Threat Management Centers (formerly Detroit Threat Management) has had a lot of success, and Dale Brown, the founder, started in an apartment block in one of the worst parts of Detroit with almost zero funding. He built security infrastructure there, where even cops didn't normally respond, and eventually reduced violent crimes and property crimes by an enormous degree. You can check them out at www.threatmanagementcenter.com. I'd strongly recommend taking a look to see how a large, organized security firm might look and how it might operate.
Funnily enough I work in private security and have experience making dangerous situations safer. Like the Young Jeezy concert, on every other stop on his Canadian tour there was serious violent incidents. While at our venue our security team kept everyone safe but we had the police outside. We could have controlled the crowd without the police but only by employing extreme violence. So my problem with this example is that Detroit isn't safe, if you step out of a protected neighbourhood. They have great security firms in South Africa too I'm still not moving there.
So my problem with this example is that Detroit isn't safe, if you step out of a protected neighbourhood.
I think the point here is: The protected neighborhood is, well...protected. And it's protected by private security.
That's a positive sign that private security is not only possible, but that it can be successful/profitable without any need for coercion. And the private security companies are actually accountable to their customers. If they went around harassing, robbing, beating, and/or killing their customers, they'd probably be out of business in a hurry.
Detroit isn't safe, if you step out of a protected neighbourhood.
And yet, the city police are responsible for the entirety of the city. So who's fault is it that the rest of the city isn't safer?
I also worked in private security, and I was armed. Drove around some absolutely unsafe places to be as a white guy in a uniform at 12:30am, citing cars and calling tow trucks. Did that for a few years, and you wanna know the only time I ever had to draw a baton (never had to draw my firearm)? When some crazy guy in a really ritzy neighborhood by the beach in South Orange County, California got mad at me for towing his car.
What do you mean by extreme violence? Would you have had to start shooting people?
No this is Canada, and doormen aren't allowed to used weapons. More like salutary beating which sounds bad and looks bad but safer than wrestling with someone on concrete. I would lay the blame for the the lack of safety on the specific government involved and a lack of public will to accept the admittedly nasty business of tackling violent criminals.
No this is Canada, and doormen aren't allowed to used weapons.
So then you admit that you could have controlled the crowds without resorting to the ultimate method of conflict resolution that law enforcement can, and does, rely on. My question is: if this is possible to do on a voluntary basis, i.e. where people volunteer for your protection by paying you for it, why does this necessitate the formation and enforcement of a monopoly on the provision of said service? Couldn't an armed security force backing you up provide the same amount of deterrence as a police force?
lack of safety on the specific government involved and a lack of public will to accept the admittedly nasty business of tackling violent criminals
Yet this has been accomplished, as you've admitted, without reliance on police and instead via private security firms. Recall your protected communities comment. Public will is a reification fallacy; there's no such thing as public will, unless you're referring to the market, in which case, I think by your own admission private security - where it's allowed to operate without state interference - has provided superior results.
It's not a matter of being affordable though. We don't need revenue collectors and tyrants driving around. Special protections, double standards, and monopolies on force should be fought and resisted.
I would say your Detroit example still has state interference. I would also say my city Vancouver, BC, Canada has a state run police force(municipal) and in my opinion they provide superior results.
Compared to what metric? And how would not being forced to pay for a service you may not want prove superior to allowing market competition to increase quality and decrease cost? Moreover, how do you square the "superior results" of your municipal PD with the inverse incentives and violence attraction of state-operated security services?
They are still funded by theft (taxes). That's nor moral. They also probably enjoy the double standards and special protections I mentioned above. Cops should not be above the law in ANY way.
Either we are equal under the law or not. Which is it?
Threat Management Centers (formerly Detroit Threat Management) has had a lot of success, and Dale Brown, the founder, started in an apartment block in one of the worst parts of Detroit with almost zero funding. He built security infrastructure there, where even cops didn't normally respond, and eventually reduced violent crimes and property crimes by an enormous degree. You can check them out at www.threatmanagementcenter.com. I'd strongly recommend taking a look to see how a large, organized security firm might look and how it might operate.
Funnily enough I work in private security and have experience making dangerous situations safer. Like the Young Jeezy concert, on every other stop on his Canadian tour there was serious violent incidents. While at our venue our security team kept everyone safe but we had the police outside. We could have controlled the crowd without the police but only by employing extreme violence. So my problem with this example is that Detroit isn't safe, if you step out of a protected neighbourhood. They have great security firms in South Africa too I'm still not moving there.
I think the point here is: The protected neighborhood is, well...protected. And it's protected by private security.
That's a positive sign that private security is not only possible, but that it can be successful/profitable without any need for coercion. And the private security companies are actually accountable to their customers. If they went around harassing, robbing, beating, and/or killing their customers, they'd probably be out of business in a hurry.
I dunno about you, but I heard that beating and killing your customers is the best way to get repeat business.
And yet, the city police are responsible for the entirety of the city. So who's fault is it that the rest of the city isn't safer?
I also worked in private security, and I was armed. Drove around some absolutely unsafe places to be as a white guy in a uniform at 12:30am, citing cars and calling tow trucks. Did that for a few years, and you wanna know the only time I ever had to draw a baton (never had to draw my firearm)? When some crazy guy in a really ritzy neighborhood by the beach in South Orange County, California got mad at me for towing his car.
What do you mean by extreme violence? Would you have had to start shooting people?
No this is Canada, and doormen aren't allowed to used weapons. More like salutary beating which sounds bad and looks bad but safer than wrestling with someone on concrete. I would lay the blame for the the lack of safety on the specific government involved and a lack of public will to accept the admittedly nasty business of tackling violent criminals.
So then you admit that you could have controlled the crowds without resorting to the ultimate method of conflict resolution that law enforcement can, and does, rely on. My question is: if this is possible to do on a voluntary basis, i.e. where people volunteer for your protection by paying you for it, why does this necessitate the formation and enforcement of a monopoly on the provision of said service? Couldn't an armed security force backing you up provide the same amount of deterrence as a police force?
Yet this has been accomplished, as you've admitted, without reliance on police and instead via private security firms. Recall your protected communities comment. Public will is a reification fallacy; there's no such thing as public will, unless you're referring to the market, in which case, I think by your own admission private security - where it's allowed to operate without state interference - has provided superior results.
I don't deny it could work, and already does work for those who can afford it. I will have to look into your detroit example.
It's not a matter of being affordable though. We don't need revenue collectors and tyrants driving around. Special protections, double standards, and monopolies on force should be fought and resisted.
I would say your Detroit example still has state interference. I would also say my city Vancouver, BC, Canada has a state run police force(municipal) and in my opinion they provide superior results.
Compared to what metric? And how would not being forced to pay for a service you may not want prove superior to allowing market competition to increase quality and decrease cost? Moreover, how do you square the "superior results" of your municipal PD with the inverse incentives and violence attraction of state-operated security services?
They are still funded by theft (taxes). That's nor moral. They also probably enjoy the double standards and special protections I mentioned above. Cops should not be above the law in ANY way.
Either we are equal under the law or not. Which is it?
For example the Vatican. Yes any small state.:)
The Roman Empire is a private security firm?
Private investigation? Private security firms? Executive protection? Alarm companies?