RE: From Baghdad to Pyongyang: Is war coming to your door next?
Okay. What happens if a security firm in this video becomes a monopoly that will murder any and all competitors? That would be a situation with violence monopoly and no accountability, worse than government.
Also, let's not take terms like "crime" for granted. Without laws, mugging is not a crime.
Wrong is not wrong. There are varying degrees. It's worse to rape a baby than to litter, for example. This discussion needs nuance, or it cannot continue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of market economies, and a huge detractor of big government. We can certainly approach anarchy in an incremental way. I'm all for that, and for upholding the key value of liberty. I'm not for sudden dissolution of all government, and I'm far from convinced that we could completely obviate government.
You view the government as accountable?
By "wrong is wrong" I of course did not mean that all wrongs are the same.
I mean that just because the dissolution of an evil entity (the state) may come with some difficulties, these difficulties are not legitimate reasons or excuses to maintain the presence of said evil entity. It's evil. Period.
Private property owners should be the final determinants in what is or is not crime in a given area. This allows for freedom of association/dissociation.
Some may like to. I could say that slavery being ended all at once had its difficulties, too, but I fully support the immediate dissolution of that institution. Why? Because it is wrong, and immoral.
This is already happening now, under and because of the state.
If they murdered all competitors, what fool is going to utilize their service? You mean we would just have a government again, which is a bad thing. That's not a very strong argument for government.
Government is accountable through the democratic process, but I'm sure you know this.
There is an amount of government that does more good than harm.
You didn't answer what one could do in the case of a monopolistic security firm. People WILL use the firm because it's the only security offered.
Show me an example of a government that is actually accountable through said "democratic process" (mob rule) and does more good than harm.
And yes, I did answer that question, but I am fairly certain it was not the answer you were looking for.
You need to read some history, my friend.
"The state" has killed over 262 million humans in the last century alone, across the world, not counting war. The burden of proof for the "more good than harm" is on you, sad to say.
A fire department is a government organization that does more good than harm. It saves lives, property and money.
Yep, and the private market can provide the same services without forcing them on individuals without consent.
I am sure you believe that all legitimate transactions are consensual, right?
Actually, the private market won't provide the same service. Presumably, private companies would only put out fires in buildings of their customers. This means that fires elsewhere can spread to neighboring buildings, causing much more damage than they would otherwise cause.
And you still haven't answered my question about monopolistic "security" companies. You say people wouldn't use that service, but that's nonsense. Many people want security at any price, and they will support this company.
So, how do you answer this?
I have indeed answered it. In your scenario, where people magically all agree to utilize an abusive service, you end up effectively with a new government. Your argument is that government is good and necessary, but that it would be bad if we ended up with a government (security monopoly). It's a self-detonating argument.
Why wouldn't demand equate to service in a free economy?
Even as it stands today, there are districts and wards, covered by distinct departments. The private sector already works this way, too, in other fields, regarding private property.
There is no reason why complete privatization would discourage protection. To the contrary, it would make it all the more efficient, cutting out the middleman and red tape.
You are arguing in hypotheticals. I am telling you it is morally illegitimate to extort funds non-consensually (taxation) in order to fund any business, regardless of the quality of service.
Well we have different morals, clearly. That's fine, you're entitled to yours as I'm entitled to mine.
I don't really understand why everything is either black or white in your morality. Mine includes shades of gray, which include taxation for some purposes.
Morality aside, I'm sure you'll agree that a contiguous coverage of fire services is more efficient, given that fire travels contiguously. So we should hope that in either system, the fire coverage is contiguous.