Private Security Agencies

[Juxtys]

In my country, there are several private security agencies. Although greatly regulated by the government, they are hired by shops, offices and even public schools to protect them. Would they exist in a laissez faire society? May they become an alternative governments?

[JeffS]

They would certainly exist, but they wouldn't be alternative government; at least not in an objective society. Imagine a society where your "cops" and my "cops" have different laws to uphold. That's called "anarchy" and not conducive for rational, productive individuals.

[KendallJ]

Would they exist in a laissez faire society?

May they become an alternative governments?

Yes.

No.

[khaight]

Yes.

No.

Concise.

[Eiuol]

Imagine a society where your "cops" and my "cops" have different laws to uphold. That's called "anarchy" and not conducive for rational, productive individuals.

I agree with this, but what exactly would the difference between two governments be besides the different laws they might uphold? It's hard for me to understand how in a free society governments would be any different than a protection agency in an anarchist society.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Eiuol

[DavidOdden]

It's hard for me to understand how in a free society governments would be any different than a protection agency in an anarchist society.

A government has exclusive jurisdiction over a specific territory: it defines the laws, and is the only agency that rightfully uses retaliatory force to enforce those laws. Those laws are mandatory, not subject to customer whims. It's only function is to protect rights.

[Eiuol]

Maybe my confusion/concern stems more from the original question of this topic.

I got this from the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force."

Wouldn't a private security agency in a free society be using force when morally appropriate (as in, violation of rights)? To me that would mean the government would not have a monopoly on force if there were private security agencies.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Eiuol

[DavidOdden]

Wouldn't a private security agency in a free society be using force when morally appropriate (as in, violation of rights)?

Private security agencies do not use force, except in emergency self-defense. That's the way it is even now -- you call the police, and you do not go shooting ruffians. A security firm basically acts as an agent of the individual, and has exactly the rights that the individual has to use force -- and you do have the right to use force to prevent someone from harm you. As an individual, you have no right to use retaliatory force.

[sanjavalen]

You also have the right to defend your property from theft.

In case there was any confusion about it only being valid when there's a direct, physical threat to your person.

[Grames]

In a rational society, people confidently take action to defend themselves and their property knowing the law is on their side. They can also hire assistants. The police are freed up then from being everyone's security guard to hunt down, corner and then capture or kill the truly dangerous criminals.

[Zip]

In a rational society, people confidently take action to defend themselves and their property knowing the law is on their side. They can also hire assistants. The police are freed up then from being everyone's security guard to hunt down, corner and then capture or kill the truly dangerous criminals.

In a security guard capacity to maintain the peace on or protect private property, sure. But there would be no provision for such an organization to exercise a warrant for my arrest and break down my door to get me. As a private citizen in my own home the only lawful authority I must recognize is that of the state. The mall cop, not so much.

[Grames]

Right. I'm not sure how this is response to the quoted post though?

[Zip]

Right. I'm not sure how this is response to the quoted post though?

The question was "May they become an alternative governments?"

[Tordmor]

Not so much an alternative but maybe a complement to government. I am currently thinking about whether government must have a monopoly on the use of force or would it suffice if they had the monopoly on the sanctioning of the use of force with the actual use of force "outsourced" to private enterprise?

A security firm on behalf of their client could then obtain an arrest warrant from a judge which would allow them to "kick in the door" and

arrest that person. What would stand against that?

[agrippa1]

Not so much an alternative but maybe a complement to government. I am currently thinking about whether government must have a monopoly on the use of force or would it suffice if they had the monopoly on the sanctioning of the use of force with the actual use of force "outsourced" to private enterprise?

A security firm on behalf of their client could then obtain an arrest warrant from a judge which would allow them to "kick in the door" and

arrest that person. What would stand against that?

There's no functional difference between hiring an individual to enforce gov't established laws, and hiring a commercial contractor to do the same. As long as there are objective laws governing the proper use of force by an agent of the government, including legal recourse against its misuse, there should be no problem replacing "agent" with "agency." The question, however, was whether "private" enforcement would exist in LFC. "Private" implies no control by the gov't; a commercial agency operating under contract to the gov't would not be considered a "private" agency.

I could also imagine an emergency situation in which the government authorized private citizens to use specifically defined force against specifically defined persons. That would constitute official sanction, and actions directed by the government, and so should be consistent with government monopoly on use of force.

[Juxtys]

There's no functional difference between hiring an individual to enforce gov't established laws, and hiring a commercial contractor to do the same. As long as there are objective laws governing the proper use of force by an agent of the government, including legal recourse against its misuse, there should be no problem replacing "agent" with "agency." The question, however, was whether "private" enforcement would exist in LFC. "Private" implies no control by the gov't; a commercial agency operating under contract to the gov't would not be considered a "private" agency.

I could also imagine an emergency situation in which the government authorized private citizens to use specifically defined force against specifically defined persons. That would constitute official sanction, and actions directed by the government, and so should be consistent with government monopoly on use of force.

It is not only about government, but about the individual too. Will you be able to hire some bodyguards to protect yourself if you feel unsafe? Of course. But the question is how much authority do those bodyguards have?

[DavidOdden]

I am currently thinking about whether government must have a monopoly on the use of force or would it suffice if they had the monopoly on the sanctioning of the use of force with the actual use of force "outsourced" to private enterprise?

Let me help you by pointing out some presumably obvious facts. You have the right to defend your life against an aggressor, and you do not need to sit passively, being murdered, while waiting for the police to arrive. That means that no sanction by the government is required for you to use force to preserve your life. This right is not limited to just protection against deadly force: you may defend your body against assault, and you may defend your property against theft or destruction. Your use of force will be objectively scrutinized, to determine whether it was in fact necessary for you to use force to defend yourself and your property, and whether that use was just, meaning proportional, but we will assume that your use of force is legally justified.

The government has a type of monopoly in sanctioning use of force, namely in the creation and enforcement of laws that (1) prohibit use of force and (2) allow necessity as a defense against a charge of using force. For example, the government would judge whether

the defendant acted in lawful self-defense if he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury, and reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger, AND used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger. Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to himself. Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and he must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense.

(paraphrasing the California law). This right to self defense can clearly be delegated, and would not need prior sanction.

A security firm on behalf of their client could then obtain an arrest warrant from a judge which would allow them to "kick in the door" and

arrest that person. What would stand against that?

Such use of non-emergency force must be under the rigid control of objective law. What stands in the way of outsourcing arrests and the like is the fact that the people applying (authorized) force are not neutral, objective law enforcers, they are agents of a particular party. Circumstantial evidence or confessions collected by such biased parties could not possibly be admitted in an objective legal system, and there would have to be some stringent monitoring of the conduct of the arresting agents, to assure neutrality in the use of force (to prevent the use of unjustified force in the serving of the warrant). I can't see how there would be any point to allowing an agent of an interested party to serve the warrant.