Free-Market-Security

Recently I began reading a book dealing with security in an anarcho-capitalist world. The author, whom I will not reveal, was writing as if he had to make the case that security would be better in a market setting due to competition and peaceful incentives inherent in the marketplace. While this is all good, it got me wondering: why do libertarians/voluntaryists/anarchists feel the need to make the case for SUPERIOR security in the marketplace at all?

The case against the state rests on the fact that it does not provide security at all, but at best protects itself from others who would like to loot you. Police investigate robberies, burglaries, murders, etc. while being engaged in imminent domain, coercive taxation, and using force up to the point of murder if necessary to get compliance. If you don't think this is so, refuse to pay taxes for a while. Should any government agent ever come to you face-to-face, resist their infringement upon your property as you would any "private" thief, and see what happens. Or for that matter, resist the police officer who stops you for driving too fast as you would a private person. Without the uniform and badge, these people would appear absolutely insane for trying to stop people for driving faster than what they believe to be safe. But should you resist the person who wears a badge, they get to do whatever is necessary to control you in the name of self-defense.

So why are we more scared of police officers than we are average citizens? After all, a badge is not anything special, and it is possible to drive carrying a weapon of our own. The answer clearly is because the state will send an endless army after you should you escape, in the name of justice and defense of course.

So to sum up, the state does not provide security. The state, as Spooner pointed out, is worse than the highwayman who continually robs you at gun point, since its members believe its force is justified. Any "protective" measures provided are simply measures against their competition in controlling you. What other conclusion could one come up with when analyzing an organization that both claims the right to control you, and claims the want to protect you from people who wish to control you...?

So if you believe in a free market setting for government protection services, don't forget to argue that such services wouldn't only be better in a marketplace setting, but they are non-existent within the state.

I have also noticed a second inherent fallacy in those who argue against a marketplace for security. When the idea of competing insurance companies comes up, almost inevitably the case against it includes the idea that these insurance companies would become states themselves. So the worry about abolishing the state is that private companies might one day take on the characteristics of the state. In other words, the big worry is we might get what we have today. What a completely absurd thing to argue indeed! And to protect against getting what we already have, I suppose to this line of reasoning, is for everyone to submit to a monopolistic state, cutting out the road from freedom to serfdom, and just accepting serfdom from the get-g0!