Topic: The legitimate purpose of military... - page 5. (Read 4961 times)

Well, of course. I have convinced you that governments are a monopoly. Your conditioning, therefore, forces you to reverse your prior thinking, casting other monopolies in the same glorious light as the State.

What does any monopoly want? To maintain it's monopoly. What's the highest crime in the lawbooks of every nation?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Heck, I might even receive a gift or two if I don't ask too many questions.

If you have an enforced monopoly, you don't have any competition.  Competition drives prices lower and quality higher.

The basic incentive for being granted an enforced monopoly is a reduced need to supply lower prices and higher quality.

Actually, I used to think that monopolies were pure evil, and that Capitalism sounds great and really efficient. Now I'm not so sure.

Have you thought about what kinds of incentives exist for a powerful monopolist?
The US government is probably a bit too broad of an example, but why not have a go at it? Or maybe choose a different monopoly.
What does the US gov (or X whatever department) really want as a monopoly?

Hey, blablahblah, ever think that maybe it's the monopoly that's the problem, not the capitalism?

No, of course not, that would contradict your statist views, you'd never entertain that thought for a second.

I fail to see the validity of that analogy.

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

I suspect that the situation would be much more similar to the one in the US Senate.  As a whole, the US public gives the US congress an 8% approval rating and yet, Sen Dianne Feinstein has just reached a record low approval of 44%.  People will tend to support their local crook Senator even when they have a low approval of crooks Senators in general.

And I expect that the "opposing team" as it were, would have a vested interest in discovering the culprits, and seeing them brought to justice, including such supervisors that turned a blind eye or tacitly - or explicitly - approved. I expect that a security force revealed to have been guilty of such dirty dealings to lose customers thereby. And I expect that knowledge of both of those facts will keep most agencies from going too far out of bounds.

Of course.  Do you expect everyone to be honorable, respectable and fair in their dealings with each other?  I don't.

I expect that everyone will act in the most venal, selfish and indulgent fashion that they think they can get away with.  I expect that more power will bring with it more corruption.  I expect that people will lie, cheat and steal if they have a reasonable expectation of it being ignored or approved by their peers and supervisors.

(full disclosure, I have worked as a member of a security force)

A society where the security forces are not bullies is rare.  Even in societies where a high premium in terms of respect and resources is paid to those security forces that demonstrate honor, loyalty and commitment it is not uncommon to find a less than perfect example wearing the uniform.

This is not just a problem with security forces.  Politicians are just as susceptible, if not more so.

(full disclosure, I have served a term in elected office)

Why would you be surprised to discover that one "security force" is engaging in covert actions against other "security forces"?  Are there not sufficient examples of that happening today around you?

(full disclosure, I have served in the military)

This is really your best argument, and even it's flawed. Security companies would strike a balance between response times and employee cost. More employees would allow a larger radius with the same average response times, decreasing the coverage radius would reduce response times without increasing employee costs. There's no reason that the coverage radius of one company needn't overlap with the coverage radius of another. In the overlap, as I previously stated, security would increase, not be reduced.

The story included arson, sabotage, and vandalism. Would these not be crimes?

Except the price of the services would increase.    If the two companies each had 1/2 of all the citizens as customers and those customers randomly mixed together, each company would require roughly twice as many employees to cover the same number of customers.  This would result in roughly a doubling of fees.  You could make the argument that company A doesn't need to be patrolling a given street if company B has a patroller on that street at that time but that would not be providing me, the customer of company A with the frequency of patrol services _by company A_ that I have paid for.  It could easily lead to neighbor C hiring company C for security but company C determines it doesn't need to patrol at all because company A and B have it covered.  Neighbor D looks at the mess and determines he doesn't need to hire anyone because his property is already being patrolled by A, B and rarely C.

Neighbors A and B don't like freeloading D or cheap-ass C so they demand their companies do not provide any services to D or C.  Now _someone_ vandalizes D's property.  D refuses to fix the damage and property values for A, B, C and D all drop.

Now mega-security company S arrives, offers companies A, B and C deals they can not resist for the existing contracts and takes over the security arrangements for the neighborhood.  Neighbor D refuses to sign a contract and his house burns down but no one saw the perpetrator.  Neighbors A, B and C agree to a new contract.  Neighbor E attempts to hire mega-security company O from across town but somehow the tires on company O's cars keep getting flats on the local streets.


I can write this story forever but the gist is security is territory based just as much as prostitutes "own" street corners.

This is easy.  He who has the gun, makes the rules.

You're in a rural areal. This naturally constrains the number of possible providers, since there is a constraint on the number of possible clients. You're correct in assuming there would therefore be a small number of possible choices - a natural monopoly. You probably do not have a large selection of shopping centers, either.

Take, for instance, this:

In a market economy, either of those two bidding agencies could be retained by any resident in your neighborhood. In a larger, more metropolitan area, there are more customers, and therefore more room for competition. Instead of two companies, there could be many more. All would have resources in the area, and all would be able to respond with relative speed.

A natural monopoly being found in a rural area is not an argument for an enforced monopoly over a larger area.

I am constrained by physical infrastructure to a finite number of ISPs.

Security providers are equally constrained by infrastructure to a region.

For example, my local county puts up for bid the area contract for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) every couple of years.  The EMS contract basically entails providing medical transport service to the nearest hospital.  This does not take a huge infrastructure but it is enough that we normally only see two bids and this is because we are in a border region between two EMS companies.  A third bid has not happened in a decade. That third bid has to resources to put people and equipment into the region.  Lack of adjacency to the area becomes cost prohibitive.

A similar problem occurs for provision of more physical security in my neighborhood

My local neighborhood is outside of city limits.  Our police security is provided by the county.  We, as a group, decided it was not sufficient for our needs.  We then let out an RFP and received bids from two companies.  One was serving the community immediately up the road from us, the other was serving the community immediately down the road.  Again, proximity drove the economics of the bids.  The company providing services in the next valley over declined to submit a bid since they did not have resources in the area.

Unlike the RFP to have someone code your latest and greatest computer game, security is tied to location.  I would be foolish to hire a security team that did not have a physical presence in my immediate area.  A security company would be foolish to accept contracts in places where they have no presence.  Neither I as a customer nor they as a vendor want their business to be dispersed across the land.  This leads to a natural monopoly.


The more power and authority given to the provider, ostensibly to perform their responsibilities, the more defined the borders are. 

The EMS company in the example above does not provide services beyond the end of the dirt road.  Instead an air evacuation service using helicopters is called in.  Different company, different bids, different service area and a different price structure.  When I chose to go beyond the dirt road, I purchase insurance in case I get a broken leg at 3500 feet in a box canyon.  It covers the helicopter evacuation.

The security guard in my neighborhood has a cell phone and a camera.  He documents and calls for back up.  The sheriff provides the physical security at gun point.  However, the sheriff does not have jurisdiction in the town I drive through on the way to work nor in the harbor district I actually work in.  The town has it's own police force.  The harbor district has a security force and a mutual aid agreement with the federal coast guard facility.  Again, borders that are clearly defined by resources, authority and responsibility.

Simply put, in theory there is no difference between the theory of market based security and the practice of security.  In practice, market based security is not infinitely divisible with neighbors A, B and C each choosing a different policeman to watch their street.

This is illogical.  Your health is not something you pay for; it's intrinsic to the quality of your body's existence.  You can pay (or beg, or persuade) someone for their efforts to help improve your body's health, but no one owes you 'healthcare', outside of a coercive force (government) telling someone that they have to use their 'doctor skills' to make you healthier.

Tell me, when did feudalism end? What means did the American colonists use to end British abuses on their soil? What means did the French citizenry use to end the abuses of their own government?

Where I think the Capitalists go wrong is that the value of one's own life is not measurable in dollars, and no exchange can occur between parties for a life (e.g.: one party cannot enjoy "the fruits" of an exchange where they sacrifice their own life as part of the deal!). By extension I would argue that similar limits would apply to injury and health assurance "markets". Paying in a free market to stay healthy and/or in one piece, where failure to pay would result in a loss of health is not voluntary, it's extortion. And in the kind of highly efficient Capitalism you guys seem to envisage, you could guarantee that failure to pay would certainly result in your health being swiftly reduced.

Thus there are legitimate needs for some non-market mechanism to provide security in a non-profit way. And I would say that it (the actual security, not the assurance of it) has never been for hire. Rather, it seems to be part of the infrastructure that allows markets to build on top of it.

US-based NRA funded statistics and pseudo-analysis don't count. Europe -- as pretty much the only sensible point of comparison -- seems to enjoy a much more civilised, safer, and less testosterone-pumped culture than the US. But whatever. The numerous pro-gun threads are somewhere over yonder --->

Because of the claimed monopolies of the current security providers....

It does not, for it deals with market provision of security. For an explanation of the Parcel and Falkland Islands situations, you should read The Production of Security, by Gustave de Molinari.

When you have competition in security there are no borders.  Security companies are not tied to the land.   I can have security company A and my neighbour can have B and his neighbour can have C.

Each company will have many customers dispersed throughout the land just as say internet providers do.

Perhaps through its ability to continue to export Federal Reserve Notes and prop up the 'US Dollar'?