we have examples of societies where security is provided by competing firms, Mexico for example.
Or Bill and his crew just decides to go kill everyone at dawn defense, right?
When dawn defense does not honor its contract with Alice what is her recourse?
What if Alice cannot afford to pay, she can be victimized by anyone right?
In America people get shot over less. Violence of all types has trended down significantly under a statist model over time. There are a lot more than 300,000 violent people in America, we have 1.5 million gang members, those are just the organized violent people.
So random corporations are able to arbitrarily enslave people in this utopia, sounds great. As a consumer I would choose the most violent security agency to protect me, as would anyone with any sense, because that one would always win. Dawn and Turner would totally go to war and one would won, then they would have a monopoly on force.
Firms typically use as much violence as is economical. A company that uses excessive force would incur high costs and have little cooperation from the community and competitors. Reputation would be a factor as a firm that becomes a crime syndicate would have to deal with a hostile public. An oligopoly by a cartel is more likely than a monopoly but even they would have a hard time competing with innovators and voluntary militias. Another benefit to polycentric law (which has much better historical examples than Mexico) would be less incentive for people to be incarcerated for victim-less crimes, that alone would mean most of today's prison population would be free and those resources would be used to protect property rights instead of enriching drug cartels and gangs.
Bullets are cheap. If Bill isn't a mighty productive slave the agency would probably be best off killing Bill. All the "firms" are essentially crime syndicates. We have examples in real life called the Crips and the Bloods.
Reputation would be a factor, I would want the most violent firm to put fear into the hearts of my enemies and prevent anyone from even considering victimizing me.
We can legalize drugs without dissolving the state and resorting to competing protection agencies. Why not start there?
give me some examples of polycentric law, how about the Crips and Bloods?
Lol. Mexico is nowhere near a free market, private law society. Cartels work within the protection of the corrupt state.
Court.
You mean like they do now? Try again, Fun Bobby.
The cartels are the state in Mexico, when there is one main cartel (which is usually or always the result of the CIA supporting that cartel) then the violent crime in Mexico is much less. When Carlos Guzman, a man who at one time had 500,000 employees, loses control then a bunch of cartels all compete for market share and the violence goes way up.
We see the same thing anywhere the state loses control, violent gangs always arise. Places in America where we can see exactly how competing security firms operate in real life include neighborhoods in Baltimore and Chicago and St. Louis. These firms are called the Crips and the Bloods and many others. Chicago has something like 100 competing security firms and it is a bloodbath.
LOL Court? there was no court, only private mediators, but why would dawn defense even bother to engage with the mediator Alice hires, assuming Alice has the money?
No, I don't mean like they do now, the solution offered in your video was actual slavery not the tax slavery that we hear so much crying about. Real slavery, if you don't pay AT&T they shut your phone off and send you a bill, dawn defense was going to enslave Bill in a workhouse.
Of course if I was dawn defense I would always find bill guilty, in fact I might find everyone who can't afford their private security bill guilty of some crime and then enslave them, and there wouldn't be a damned thing they could do about it. But of course Bill didn't turn out to be a productive slave, a shitty worker not worth his salt, so in that case we just decapitate bill and use him as fertilizer, right?
You yourself just admitted the cartel is supported by the state.
No, I said "the cartels are the state in Mexico", it's the opposite, the state is supported by the cartel.
a situation that we do not have at the present, at present we have dueling security agencies slaughtering people all over the country. An anarchist utopia.
We could go on like this for days.
Do you think stealing is wrong?
If so, we agree foundationally.
I don't believe taxes are stealing nor are they slavery. So there is where we part ways.
Can you define stealing for me, then?