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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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?
I suppose the inverse incentives (is that their poor pay?) is a valid criticism I don't see how the violence attraction differs for state or private employment. The more I think about it most criticism that could be laid at the feet of state security could also be levelled at private security and vice versa,the only difference being financial market driven or political market (will you be upset if call the Cromwellian Monarchy I live under a political marketplace?) driven. I would still like to know of any real world instances of ancap operating without state influence. I personally like the ideas that ancap espouse( my understanding of them anyways) but I think it assumes people to be rational actors at least when it comes to self interest. Historically I have seen people fight for ultimate freedom only to be shackled with ultimate tyranny, Spain, Russia(the anarchists who fought to throw off the chains of czarism never even got to don the chains of marxism they were shot too quickly).
Which is why I look to the historical example of the Commonwealth and find a place with longest instance of stable and ever increasing freedoms. Excepting India during world war II free from mass starvation.
Absent the state, private companies can't shield themselves from liability like they can now. Moreover, the state is its own arbitrator; the state court is the one that decides whether or not state agents are guilty of wrongdoing. Violent people would naturally be attracted to work that involves violence, but there is an enormous disincentive pressure in the form of liability and retribution that is non-existent when it comes to state security. State-monopolized security services are insulated from negative externalities; they don't have to bear the brunt of bad acts that they perform because they use force to make everyone go to them for security services. That's the problem with every monopoly enforced by violence, and also why there is no negative pressure discouraging sociopathy and aggression in state-provided security services.
It doesn't. All it assumes is that people will pursue certain ends using certain means. The only assumption is makes about what kind of ends those are is that they will relieve some sort of felt unease. Case in point, a serial killer will relieve the unease of his compulsions and desires by killing others. Even clinically insane people and drug users follow this same pattern, but for different causes of unease.
That's the problem. You can't fight your way to freedom. If you're pushing for anarcho-capitalism, and you're surrounded by communists, you might join the wave of revolution at overthrowing your oppressive totalitarian regime, but you're still surrounded by communists. Government overthrow has accomplished nothing.
I don't disagree with you that there are western countries that are more stable and more amenable to liberty than others. Not all states are equally bad. However, they are all worse than the ultimate preference: no coercive monopoly on ultimate decision-making.
I'm glad to hear you don't support government overthrow. I agree that living life without coercion is preferable, How do you think we should do that? Has anyone ever tried it? Liability is avoided now with powerful lawyers in your system wouldn't it be avoided by those with greater firepower in the one you propose?
That's not correct. Liability is avoided now because of state governments mandating who is subject to what liability. Case in point, limited liability corporations and companies are legal fictions created by states. The business license one files to create a limited liability firm doesn't exist without the state government. Without that limited liability, your company - and you as the owner - are subject to much, much greater liability for damages.
As for how that should happen, I think secession would be the best method of achieving that sort of society. Providing saleable shares of public property to the next political subdivision down (for example, from the US federal government to the several States, each state to the counties within it, each county to the municipalities, etc.) would provide an avenue for restitution to victims of theft and abuse.
There are plenty who have tried it. Irwin Schiff died in in prison for trying to withdraw his consent to be taxed for things he didn't want the US government to do. As for not overthrowing the government, don't get me wrong: violence against so-called agents of the state is completely ethically justified. It just accomplishes nothing and makes things worse to an overwhelmingly greater degree than it helps. I'm all about using violence in self-defense and defense of others.
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?