DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**rikdpola** · 07-25-2012, 06:56 PM

Do not make the assumption that without cops there would be no security. Protection and safety are things that people want, and as Skirnir said, the market would provide it. More than likely private police firms would arise and individuals, households, businesses, etc. would pay a monthly premium, much like an insurance premium, for police protection. There would be more than one police firm, and competition between them would ensure that prices were low and services were well received. Meaning, if a cop from police firm A beats down a helpless man in the street, people would cancel their policies and move to police firm B which has a reputation for treating people with kindness. Rather than the power hungry, abusive, taser happy thugs in uniforms we have today, free market police would definitely be accountable to the people they serve.

Solid, do yourself a favor and read this book, For a new Liberty by Rothbard, especially chapter 12: Police, Law and the Courts.

http://library.mises.org/books/Murra...0Manifesto.pdf

Your scenario has given me a chance to think this through. The private police force would be beholden to their employers, which would be the municipality and not the citizenry. So I ask myself how this is different than the current arrangement.

Let's say a policeman beat down a helpless man now. If the people were outraged, this would be very bad politically for the policeman's employer, whether it be a mayor, city aldermen, or town selectmen. Action would be taken that would hurt the cause of the police force "competitively", in that the police chief's job status or performance review would suffer, and the individual policeman would be a risk of losing his job. These are the same market forces as it were a private enterprise. Any cover up or corruption that occurs now would offer the same financial or political dynamics and motivation if it were private. I don't see a significant difference there.

Any difference would probable arise from the union issue. But who's to say the private security force wouldn't be unionized?

I'm not denying that there is currently graft, corruption, misuse of authority, etc. I'm not convinced it wouldn't continue with a private force, because the employer remains a municipal entity (rather than a private business), which is what provides the environment for bad behavior.

07-25-2012, 06:56 PM	#24
rikdpola Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	Do not make the assumption that without cops there would be no security. Protection and safety are things that people want, and as Skirnir said, the market would provide it. More than likely private police firms would arise and individuals, households, businesses, etc. would pay a monthly premium, much like an insurance premium, for police protection. There would be more than one police firm, and competition between them would ensure that prices were low and services were well received. Meaning, if a cop from police firm A beats down a helpless man in the street, people would cancel their policies and move to police firm B which has a reputation for treating people with kindness. Rather than the power hungry, abusive, taser happy thugs in uniforms we have today, free market police would definitely be accountable to the people they serve. Solid, do yourself a favor and read this book, For a new Liberty by Rothbard, especially chapter 12: Police, Law and the Courts. http://library.mises.org/books/Murra...0Manifesto.pdf Your scenario has given me a chance to think this through. The private police force would be beholden to their employers, which would be the municipality and not the citizenry. So I ask myself how this is different than the current arrangement. Let's say a policeman beat down a helpless man now. If the people were outraged, this would be very bad politically for the policeman's employer, whether it be a mayor, city aldermen, or town selectmen. Action would be taken that would hurt the cause of the police force "competitively", in that the police chief's job status or performance review would suffer, and the individual policeman would be a risk of losing his job. These are the same market forces as it were a private enterprise. Any cover up or corruption that occurs now would offer the same financial or political dynamics and motivation if it were private. I don't see a significant difference there. Any difference would probable arise from the union issue. But who's to say the private security force wouldn't be unionized? I'm not denying that there is currently graft, corruption, misuse of authority, etc. I'm not convinced it wouldn't continue with a private force, because the employer remains a municipal entity (rather than a private business), which is what provides the environment for bad behavior.
	Quote