Whence it follows:
That no government should have
the right to prevent another govern-
ment from going into competition with
it, or to require consumers of secu-
rity to come exclusively to it for this
commodity.
So when you strip away the extraneous language, all he's got is a
circular statement saying:
Capitalism that's free from government intervention is the best! Therefore, governments should not interfere with each other or prevent their customers from switching.
Fixed that for you. You left out an important part, that made it
not circular.
Even if we assume that yes, the Capitalist principles are all fine, and governments usually only get in the way, then we can still debate whether Molinari's "private security" idea holds water. We can try a bit of inductive reasoning by attempting specific examples where private security
might not work, and then seeing if it causes problems overall.
E.g.:
- The "marauding by night, selling security by day" example. It seems plausible that without a threat of force from higher powers, corruption is not only possible but financial incentives for it seem strong. So unless you can effectively nullify the 'corruption' argument, it seems that the whole private security system could break down. All this over-abundance of safety and harmoniousness seems bad for business! Surely Capitalists could just find a way to make it more profitable? E.g.: by making it more scarce?
What threat from higher powers keeps the US government from exploiting it's citizens in the way you describe?
If you require protection, you are a consumer of security. Our current producers call these people "citizens."
Point a)
I would have thought that peace, safety and social harmony, all those other things that make up Molinari's 'security' are the ideal candidate for a kind of intellectual
commons! I can
have some security, but I can't own it. I can't withhold it from others who are near me -- if I tried (e.g.: disturbing the peace, starting a fight...), I would by necessity deprive myself of it, too!
By George, I think you may be starting to grasp the concept behind the Non-aggression Principle.
By living peacefully and harmoniously within some civilisation, I'm not consuming security. It's just there!
Again you seem to state that governments provide no service. Awesome! we can start dismantling them right away.
Now I can educate others.