nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/09/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 1:06 am Nov 6, 1984 >> >I'd also like to do away with private security >> >companies; people licenced to carry guns make me nervous, and I think >> >we would have more efficient security with a well funded and trained >> >police than by dissipating the resources among private firms whose >> >objective is not to serve, but to make a profit. >> >> "Dissipating" resources? Yes sir! Those public police forces sure >> do the job! Ask anyone whose ever been broken in on by the DEA. >> That's what we need all right -- MORE police, and BETTER police. >> >> Thanks, but I'll take the private fire department, and the >> private security firms -- they are after profit, so they are >> answerable to their customers. Public officials, of course, >> particularly career beaurocrats, are much less so. > >Exactly. "private security firms are answerable to their customers". >It seems to me that both Libertarians and their opponents forget some >basic facts of history. In the 19th century the "robber barons" controlling >the oil, mining and other industries had their own private security firms-- >they served their customers very well and massacred hundreds of union >members who were fighting for such radical ideas as: >1)the eight hour day >2)sick leave >3)overtime pay >4)grievance procedures against dictatorial managers >5)paid vacations > etc,etc,etc. This is interesting, but a little one-sided. Let's clear away some underbrush. First, I do not advocate the use of ANY police force, public or private, to initiate force or fraud against anyone. That one should be abused that way is no surprise. On the other hand, the private security people in question enjoyed no special immunity from prosecution -- by initiating force (if they did) they become a gang of hired thugs. (The difference lies in whether they're willing to break the law). That "robber barons" could get away with using such gangs (if they could) merely points out either an unhealthy closeness between the RB's and the government enforcement apparatus of the time (which, of course, libertarians would oppose), or the legitimate defense of property from those who would have stormed or barricaded it. Remember the Luddites? Remember what unions did to "scabs"? >If everyone has to pay for their own protection then those with money >will be protected and those without money will not be protected. This is, of course, true, but is NOT what I said. Law firms do "pro bono" work, the Red Cross helps those in need of medical care, The salvation army houses (some) homeless. To the extent these are not supported by taxes, libertarians have no quarrel with them. If you've got some reason to suspect that private police forces would never be hired by do-gooders intent on making the city safe, or that the price would be high, I'd like to hear it. In particular, bear in mind that the population of Boston was 562,994 in 1980, and the Boston Police Department cost $53,501,160 in 1981-1982. This means that the cost of the BPD was about $95/person/year (figures from the Boston Public Library, quoting the 1980 census and the BPD budget). Now, if you allow for the fact that about half of all law-enforcement costs are for victimless crimes, the cost drops to about $50/person, and if you then figure that "Friedman's law" says that it costs government twice as much to do something as for a private firm, the cost of police enforcement of a libertarian set of laws becomes around $25/person/year. If you like, I'll hunt up the reference on victimless crimes, but I don't think it's in serious question. As for "Friedman's law", take a look at page 116 of "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. In any case $25/person/yr doesn't even include the higher costs of those who'd have to pay for watching large areas (factory owners) or who needed special treatment (politicians afraid of assassination). I do not argue that everyone should have to pay for what they get -- merely that nobody should have the right to SEIZE what you have to supply their needs. There's such a thing as charity, though. It depends on a willing giver, giving stuff he owns himself. >Worse yet, often those without money will be positively assaulted as they >have been in the past by the security forces of those with money. Why? Isn't it risky to do so? I sure wouldn't risk hiring a bunch of people to go assault the poor just to get my jollies. If, on the other hand, they surrounded my factory and threatened to beat me up unless I hired them at wages other folks were willing to do without, I'd defend myself and my property. Who initiated terror in this situation? >The right to freedom from assault is every citizens right--it is not >a luxury to be provided for only those who can afford it. NOR is it a luxury to be denied those who CAN afford it. >There is definitely a government duty to provide protection for all citizens. Sure! That such protection might be better provided without direct intervention from the government is something worth checking into. >Now whether the government may decide to contract out its obligation to >protect all citizens to private firms or carry out that function with its >own bureaucracy is another question. But it is an obligation of government >to provide such protection to ALL citizens. Indeed! Is this true even if the gang assaulting your property or beating up your employees is made up of people you've fired? Is it true even if the wages you paid are low, the hours bad, the perqs negligible? The answer is yes. So long as you initiated neither force nor fraud, your property is your own, and you may deal with people (within these strictures) as you like. If you're worried about unreasonable factory conditions, the best thing to do is make sure there's no way an employer can prohibit competition. Using the law to force him to hire you at a wage you define is immoral.