You don't NEED a security firm, you can also defend yourself. A firearm does not cost a lot of money and is a big equalizer, so even old people can defend themselves (remember that video of that old guy?).
You're skipping a bunch of details and questions I had, but that's to be expected since I asked so many. So thanks for replying anyway. Obviously the problem here is the old, poor guy with a gun can easily be outnumbered by pretty much any other force around. Also, are we all expected to be ex-navy seals and excellent marksmen?
Security firms would want a good image. So why would they not help poor people for free? Or maybe charities would take care of that? There are many options, I don't know how it will be solved for sure, but I know there are many possible solutions to that, the easiest one carrying a weapon.
So we're relying on the goodness of mankind to solve anarchy's inherent problems? Some of us question the reliability of the general goodness of mankind. You're talking about faith in an untested solution (anarchy). In fact, it has been tested and anarchy has failed many many times.
A monopoly can only exist if competition is forcefully removed, for example through government.
Totally untrue. A monopoly can also exist if property exists. If property exists then a company can buy up all land containing a certain resource. Then the resource company has a monopoly on something like oil. Nobody else can compete. Land itself is a resource. If property exists then a company could actually buy up an entire anarchy region and tell everyone else to get the fuck out. Anarchy gone. This is not impossible at all.
Anarchists often ignore the facts of limited land and resources.
Here you make the false assumption that they can just charge more money. Wrong. There will be competition around unless the firm takes them out by force, which likely will result in resistance from the people in that area.
Taking competition out by force or other tactics is exactly what I'm talking about. Firms will never have equal power. Competition often just leads to a winner.. and that winner is stronger and more powerful than everyone else. A devious firm could simply be supported by a devious company - like the above one I mentioned that bought up everyone's oil resources - or like the one that bought up all of the land in the region.
Of course the firm would always have a pretense for their actions.. until they're so powerful that they don't need a pretense. They'd never say that they were 'shooting innocent people'. They would say something like they are 'taking out non-anarchists who are angry that Standard Oil Corp has bought all of their land'. Standard Oil is just operating within standard free/anarchist principles! If you don't support Standard Oil then you don't support Anarchist principles and you are filth!
Standard Oil is also the firms largest supporter. Everyone else is poor because Standard Oil has won their land and wealth. Standard Oil wins. Breaking up monopolies would require populist laws which are not compatible with anarchy.. sorry.
There is almost no way that such firms could afford stealth fighters and nuclear and chemical weapons. They are simply not needed to do their job. So why would they buy them? If they do, competing firms will have lower running costs and take their market share.
Of course it's very possible for rich firms and companies to afford stealth fighters and nuclear/chemical weapons. It's not even much money to make chemical weapons. The reason they'd buy them?.. to help out their clients of course.. like Standard Oil who wants people off their lands.
