs of policing and enforcing may decrease with privatization, but what, as you suggested, happens to those who cannot afford anything? The anarchist answer of forming your own co-op protection arrangement is not sufficient, for reasons you mentioned, such as loss of time.

I strongly favor privatization of most key sectors of the economy, but for law and order, despite my distrust of government, and my acknowledging of government's inefficiency, I have to compromise. A universally recognized constitution and law system is the critical issue here. The competing courts argument from anarchists makes me nervous.

Yeah, I got that, you are a real minarchist (I have again failed to find a non-American anarcho-capitalist) and I have my answers, thanks.

[Eran]

So the poor don't get the same level of protection, effectively making your income determine your value as a human being

1. There is no country on Earth in which poor and wealthy get the same level of protection. Challenging an anarchic alternative as inferior because it doesn't do what no government does is wrong.
2. Who ever said "your value as a human being" is determined by the level of police (or police-like) protection you get?

If you got into a dispute with a poor man who is not signed up to a security company, could your security be biased in your favor (you pay them) and could this persist indefinitely (not get weeded out by the free market) because such bias would favor every (potential) client of a security company?

The question is moot in the context of the OP, as security companies do not resolve disputes.

In the general anarcho-capitalist context, a poor person who feels his rights were violated by a security company can appeal to any number of competing firms who can help him either on a contingency basis or buy out his claim outright. If the claim has merit, firms would compete to purchase it (as it has value), especially if the claim is against an established security firm (which can afford to pay restitution, if found guilty).

But costs them time (they could have spent studying, making money or playing with their children) and brings them into danger.

But saves them money. Being poor, their time is probably less valuable than their money.

If 99% of houses were signed up, would they still patrol, what if it was 80%, or 51% or 49%?

I expect some level of patrols even with relatively low levels of subscription. Think about these controls from the perspective of the security company. Patrols aren't necessarily very expensive. They show your company's presence. When new customers consider which company to pick, remembering your patrol cars with their logo would be a very important factor in their choice to hire you.

I'm not an anarchist like some libertarians, I support a minarchy (with the state acting as a night-watchman state).

Why???

So they can forge evidence and they can pick arrest some poor fellow you have an issue with and tell the police they caught him snooping around your house (he may be acquitted the next day but boy have you ruined his day).

So can any private citizen in any country. So can (and with much more motivation, immunity and probability of success) the official police.

but what, as you suggested, happens to those who cannot afford anything? The anarchist answer of forming your own co-op protection arrangement is not sufficient, for reasons you mentioned, such as loss of time.

What, in your night watchman state, happens to those who cannot afford food? The libertarian answer is that in the rare cases in which people cannot afford to buy enough food, and get no help from their family or neighbours, charitable organisations will pick up the slack.

What makes you think security (which is both less urgent and less expensive than food) is different than food, shelter, water and the other necessities of life which you agree with me shouldn't be provided by government?

A universally recognized constitution and law system is the critical issue here. The competing courts argument from anarchists makes me nervous.

A libertarian society would have a universally recognized constitution (lower-case 'c'), just as, say the UK has one. The libertarian constitution would be broadly based on the NAP. Much like the American Constitution, its interpretation may be disputed at times, but the general principle of using peaceful means to resolve disputes will predominate (for both prudential and principled reasons).

We have competing courts today - different states, state vs. Federal, American vs. Canadian, etc.

Yet we manage remarkably well.

Why? The victim was some poor fellow who couldn't afford a subscription anyway. As long as the security company signals that they'll only shaft people who are not customers of any security company they'll actually make themselves more attractive to their (potential) clients.

This is similar to the claim that police forces in today's America can shaft with immunity any person who isn't a voting citizen. As long as they signal that they'll only shaft non-voters, why would voters (who ultimately control the police) mind?

[Husky]

Eran, I hope we can sort out my issues with anarchy in the discussion that follows:

Why???

Let me start off by saying that I fully understand the rationale behind a libertarian anarchy. It is morally justified by every measure I value.

People will, as can be guaranteed, violate the rights of others. The anarcho-capitalist view that people will form mutual protection agencies or, as will most likely be more common, pay the market, by means of a division of labor, to provide them protection.

I am an anarchist up until this point.

But, I feel that a state would arise, through an "invisible hand" explanatory theory, that would explain the rise of the state after an anarchy had been established.

My argument very much lies in the thoughts of Nozick's argument. I can envisage three possibilities of protection agencies being involved in disputes:

1. The two forces do battle. One always wins. The clients of the loser are now ill-protected and therefore do business with the winner.

2. One agency has its power centered in one geographical location, the one in another. Each wins battles fought close to its center of power. People who deal with one agency but live under the power of the other either move closer to their own agency's headquarters or sign up with the dominant agency in their present location.

3. The two agencies fight evenly and often. They win and lose about equally. They realize that such battling is costly, and therefore their executives agree to solve disputes peacefully by referring to some third judge or court. Thus emerges a system of appeals courts and agreed upon rules about jurisdiction about the conflict of laws. Though different agencies operate, there is one unified federal judicial system of which they are all components.

In each case (excluding the possibility of cases such as an outlaw agency) almost all the persons in a geographical area are under some common system that judges between their competing claims and enforces them. Out of anarchy, pressed by spontaneous groupings, mutual-protection associations, divisions of labor, market pressures, economies of scale, and rational self-interest there arises something very much resembling a minimal state.

Why is this market (of protection services) different to other markets? The worth of your protection service is relative: it depends how strong others' services are. Yet unlike other goods that are comparatively evaluated, high quality protection agencies cannot coexist,. The worth of the less than high quality service diminishes disproportionately with the number who purchase the high quality service; customers will not settle for the lesser goods. And competing companies are caught in a declining spiral.

This invisible hand explanation seems both very probable and of a high quality of reasoning. In my view this minimal state is unavoidable. i do not think it is desirable, but merely unavoidable.

What, in your night watchman state, happens to those who cannot afford food? The libertarian answer is that in the rare cases in which people cannot afford to buy enough food, and get no help from their family or neighbours, charitable organisations will pick up the slack.

I agree 100% here. But the market for food and the market for protection are not comparable, as mentioned above.

Another line of reasoning justifying my position might state that a universal body is necessary to uphold the NAP. If everyone can be guaranteed to be protected, then the NAP is not relatively upheld, across different groups of people, as would be the case in private protection.

What makes you think security (which is both less urgent and less expensive than food) is different than food, shelter, water and the other necessities of life which you agree with me shouldn't be provided by government?

If we hold enforcement of the NAP as our highest order, then a situation in which relative enforcement arises (out of an invisible hand) is not acceptable. If the protection of individuals from aggression is our aim, and we (at least I do) value natural rights, then I reason that everyone ought to have equal protection of their right to be free from aggression.

A libertarian society would have a universally recognized constitution (lower-case 'c'), just as, say the UK has one. The libertarian constitution would be broadly based on the NAP. Much like the American Constitution, its interpretation may be disputed at times, but the general principle of using peaceful means to resolve disputes will predominate (for both prudential and principled reasons).

I believe that the state's legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.

Without a state, I believe the upholding the NAP is optional, as communities might arise (through their legitimate use of their justly acquired property) and set rules that violate the NAP. This would be legitimate, of course, as they are using their justly acquired property (e.g: this community does not allow marijuana usage). If every community did such things, that would allow the usage of the NAP principle to be twisted.

I believe a minimal state provides a framework to protect individual rights.