|
You raise good points. Many of my libertarian colleagues believe that
privatized security would work better than a government authority. But let me ask the question: What is the difference? If I have
- A single security firm which provides a service which calls itself
'private'; and
- A single security firm which provides a service which calls itself 'government'.
What is the difference? None that I can see. While a system of competing security firms would doubtless bring
better results, this is an unrealistic expectation. The security firms would be
taken over by one means or another, and you would end up with one security
firm. Why do I believe this?
- Firstly, because a security firm (by definition) does one thing best:
using force. And it will use
force against its competitors. Remember, A fruit shop competes with neighboring
fruit shops by providing better fruit and/or a cheaper price. A security firm
competes against other firms by a more effective use of force. They are not
equivalent.
- More importantly, because history shows us it always happens.
We know that communism is a fundamentally flawed system because it always
fails, and (instantly or eventually, depending on your definition of
'communism') collapses. There are no communist societies
because communism cannot work. Likewise, we see no societies where competing security firms provide a quality
competitive service. Is this because no-one ever thought of providing a
security service before? No. It's because a bigger more powerful, more
ruthless, more corrupt security force always took it over. And that security
force became the government. Every time. Welcome to your life of slavery.
- Can a totally privatized hospital system work? Of course - and better than
the government health system.
- Can a totally privatized road system work? I don't know - it's a challenge.
- Can a totally privatized security mechanism work? No - it will collapse
into a monopoly. And a monopoly of force is called government.
I often criticize the left because of their unrealistic view of human
nature. 'But if we just eliminate private owership everyone will work for
the good of the collective', but libertarians can be just as naive -
'if we open all national borders, governments will collapse and we will
create a libertarian society' or 'if we disolve goverment, no-one will
use force to create another government'. Puurrrrlease.
The conclusions?
- Government is a necessary evil (as are the taxes to support it)
- The only legitimate action of government is to minimize the initiation of
force against its subjects.
- Any other function is immoral.
| 
