Private security is not a hypothetical. Private policing is not a hypothetical. Private crime investigation is not a hypothetical.

Anyone who tries to assert that private security can't work is ignoring reality.

Anyone who tries to sugarcoat the government standing army is a fool.

Abolish the standing army.

Kind of like the way you ignore the fact that all security agencies work within a larger contextual framework of state provided licensing and law, so touting their services as proof that a stateless strictly for profit, self regulating policing force will work exactly the same as they do now, is a non starter.

Exactly as you ignore the fact that all peoples have created rules to live and interact by, within which everyone works (including security), regardless of and in spite of any government, or none.

So your objection is not merely false, it's hypocritical.

No, I didn't ignore anything, I pointed out relevant facts of the matter that have a direct bearing upon the hypothetical world within which the author is attempting to assume the same functionality as it currently exists, with no substantive objectivity. It's just a belief.

I NEVER assume the same functionality as currently exists, because liberty works better than government in every way.

I agree with your expressed sentiment, but it doesn't alter the point I made.

Since you made no point, it's easy to agree with you. Or disagree. It doesn't matter, because you posted no relevant point.

Ah denial, your safe space....

Denial of what? Be specific.

The relevant point I made and you're denying is the fact that all security agencies work within a larger contextual framework of state provided licensing and law, so touting their services as proof that a stateless strictly for profit, self regulating policing force will work exactly the same as they do now, is a non starter.

Your point is not relevant.

All security agencies also work within the framework of gravity. All security agencies work within the framework of the societal norms and expectations of the people.

It is GOVERNMENT law enforcement which DOES NOT work within the framework of law. They are, in fact, because of Sovereign Immunity, entirely free of the context of law.

However, your point is also false because criminal organizations have security, which (just like law enforcement) work outside of the, quote, "larger contextual framework of state provided licensing and law".

So again, no.

Bob,

You are incorrect on a couple of things. The police do not operate outside the "context of stated provided licensing" and they certainly DO NOT operate outside of the law. They are held to the same legal standards as anyone else.

Maybe I misunderstand what what is being said. Could you elaborate?

"The police do not operate outside the "context of stated provided licensing" "

Of course they do. They are agents of the state, and are therefore granted said license by default.

"and they certainly DO NOT operate outside of the law."

How many must die at the hands of police before you see how wrong you are? How many dead dogs, shot by coward police in places where a private individual discharging a firearm is prohibited?

Police SPEED chronically. They have caches of drugs where drugs are prohibited. Gun prohibition is enforced by police, WITH GUNS. And on, and on.

Extortion and theft are "illegal" when you or I do it, yet taxation, confiscation, "civil asset forfeiture", and all the other ways you and I are robbed every day is perfectly fine for agents of the state.

Well, I appreciate you irrelevant opinion on what constitutes relevance to the article as it was presented, which did not mention security provided to criminal organizations. And law enforcement provided by local communities, states and Federal governments do not have "Sovereign Immunity".

"do not have "Sovereign Immunity"."

If you are going to lie on a subject so well known and easy to verify, then discussion with you is not merely a waste of time, it's actively destructive.

If you're going to call someone a liar on a subject so well known and easy to verify, then you should provide that easily verifiable proof, which, unfortunately for you, doesn't exist. Law enforcement provided by local communities, states and Federal government do not have "Sovereign Immunity" and it was silly of you to suggest they did. And that's the problem with about 90% of what constitutes libertarianism, it's just bunch of made up, factless shit.

Why do you expect me to do your work for you? All this time, all the people you've disgusted with your lies, your distortions, your fallacies, and you expect anything for that?

You're also delusional, clearly, with a seriously inflated opinion of your importance.

Anyone who actually cared would know that cops don't get stopped for speeding, that they don't get charged with murder for killing suspects, that they don't have to take off their guns in courthouses. They are IMMUNE TO THE LAWS EVERYONE ELSE MUST OBEY merely because they are AGENTS OF THE STATE.

Sovereign immunity.

It's why the Rodney King 5 were acquitted in their first trial. It wasn't assault, because their beating the crap out of Rodney King was in fact "following the rules of the department".

Sovereign Immunity.

A soldier on government orders kills someone. Deliberate, mistake, doesn't matter, it's not murder because they are an AGENT OF THE STATE.

Sovereign Immunity.

A thief hacks your bank's computer and takes your money, they're a criminal. The IRS does exactly the same thing, they're not criminals.

Sovereign Immunity.

And on, and on, and on, and on..... and you don't have the ability to look this up.

It's funny how libertarians are so willing to butcher the english language, destroying all meaning, just to further argue their myopic and reality deficient point of view.

Sovereign immunity is: is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. This principle is commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim "rex non potest peccare," meaning "the king can do no wrong."

Sovereign immunity has absolutely NOTHING to do with your list of mostly petty grievances, which routinely foster a plethora civil and criminal suits

"Sovereign immunity has absolutely NOTHING to do with your list of mostly
petty grievances, which routinely foster a plethora civil and criminal
suits"

Wow. You really are a complete waste of time. I apologize to everyone for ever replying to your stupidity.

Funny, Bob the kool aid drinker gets his panties in a wad over having his childish arguments demolished, and storms away.... Bye Bob, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out....

I think the authors example of internet security works as a good counterpoint. The internet is basically anarchic. For a long time, courts were not even handling disputes occurring over the fledgling internet. And while they will occasionally now, rarely ever is it done for your day to day small claims. Paypal, as offered in the article, Ebay, Google's consumer protection are all forms of security that really are not backstopped by a state legal framework. State Law enforcement, in general, on the internet is scarce and problematic due to all of the jurisdictions involved, and yet it's one of the smoothest operating and most beloved modern institutions.

Frameworks developed and evolved within a larger contextual framework. There is absolutely nothing you can point to within our current circumstance that can be correctly used to justify the belief that all will work the same without that larger contextual framework in place.

I guess that's just it though. They didn't develop and evolve within that larger contextual framework. The state legal system was totally absent of any influence whatsoever at the start, and is largely impotent even today. At most, you could argue that they developed within a larger ideological contextual framework, whereby people arrived to the internet with pre-existing notions that others own the space they buy or occupy on the web, and that theft is bad and deals should be honored. But nobody's suggesting doing away with that ideological framework.

The governing institutions of the internet operated parallel to the state legal system, not within it. The service providers were, and mostly still are, the only link between these two systems, and they exerted no influence over the specific form that the internet took. They just provided the blank slate that the user community shaped.

The government is responsible for the existence of the internet and it all conforms to the existing contextual framework, regardless.

This is a repost that applies here very well: As someone who has worked for both armed private security companies and for the police department, I can tell you private security companies ‘could’ provide everything that the police provide (and better) if we would allow them. People have this view of security officers being untrained and incompetent (which is true for some companies), but many companies are filled with highly trained and highly paid off-duty police officers. If security companies didn’t have to compete against the government, most security guards would be highly trained.

The best thing about security companies is that neighborhoods will get together and decide how much and what types of coverage they want instead of the one-size-fits-all approach of police departments. Further, they could decide what gets enforced in their neighborhoods and guards would have specialized knowledge of their concerns. Some neighborhoods wanted to pay for a constant presence, while other safer neighborhoods would want random patrols and on-call services. Poorer neighborhoods would actually get some of the best coverage because they would pool their money and pay for it. Police often ignore those neighborhoods unless a call comes in because they are dangerous to patrol and the police officer has no contractual obligation to be there.

The problem is that private security is not legally allowed to handle the more dangerous situations and would have to defer to the police who would often take over 40 minutes to arrive (when security was right outside the door). As we know from mercenary corporations, private companies can be more than capable to handle dangerous situations if they are allowed to do so. By removing these legal handcuffs and taking away government competition, private security would be the most highly trained, paid, and neighborhood specialized force out there.

"The best thing about security companies is that neighborhoods will get together and decide how much and what types of coverage they want instead of the one-size-fits-all approach of police departments. Further, they could decide what gets enforced in their neighborhoods and guards would have specialized knowledge of their concerns"

Ding, ding, ding! *Nailed it!*

Ultimately, the rejection of the market in providing security is the rejection of free markets altogether. People, even those who claim to support free markets and capitalism, have absolutely no idea WHY and HOW it works. If they did, they would not be arguing against market solutions.

Private policing is irrational. Recognize that policing is not the same as security.
Ayn Rand once described a situation created by "private police". One company breaks down the door of Citizen A to recover the wallet of Citizen B. They are met by gunfire from Citizen A's security detail. Then they go to Citizen B's house and arrest him/her for invading Citizen A's house.
Of course, once you have passed the laws necessary to prevent such an event you might as well just have police.
Law enforcement is not the same as Crime prevention. Something that both the Libertarians and Progressives would be advised to remember.

Andrew
Why would I or an Objectivist ever forget? Do you think that somehow the same thing could not happen under "privatization"??
Just imagine Haliburton with its own Police! How does that work for you?

Andrew
No need to abandon your principles. After all, with the proper changes aligned with such Haliburton would be no more scary than the Brownies.
Come to think of it, what is it those evil girls put in those cookies?

How "powerful" would Haliburton be without the cover of government provided immunity? Market forces would shape them up or they become the next Pan Am.

general

There was a time when massive regulation did not exist. During that time large fortunes were accumulated by a small number of men. These men hired private security to bust the heads of their laborers when they dared to strike. They coerced people in all kinds of ways.

I agree that Haliburton's size today is due to its Govt. work. But to believe that absent Govt. such monstrosities would not develop is Utopian pie in the sky thinking.

Now tell me how you are going to IMPOSE your anarchist or libertarian views upon an entire world of humans in order to prevent the next Stalin from taking what he wants from you?

Your understanding of history is bias towards labor. In fact, much of the violence was instigated by the strikers who assulted replacements and property. Pinkertins we're often quite professional and restrained. You fall prey to the popular narrative used to glorify and sanctify aggressive violence because you agree with the cause. This is the tactic of tyrants.
Wealth distribution was more even in your example than it is today. The Dickensesque picture of Victorian wage slaves is as exaggerated as that of the passive striker pleading for compassion as they a beaten by a slaves bosses.
No one needs force anyone. We only need to support our own and each other's property rights and never concede anything to the well intended but ultimately villainous state. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, they all took the statist reins of power, they are simply foolish brutes, not mass murders, without the state.

general

You have committed the sin of projection. I do not stand on labor's side nor on industries side. I am standing on the side of factual history.

"Often quite professional..." Sounds like the arguments defending police today. Yet you are arguing against the police and for the private, Pinkerton.

I have to give you credit for defending your naivete so strongly. History does not support you, yet you fight on.

Weak, dude. You present a characiture of history, then accuse me of projecting when I point it out, still clinging to your original bias.

I'm arguing for the restriction of statism, policing included. Obviously there is demand for the service so private is vastly superior.

I do not take my position because of naivete. I understand the praxeological implications so I choose to be moral and consistent. The truth of the matter is that you have no idea what the ideas and reasoning are behind praxeology and Austrian econ, so you are naive and you presuppose, sounding foolish in the process. Please make any cogent argument to refute this.

Under what system of reasoned economics and morality do you make your assertions? Is there any thought or just feels?

general

More projecting and strawman claims.

I understand the ideas and arguments of Austrian econ. I actually agree with most. It is not the ideas that fall flat. It is the argumentation used by its supporters.

Just as you have done, they rely on speculative and theoretical notions of how people would behave. Despite thousands of years of evidence that people do not behave that way. Some do, some don't. Many are good and enough are bad to upset the entire proposition.

You seem unable to address this reality so you rely on claiming I do not understand history accurately. Another trick often employed by those leaning towards the Anarchist theories. Simply dismiss history by installing your own version.

Fact general. The Pinkerton organization was used to put down strikes. They used force in doing so, even killing some people. The labor folks also used force. Because as you know force begets force.

In conclusion, the use of private police did not prevent violence. And that Sir, was the question on the table.

So you agree with praxeology and the resulting Austrian econ, so we must be talking past each other. I'm sorry I thought you were making a case for the legitimatecy and necessity of state provided security services, directly opposed to an informed Austrian position.
As far as supporters making claims, well we're all laypeople here and this is a great place to go straight to the horses mouth.
So what do you make of Mises and Austrian's claims that a market solution is superior to a compelled statist solution? And how do you reason otherwise in light of Mises and Rothbards arguments?

David D. Friedman has addressed this issue: http://www.daviddfriedman.c...

Henry
I have read the various scenarios from different authors about how it would work and Rand's concerns invalid. Does the phrase "it call for speculation" ring a bell?
This is the problem with an-cap and hard core Libertarian arguments. They are based on an extreme amount of speculation that has little foundation in reality. Where as two groups for hire getting into a fight over competing clients claims is completely plausible. Because it happens now.
What seems often forgotten in these arguments is the presence of the bad actors. Those who do not accept the moral and ethical principles which support the an-cap theories and arguments.
I have no problem with private security, as the "police" really do little prevention of crime. But when it comes to apprehending criminals I will stick with the local police force. The ones who depend on the locals to support them with taxes, fund raisers and moral support.

Police doesn't depend on the locals to support them with taxes, they're forced by politicians to do so.

Ah, I see. Thanks, I stand corrected.

Daniel
That is true. However, you ignore the reality that most of us willingly pay those taxes for the police. We view that as a proper role of Govt.
We get upset when the police over reach and then we work to restore peace keeping.
We usually are more upset over the other tax expenditures.

I'm not necessarily an ancap. I think I'm probably a minarchist at the moment. But I do find ancap theories very interesting and I think they could possibly work. I hope they would work to be honest. There's something satisfying about totally eliminating the need for taxation. The biggest problem with ancap is the total lack of historical/empirical evidence etc., it makes speculating feel very pointless and abstract when you have no (or VERY little) real world data to go on.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm just interested in it an think it could work although I'm not sure. Ancaps like David Friedman would counter that it doesn't matter if there are bad actors (greedy etc.), because of market incentives.

Cospaia, all the time.

Dr.
You cannot prevent "bad guys". Not by profit motive and not by coercion.
Markets imply a supply and demand relationship for something. It can be argued that "preventing" crime has such a relationship. There is a direct economic benefit in "prevention". However, the cost cannot usually be born by an individual. Which is how the "market" is built. One person, one exchange at a time.
I submit there is less direct economic benefit, that is apparent to the victims, for chasing down and catching bad guys. Which is where law enforcement really applies. Or at least used to.
If private law enforcement were truly desirable and better it would have evolved under out system. It did not because humans figured out that this is one of those places where Govt. has a proper role. One reason was that private police quickly became private armies for those paying their wages.
So the issue should not be privatization of police, but proper supervision and constraint of the laws that drive law enforcement. And of course LOCAL accountability of the police themselves.