Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic
Free Society Private Security
Most statist libertarians will agree that if the state is to do anything at all, it should provide legal and police services for the populous. The protection of the population from threats foreign and domestic is often seen as fundamental to the functioning of society. The protection of private property is often seen as fundamental to the functioning of a marketplace.
But, these arguments support the creation of a government-based monopoly for those services and many libertarians agree that government-based monopolies are detrimental to the quality of goods and services. Competition provides better results in many economic goods and services. Why can't the same be said about security services?
We can see from the evidence that the same economic concepts can be applied to support private security over government-based security. Historically, government-based armies produce more destructive wars than private armies. Government-based police result in more injustice than private security.
While competition plays a role in these outcomes, legal responsibility is also important. With the legal immunity imposed by government action, individuals are less incentivized to avoid actions that would make them liable for their aggressive acts. While there are some ominous historical events that taint the reputation of private security, these events should be looked at in context and comparatively to the historical outcomes of government-based security services.
Let's dive into how a free society would function with private security services, how the legal system would work, and how private security and law would produce better results than a government-based security state.
 | A guest post by
|