Please do not discuss your opinions; no one should know what you believe. Adopt the site's tone and style: simple, blunt, precise, direct, plain, to-the-point. Include only the absolutely necessary context, and eliminate jargon. Content that is convincing, rhetorical, persuasive, elegant, evocative or embellished may be removed.
A free market in security is more effective than state-run security
| A free market in security is more effective than state-run security | |
|---|---|
| Subjects | |
| Capitalism |
Law |
| Linking arguments | |
| Capitalism requires states in order to function Economic markets are more efficient than governments at achieving positive outcomes for societies Governments should perform certain functions Modern societies require governments in ways that did not apply in earlier times Societies should implement anarchism
| |
- Note: For the purposes of this argument, "security" refers to the functions currently performed by military forces and coast guards, and police, intelligence and investigatory agencies.
Supporting arguments
In the Western frontier of the United States, security was essentially left to the free, private provisions of individuals and villages. This was effective at providing security. [1]
The historic origin of modern English law is in ancient Anglo-Saxon practices of solving disputes through negotiations and communal public assembly. This was an effective substitute for law enforcement. [2]
States cause more violence and strife through wars and economic manipulation than they prevent in law enforcement, military forces and other government agencies. [3]
There is a strong economic incentive for people to find a means to protect themselves and ensure economic stability. In the absence of government, economic theory predicts that this incentive will be successful at solving the problem. [4]
Judges who work for the state are more easily bribed than people who work for private firms because the latter's employer has to bear the cost of failing to protect their employee from being compromised, whereas states can socialize costs. [5]
Opposing arguments
The provision of certain services, such as law enforcement, should not be left to a competitive free market. Competition necessitates that some people engage with security providers that fail utterly. This can result in devastation for both consumers and bystanders. Any improvements that result from a competitive market in security are outweighed by the moral necessity of a state intervening to avoid these catastrophic market failures. [6]
- Related argument: Governments should protect people from market failures.
Without government to ensure consistency in quality and fairness, there would be no check on the power of private security providers. [7]
Private security firms are accountable only to those who are paying them, and are therefore easily controlled, especially by the wealthy and powerful. Ordinary people have less ability to hire and defend themselves from private security firms. [8]
