3 ms·

>A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis. I won't go into the silliness of the assumption that our current public police force is "fair

• dragontamer 10y ago
  The fact that each company would have to redundantly set up their own. The fact that the concept of private jurisdiction is currently incompatible with US Values. And finally, the fact that its a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" situation. Of course, you don't believe in that so what can I say? If one company's police force is effective, no other company will fund the police force. (At which point, the first company's police force will lose funding because why should only one company pay for the benefits of everyone else?) Now assuming each company's private police force gets their own jurisdiction, then all you gotta do to commit a theft is to leave the jurisdiction of police forces. Just like what criminals did before the FBI was invented in the 1920s. Committed a crime in New York? Move to Florida, then commit another crime. A system of a large-scale, cross-jurisdiction police force needs to be created to adequately solve the problem. (Ex: True, New York's NYPD will stop following you around, but the FBI will be on your tail). And then we go back to the problem of the big "one jurisdiction police force", who pays for it? Market failure. No one wants to pay for it, because everybody would rather be a freeloader. Because being a freeloader is the good and proper greedy way of getting things done. Solution? Tax everybody, then use taxes to pay for the big cross-jurisdiction police force. This gives the opportunity for little police forces (and private security measures) to do their thing in the small scale.
  • ancap 10y ago
    >The fact that each company would have to redundantly set up their own. I don't see the redundancy. Just because you have locks on your doors doesn't make my door locks redundant. >The fact that the concept of private jurisdiction is currently incompatible with US Values. That is true (depending on what you mean by "US Values"), but it tells us nothing of the efficiency of a theoretical system vs our current system. >And finally, the fact that its a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" situation. Of course, you don't believe in that so what can I say? If one company's police force is effective, no other company will fund the police force. While it would be hard to say exactly how a private police force would work because we can only work in hypotheticals and try to guess how the market might organize its efforts, I think it safe to say it would not work the way you're describing above. If you refuse to pay for police protection then you don't get it, just like any other private service. There is no commons. Some theorize that police protection (as well as fire, and possibly other services) would be included, or at least required, as part of insurance coverage. >Now assuming each company's private police force gets their own jurisdiction, then all you gotta do to commit a theft is to leave the jurisdiction of police forces. Just like what criminals did before the FBI was invented in the 1920s. Committed a crime in New York? Move to Florida, then commit another crime. Bounty hunters, for example, work across many jurisdictions. We also have cases in our current system of police where different jurisdictions work together, even across country boundaries. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen with a private police force. Indeed, we see private businesses cooperating as a norm of their existence. According to your objection, it sounds as if you find our current system of many jurisdictions at the planet level unsatisfactory. Do you favor a world-wide, singular government? I suppose it's possible a thief could take a rocket ship to Mars, and ultimately it would be up to the individual doing the cost-benefit analysis on whether its worth it to pursue. In such a scenario are you in favor of a solar system-wide or intergalactic government?