Limited Government and Privatization

[Dániel Boros]

And the most important argument-these security companies already exist, they provide very good protection and they don't shoot each other. The weird Ayn Rand scenario in which she describes such a warfare pertains to the situation in which different competing governments operate on the same territory and use arbitrary non-objective laws. This is real anarchy and gang war could be the only outcome. These agencies don't act for profit but power for the power's sake. I describe a situation in which all agencies operate for profit and that is possible only if they operate under united objective code of rules provided by the process of legislation. That what we need government for.

Agreed, however there will be always a need to counterbalance the force of arms created by the private sector.

Private defense companies would operate differently if there was no police to oppose them when they abuse their power.

[Leonid]

Agreed, however there will be always a need to counterbalance the force of arms created by the private sector.

Private defense companies would operate differently if there was no police to oppose them when they abuse their power.

Yes, if for some reason they will decide to become non-profit organizations and to act only for power sake. People usually don't pay for been abused and how they will obtain their funds? Probably by looting. In such a case other companies who are for profit will finish them, and if only to keep their clients. Besides, what would happen if police forces become abusive.? In my country this is a daily experience and the reason for it that police is not voluntary supported . However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Leonid

[Dormin111]

Leonids,

Daniel suggests paying for the legislative state through coercive taxation of the private defense agencies. Do you see another way for the state to fund itself?

Also, for the sake of concreteness, should the state have an army? Of so, should it be more powerful than the private defense agencies? If the state should not have an army, why should the private defense agencies abide by the state's laws?

[Leonid]

Leonids,

Daniel suggests paying for the legislative state through coercive taxation of the private defense agencies. Do you see another way for the state to fund itself?

Also, for the sake of concreteness, should the state have an army? Of so, should it be more powerful than the private defense agencies? If the state should not have an army, why should the private defense agencies abide by the state's laws?

It doesn't have to be coercive. Private defense agencies will gladly pay for Objective legislation because they dearly need it to do their job. They need a guidance to employ the retaliatory force in Objective non-abusive way. As long as there is a possibility of aggression exists, the state will need an army. The goal of army is protection of the territorial integrity of the country and protection of its citizens abroad. It has nothing to do with private defense agencies.In regard to you question "why should the private defense agencies abide by the state's laws?" is like to ask " Why petrol station should sell petrol and not water?" The answer is-it is in their selfish pro-profit interests. If they don't, not only they won't be able to provide the proper protection and make money but also they very quickly deteriorate to the level of the street gangs fighting each other. There is no profit in the gang warfare. Imagine that Caltex and Shell get engage in the war for clients instead of selling petrol. What would be an outcome?

Edited August 24, 2012 by Leonid

[Unpretentious_Diva]

"If they don't, not only they won't be able to provide the proper protection and make money but also they very quickly deteriorate to the level of the street gangs fighting each other."

For proper protection, they can have a vigilant group of individuals providing a set of functionable laws based on Objectivist principles and Natural rights of Individuals. It would be more profitable for any such PDA to attain service and support of the best and well known philosophers, individual rights activists, civil and criminal law experts etc. I don't think they will need any government/legislation. Their customers will have an opportunity to analyze which PDA is offering a valid set of principles to exercise the service of protection and justice for them.

Also, I find that your accusation that without a legislation, PDAs will fight and create gangs fighting in streets a little obtuse. A little while ago, You commented, "However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company."

Why will subscribers start subscribing an abusive company if there won't be a democratically elected legislature but the PDAs independently will employ experts and knowledgable people to assert natural laws, individual rights and principles of Objectivism?

Also, you said, "Imagine that Caltex and Shell get engage in the war for clients instead of selling petrol. What would be an outcome?"

Why will two companies start war over any issue if there won't be a democratic (or otherwise) legislative? Especially when there is no Profit in War? Won't they look for profit, preservance and peace, and why won't they? Just becasue there won't be a government? Why won't they proceed in more profitable and peacefull manner to solve any issue? Like, they can engage their expert advisors to discuss the issue to solve the matter at least possible cost.

Will Caltex and Shell start selling water instead of selling petrol if there won't be a legislature?

(Sorry if I sound aburpt or rude, English is not my native language and I am just starting to analyze the concept of Private defense associations.I have just completed an article about this issue. http://tinyurl.com/9vzlznh)

[Leonid]

"For proper protection, they can have a vigilant group of individuals providing a set of functionable laws based on Objectivist principles and Natural rights of Individuals"

It's not that simple to put the use of retaliatory force under the strict supervision of Objective law. This is a full time job and if some people will dedicate to this task, they will be a government.

"A little while ago, You commented, "However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company."

And I stand for that. But they will be able to do so only if they have a set of Objective laws as a guidance.

" Just becasue there won't be a government?"

But that is just semantics. In my view any group of people who can legislate Objective laws is a government.

"Will Caltex and Shell start selling water instead of selling petrol if there won't be a legislature?"

Wrong equivocation. This is a self-evident fact at least in the civilized parts of the world that to run car needs a petrol, not water. The set of Objective laws is not self-evident. It has to be discovered and explicitly developed.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Leonid