Not in America, but the Revolutionary War (an act of rebellion) paved the way for freedom. It's the "sheep" mentality that allows this abuse to happen.
When is excessive police / govt force authorized?
- Thread starter Kiopa_Matt
- Start date
Not in America, but the Revolutionary War (an act of rebellion) paved the way for freedom. It's the "sheep" mentality that allows this abuse to happen.
Come on, you guys can't do that. You're dodging the question by answering it with more theory. I actually agree with you guys in principle, but well... it's just a theory. When you apply it to a real-world scenario, it fails miserably.
Government or not, there will always be mass protests. For example, say you have an industrial area, and the factory owners go into cohorts with each other to help dictate worker pay, conditions, and benefits in order to maximize profits. After several years of this, workers feel disenfranchised, so they organize, and take to the streets to demand better treatment from the factory owners. Government or no government, this type of thing will still happen, correct?
So now you have say 20,000 people marching down the street for a week or two, a small minority of which are pissed off, heavily armed, and happy to cause some problems. How would six competing private protection agencies handle that? I'm sure you can see the holes in it.
Or what happens when an even larger protest happens? Every two or three years they seem to have a good 50 - 100k protesters in downtown Bangkok, and they hang out there for months at a time. These people come from all over, even hundreds of miles away. They have weapon caches, TV & radio stations, and everything else all throughout the country. They'll erect huge encampments right in the middle of Bangkok, and barricade themselves in with cement blocks, dump trucks, tires, etc., and the police know full well if / when they move in those tires will be in flames within minutes, etc. How are six different, competing forces going to handle that? You can't, it's logistically impossible.
Government or not, there will always be mass protests. For example, say you have an industrial area, and the factory owners go into cohorts with each other to help dictate worker pay, conditions, and benefits in order to maximize profits. After several years of this, workers feel disenfranchised, so they organize, and take to the streets to demand better treatment from the factory owners. Government or no government, this type of thing will still happen, correct?
So now you have say 20,000 people marching down the street for a week or two, a small minority of which are pissed off, heavily armed, and happy to cause some problems. How would six competing private protection agencies handle that? I'm sure you can see the holes in it.
Or what happens when an even larger protest happens? Every two or three years they seem to have a good 50 - 100k protesters in downtown Bangkok, and they hang out there for months at a time. These people come from all over, even hundreds of miles away. They have weapon caches, TV & radio stations, and everything else all throughout the country. They'll erect huge encampments right in the middle of Bangkok, and barricade themselves in with cement blocks, dump trucks, tires, etc., and the police know full well if / when they move in those tires will be in flames within minutes, etc. How are six different, competing forces going to handle that? You can't, it's logistically impossible.
When it comes to free-market police/defense, theory is all we have. We don't know what shape things might take, because we haven't seen it.
What we have seen is the way a single, monoply force handles things like this, and it's fucking horrible. Are you suggesting it would be worse with competing agencies, and if so how exactly? What in particular would be worse?
If you're going to attack the free market solution to a problem, you need to be able to defend the monopoly position, not the other way around.
The real question is:
What can a single, unified, monopoly force do in the event of a riot/civil uprising that a handful of private agencies cannot?
Please keep in mind that private police forces would in many cases be better funded, equipped, and trained than their monopoly counterparts.
Last edited:
I'm not really attacking it... I just want to know how it'd work. As for defending the monopoly position, I already did so in my OP. Considering the events, news and rhetoric at the time, I had no problem seeing APCs and armed soldiers stationed at the mall when doing some grocery shopping.
I'll agree it's quite a bit different in the US, but that's more of a cultural issue than anything. So I'm not sure why you think that would change if it went from state-run to private-run. If anything, it could be easily argued it would make things more brutal, because if you go free market with something like this, you have to go all out. That means folks like the Bloods and Crips will be offering their own protection services, and I would imagine would get a decent amount of business.
All of the things you mentioned in your OP could be accomplished in a much more efficient way by private security. For example, martial law/curfews could be imposed on the areas that required them, while leaving other areas free to go about their business. Possibly on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. There are a lot of possibilities, really, but to think that the .gov has some kind of magical powers when it comes to what essentially amounts to crowd control is ludicrous.
heh, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Nonetheless, logistics, communication, intelligence, and supply chains are four things I can think of off the top of my head. I don't know, I'm never in charge of large crowd control operations in metropolitan areas, but I'm quite confident there's a whole lot more to it than I realize.
To think some private companies with board of directors and shareholders could have calmed the Thai populous as quickly and efficiently as the military did is what's ludicrous.
I think you forgot about the civil war called The Civil War.
That only ended 150 years ago, there was Civil War vets still alive when WW1 broke out.
Maybe it'd look something like this one in Houston: (Just the first minute)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYfUuEwVqRo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYfUuEwVqRo[/ame]
Or like this one in Detroit:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco[/ame]
Or even Like the whole town of Sandy Springs, Georgia:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU[/ame]
All three of these companies far outcompete the local government versions they replaced in the same area, without any civilian deaths at all yet. I think the one in Houston doesn't even carry firearms, if I remember correctly... Yet they respond far faster than cops do, have a far higher approval rating, and most of all, don't kill their fucking customers on a weekly basis.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYfUuEwVqRo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYfUuEwVqRo[/ame]
Or like this one in Detroit:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco[/ame]
Or even Like the whole town of Sandy Springs, Georgia:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU[/ame]
All three of these companies far outcompete the local government versions they replaced in the same area, without any civilian deaths at all yet. I think the one in Houston doesn't even carry firearms, if I remember correctly... Yet they respond far faster than cops do, have a far higher approval rating, and most of all, don't kill their fucking customers on a weekly basis.
A private police force isn't going to solve anything, it'll just become another branch of a corporate giant and drain your money that way.
BBC News - G4S repays UK government £108.9m after tagging scandal
Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
G4S Olympic Security Disaster: How It Happened - Business Insider
Incompetence and corruption are everywhere, until you design the system to stamp it out. A good start would be merging a lot of these three letter agencies that seem to constantly overlap each other during investigations. I can't see how creating more disparate and distant police forces would make things any easier.
BBC News - G4S repays UK government £108.9m after tagging scandal
Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
G4S Olympic Security Disaster: How It Happened - Business Insider
Incompetence and corruption are everywhere, until you design the system to stamp it out. A good start would be merging a lot of these three letter agencies that seem to constantly overlap each other during investigations. I can't see how creating more disparate and distant police forces would make things any easier.
You're missing a big point.
Who paid those "private" companies? It wasn't private or voluntary money. And they were hired by the Government, going back to the whole "monopoly" thing we covered earlier.
Why wouldn't competing agencies share resources during a crises? They'd be funded by insurance, they'd have every incentive to help each other in such an event.
Also, not getting into semantics/economics right now but private companies don't have share holders - at least in the way we normally think of the word.
I doubt a private company could have handled the holocaust as efficiently as the Nazi's did, that doesn't it make it right. What were those protests about again? Disagreements on which party deserves the monopoly on force??
That's like saying rape victims were protesting rape, and no one could have shut them up as efficiently as the rapists.
No shit the government paid them, that's exactly why they exist. To pool the nations resources - income tax, sales tax, import tax, etc. and put them to use providing public services. What do you propose instead? Send someone round to collect $5 from every house, every year? They didn't pay? Screw them, we're not sending any help!
Do you think the government is made up of some alien race from out of space? No. They are your neighbours, your distant uncle or maybe that guy you had a beer with in the bar. Could the government be more efficient? Of course, it's an ongoing process. Do I think a business would run things any better? Hell no. This is a stupid discussion, so I'll leave you guys to keep running in circles.
I think we should steal people's money and buy APC's and grenade launchers for police to use against them. I think we should incarcerate the largest percentage of people in the history of mankind - particularly non-violent offenders.
We should ensure that our kids never see the end of war. We should support all wars without questioning anything. Particularly not those who stand to profit from them. Nor worry about those who die in the process.
We should bleed the nation of its wealth through price fixing, monopolization, regulation, taxation and inflation. We should tell people what they're allowed to eat, what pills they can take and which doctor they're allowed to go to.
We should tell people what products they're allowed to buy. And force them to buy them.
We should keep the public youth indoctrination camps (schools) running at full-speed and keep the propaganda flowing 24/7 through the state run media so we keep churning out good, obedient little slaves who are incapable of having an original thought.
We should promise free shit to those dumb enough to vote, because they're dumb enough to think a state creates anything of value without stealing it.
And we should build roads.
So that we can keep the masses thinking that we're a benevolent force here to serve the public good. Not an institutionalized gang of thieving, murdering psychopaths - with their own motivations and incentives to use their power for their own self-interest.
Government is VERY efficient, depending on how you look at it.
Benevolent force to serve the public interest? No, they're horrible at that.
Stealing, defrauding, manipulating, extorting, threatening, harming, kidnapping, bombing, killing, regulating, controlling and deceiving?
They're awesome at that shit. Very fucking efficient.
At Ice and Scott:
I knew both of you could state things much better that I could.
Matt, I'm going to construct a scenario. I have a bit of free time this morning, and I love thinking about this stuff.
A few ground rules:
- The following scenario will have holes. It's imperfect. I don't have all of the answers.
- There's no way I can predict the future. Had you told a slave in the 1800s that a black man would one day run the joint, he'd have laughed. Had you told the common joe in the 1940s that cars would one day have adaptive cruise control, reactive head restraints, etc., he'd have laughed. The fact is, we'll all pretty bad at predicting the future. So, I'm asking that you cut me some slack.
- I won't go back and forth on the following. I'm putting it out there mostly for the joy I get out of brainstorming. That part is a lot of fun for me. Arguing about this stuff is not fun for me.
- The following scenario goes much further than including private, competing law enforcement agencies.
Alright, here we go, from the beginning...
{{{ PART I OF II }}}
Suppose we have Company ABC. It employs 1,000 workers.
Let's further suppose that Company ABC requires each job candidate to sign a contract as a condition of employment. Said contract might say something like, "I agree to work for $20 per hour. I will show up at 8:00 a.m., and leave promptly at 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. I will not steal, drink on the job, or fight with other employees. If I violate any of the above conditions, I agree to submit to any judgment rendered by The ACME Arbitration Company."
Let's also say that Company ABC requires that each job candidate carry insurance from one of a long list of acceptable insurers. If the candidate violates any of the conditions of Company ABC's employment contract, and The ACME Arbitration Company renders a judgment in favor of Company ABC, the candidate's insurer would pay whatever amount was deemed to be proper restitution.
Individuals who had violated employment contracts in the past would likely pay higher premiums to their insurers or be forced to get by without coverage. Lacking coverage would limit their employment options much in the same way a poor credit score might limit one's credit options today. Given that, most individuals would have an incentive to act in a manner that didn't jeopardize their coverage.
Let's say that Company ABC prohibited job candidates from joining a union. Doing so would constitute a contract violation, a incident that would be decided by The ACME Arbitration Company. An employee who chooses to join a union would put his insurance coverage at risk, much like a driver puts his auto insurance coverage at risk when he speeds, runs red lights, and drives intoxicated. Because that coverage is important, he might be inclined to think twice before joining a union.
But let's suppose Job Candidate Darrell decides to throw caution to the wind. He joins a union. Let's also suppose that 500 additional employees of Company ABC do the same, presumably also in violation of their employment contract. Together, Darrell and his fellow union members decide to strike and protest their wages.
Assuming that all property is privately owned (there are no public streets), the union members would be violating someone's property rights during their protest. That is, unless all of them camp out on Darrell's front lawn or the property of other union members.
Suppose they restrict their protest to their own property. Company ABC might simply bring in other workers. Or Company ABC might negotiate with the union members if there is sufficient incentive to do so.
{{{ SEE BELOW FOR Part II }}}
I knew both of you could state things much better that I could.
Matt, I'm going to construct a scenario. I have a bit of free time this morning, and I love thinking about this stuff.
A few ground rules:
- The following scenario will have holes. It's imperfect. I don't have all of the answers.
- There's no way I can predict the future. Had you told a slave in the 1800s that a black man would one day run the joint, he'd have laughed. Had you told the common joe in the 1940s that cars would one day have adaptive cruise control, reactive head restraints, etc., he'd have laughed. The fact is, we'll all pretty bad at predicting the future. So, I'm asking that you cut me some slack.
- I won't go back and forth on the following. I'm putting it out there mostly for the joy I get out of brainstorming. That part is a lot of fun for me. Arguing about this stuff is not fun for me.
- The following scenario goes much further than including private, competing law enforcement agencies.
Alright, here we go, from the beginning...
{{{ PART I OF II }}}
Suppose we have Company ABC. It employs 1,000 workers.
Let's further suppose that Company ABC requires each job candidate to sign a contract as a condition of employment. Said contract might say something like, "I agree to work for $20 per hour. I will show up at 8:00 a.m., and leave promptly at 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. I will not steal, drink on the job, or fight with other employees. If I violate any of the above conditions, I agree to submit to any judgment rendered by The ACME Arbitration Company."
Let's also say that Company ABC requires that each job candidate carry insurance from one of a long list of acceptable insurers. If the candidate violates any of the conditions of Company ABC's employment contract, and The ACME Arbitration Company renders a judgment in favor of Company ABC, the candidate's insurer would pay whatever amount was deemed to be proper restitution.
Individuals who had violated employment contracts in the past would likely pay higher premiums to their insurers or be forced to get by without coverage. Lacking coverage would limit their employment options much in the same way a poor credit score might limit one's credit options today. Given that, most individuals would have an incentive to act in a manner that didn't jeopardize their coverage.
Let's say that Company ABC prohibited job candidates from joining a union. Doing so would constitute a contract violation, a incident that would be decided by The ACME Arbitration Company. An employee who chooses to join a union would put his insurance coverage at risk, much like a driver puts his auto insurance coverage at risk when he speeds, runs red lights, and drives intoxicated. Because that coverage is important, he might be inclined to think twice before joining a union.
But let's suppose Job Candidate Darrell decides to throw caution to the wind. He joins a union. Let's also suppose that 500 additional employees of Company ABC do the same, presumably also in violation of their employment contract. Together, Darrell and his fellow union members decide to strike and protest their wages.
Assuming that all property is privately owned (there are no public streets), the union members would be violating someone's property rights during their protest. That is, unless all of them camp out on Darrell's front lawn or the property of other union members.
Suppose they restrict their protest to their own property. Company ABC might simply bring in other workers. Or Company ABC might negotiate with the union members if there is sufficient incentive to do so.
{{{ SEE BELOW FOR Part II }}}
{{{ BEGIN PART II }}}
But let's say it's pitchfork time, and the union members march. They violate property rights, loot stores, and maybe kill a few folks.
We know from past riots in present-day society that we can assign liability to individuals who violate others' rights. Many property owners have surveillance cameras on their land. And others film with their phones, loading the videos to services like YouTube.
In a private law society, we can expect the same. Property owners, who have an incentivize to protect their land, would have surveillance equipment that would catch thieves, looters, and murderers on film. Likewise, other people would likley film such nefarious characters on their phones and upload the videos to services like YouTube.
The result is that lawbreakers could be identified. Those who are in the employ of Company ABC would be required to submit to the judgments of the ACME Arbitration Company. If the ACME Arbitration Company finds them guilty of thievery, looting, or murder, it would render judgments that would be paid by the lawbreakers' insurers.
But let's suppose that some lawbreakers refuse to submit to the judgments of the ACME Arbitration Company. Or suppose they're not employed by Company ABC and lack insurance coverage. How might Company ABC solve this issue?
Company ABC would probably be unable to secure restitution. That's a problem, of course. But it's no different than today. In fact, current society has a much worse way of dealing with the problem - lawbreakers are put behind bars, forcing victims to not only do without restitution, but to pay the cost of imprisoning the lawbreakers.
In a private law society, lawbreakers without insurance who refuse to pay restitution would likely find life to very difficult. They would have limited employment options. In addition, they might have difficulty finding stores from which to buy food and other necessary items. After all, individuals who are uninsured would be considered risky customers since there are no insurers to pay restitution should they steal items or cause mayhem. Store owners might turn them away at the door.
(Identifying those with coverage might be as easy as swiping a card, much like I have to swipe my ATM card to enter the Chase lobby after hours. But who knows how entrepreneurs and private markets might solve that challenge.)
In the scenario I've outlined, people would have a major incentive to behave in a way that doesn't jeopardize their insurance coverage. Doing otherwise could mean they and their families go hungry. If they could find employment without insurance, their employers would probably pay low wages. If they could find store owners to serve them, they would probably pay higher prices for goods and services.
Would some individuals say, "To hell with it, I'm going to do whatever I like, including stealing, looting, and murdering!"
Sure. That happens today. Private law doesn't mean everyone is a saint. It just offers a different method for dealing with society's malcontents. It uses contracts and voluntary transactions to pave the way toward peaceful associations. Will people join mass protests, such as those agitating for higher wages, better working conditions, etc?
Sure, I guess. But they do so today. One of the problems today is that agitating workers are allowed - and even encouraged - to do so by legislation that protects them. They can march on public property will no consequence. They can even do so on private property, threatening peaceful individuals who are willing to step in and work (i.e. scabs).
Another problem is that employers and property owners are forced to seek help from monopoly courts, which have traditionally been unwilling to protect their rights. Even when agitating workers beat scabs, firebomb their houses, and threaten their families, the courts have, in the past, been unwilling to judge against them. Moreover, history has shown that monopoly law enforcement agencies have been unwilling to protect property owners' rights, including protecting their homes and families.
I've put 50 minutes into this. Obviously, I can't possibly be expected to form a complete solution that answers every question in advance. The above scenario probably has big holes that warrant better explanation.
But it's not my goal to provide a solid solution. Instead, I'm hoping that this small effort sparks thoughtful consideration about how a private law society might work, and how it might do so in a way that is preferable to our current society.
Again, the brainstorming part is a lot of fun for me. But I won't go back and forth on the above. That part is definitely no fun for me, particularly on a forum (it's a different matter in person). I might add a few comments here and there, but that's it.
But let's say it's pitchfork time, and the union members march. They violate property rights, loot stores, and maybe kill a few folks.
We know from past riots in present-day society that we can assign liability to individuals who violate others' rights. Many property owners have surveillance cameras on their land. And others film with their phones, loading the videos to services like YouTube.
In a private law society, we can expect the same. Property owners, who have an incentivize to protect their land, would have surveillance equipment that would catch thieves, looters, and murderers on film. Likewise, other people would likley film such nefarious characters on their phones and upload the videos to services like YouTube.
The result is that lawbreakers could be identified. Those who are in the employ of Company ABC would be required to submit to the judgments of the ACME Arbitration Company. If the ACME Arbitration Company finds them guilty of thievery, looting, or murder, it would render judgments that would be paid by the lawbreakers' insurers.
But let's suppose that some lawbreakers refuse to submit to the judgments of the ACME Arbitration Company. Or suppose they're not employed by Company ABC and lack insurance coverage. How might Company ABC solve this issue?
Company ABC would probably be unable to secure restitution. That's a problem, of course. But it's no different than today. In fact, current society has a much worse way of dealing with the problem - lawbreakers are put behind bars, forcing victims to not only do without restitution, but to pay the cost of imprisoning the lawbreakers.
In a private law society, lawbreakers without insurance who refuse to pay restitution would likely find life to very difficult. They would have limited employment options. In addition, they might have difficulty finding stores from which to buy food and other necessary items. After all, individuals who are uninsured would be considered risky customers since there are no insurers to pay restitution should they steal items or cause mayhem. Store owners might turn them away at the door.
(Identifying those with coverage might be as easy as swiping a card, much like I have to swipe my ATM card to enter the Chase lobby after hours. But who knows how entrepreneurs and private markets might solve that challenge.)
In the scenario I've outlined, people would have a major incentive to behave in a way that doesn't jeopardize their insurance coverage. Doing otherwise could mean they and their families go hungry. If they could find employment without insurance, their employers would probably pay low wages. If they could find store owners to serve them, they would probably pay higher prices for goods and services.
Would some individuals say, "To hell with it, I'm going to do whatever I like, including stealing, looting, and murdering!"
Sure. That happens today. Private law doesn't mean everyone is a saint. It just offers a different method for dealing with society's malcontents. It uses contracts and voluntary transactions to pave the way toward peaceful associations. Will people join mass protests, such as those agitating for higher wages, better working conditions, etc?
Sure, I guess. But they do so today. One of the problems today is that agitating workers are allowed - and even encouraged - to do so by legislation that protects them. They can march on public property will no consequence. They can even do so on private property, threatening peaceful individuals who are willing to step in and work (i.e. scabs).
Another problem is that employers and property owners are forced to seek help from monopoly courts, which have traditionally been unwilling to protect their rights. Even when agitating workers beat scabs, firebomb their houses, and threaten their families, the courts have, in the past, been unwilling to judge against them. Moreover, history has shown that monopoly law enforcement agencies have been unwilling to protect property owners' rights, including protecting their homes and families.
I've put 50 minutes into this. Obviously, I can't possibly be expected to form a complete solution that answers every question in advance. The above scenario probably has big holes that warrant better explanation.
But it's not my goal to provide a solid solution. Instead, I'm hoping that this small effort sparks thoughtful consideration about how a private law society might work, and how it might do so in a way that is preferable to our current society.
Again, the brainstorming part is a lot of fun for me. But I won't go back and forth on the above. That part is definitely no fun for me, particularly on a forum (it's a different matter in person). I might add a few comments here and there, but that's it.
Jake with all due love and respect the above scenario had an almost undetectable undercurrent of creepy to it that made me gnash my teeth a little. Like part Stepford Wives, part Running Man, part Minority Report.
But thank you for those posts, I needed a good think to thunk about. Raising a glass to you my man =]
But thank you for those posts, I needed a good think to thunk about. Raising a glass to you my man =]
And we haven't even talked about competing prisons, gun laws, and whether competing entities - from insurers to law enforcement agencies to arbitration companies - would trigger turf wars yet! Or how customers would choose said agencies based on service, reputation, price, etc.
So much to discuss. But you know forums.
At Ice and Scott:
I knew both of you could state things much better that I could.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the above at least in regards to anything I might add to this discussion, and only posted a response in the hopes that you might follow up with one of your own, so that I might be exposed to some ideas beyond the scope of my own imaginings...
Thanks Ice.
In reading through my 2-part post, I'm appalled at some of the things I forgot to mention. I also made a number of silly assumptions.
For example, I mentioned thievery, looting, and murder in the context of how such crimes might be dealt with by Company ABC's arbitration agent, the ACME Arbitration Company. But in reality, criminal activity during a big protest/march/riot would probably impact numerous property owners, each of whom would rely on a different - and perhaps overlapping - list of competing arbitration agents.
At first, that kind of scenario might seem chaotic. But it's not impossible to resolve. Auto insurers have, in the past, been able to figure out issues regarding liability stemming from multi-car accidents. I think it's reasonable to presume that insurers and arbitration agents would find a way to resolve similar circumstances.
That's just one of many holes I inadvertently left in my 2-part post above.
Ah well.
Ditto.
One of the few reasons I hang around here is a few people here (you and Jake included) served as my gateway drug from being apathetic towards the state to really becoming interested in exploring economics and libertarian ideas.
I remember being excited when Obama was elected. I thought he was going to "fix" government, end the wars and that he could actually provide better, more affordable healthcare and fix the economy - like that'd be possible even if he really intended to (LOL).
Obviously my world-view has completely changed since then, but it wasn't that long ago.
Also Jake, you're much better at driving points home without letting emotion cloud your logic.
When I talk about this stuff online and re-read my posts I'm always thinking "man, I didn't have to be such a dick."
My arguments usually devolve into like...
"What do you guys think about the minimum wage?"
"Why don't you go firebomb an orphanage and drown a few bags of puppies on your way you f'n state-worshipping Nazi?"
Not the best way to win hearts and minds