And they are investigating when tho poorest get robbed? When the weakest are attacked? Or only after you pay?
Discussion
I would again emplore you to read the book or at least the chapter I have linked earlier. All of these most common questions are answered.
I will post here the relevant section discussing this point:
"“But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now?” There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn’t protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly. Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special “police aid” societies that would do work similar to “legal aid” societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities.)
There are important supplementary considerations. As we have seen, police service is not “free”; it is paid for by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is very often the poor person himself. He may very well be paying more in taxes for police now than he would in fees to private, and far more efficient, police companies. Furthermore, the police companies would be tapping a mass market; with the economies of such a large-scale market, police protection would undoubtedly be much cheaper. No police company would wish to price itself out of a large chunk of its market, and the cost of protection would be no more prohibitively expensive than, say, the cost of insurance today. (In fact, it would tend to be much cheaper than current insurance, because the insurance industry today is heavily regulated by government to keep out low-cost competition.)"
You know that the free market itself only exists because law and order are enforced? The free market itself is against law and order and in no way enforcing it. The justice system is not some natural building that even exist without the justicial system that upholds it. And concouring security firms are like opponents in war. Its armed forces that have the will to be the only. So just destroy opponents. Since there is no force defending from it. And then comes maby an other force to do the same. Only that none of those has any democratic legitimacy.
I disagree with your first point.
I see the free market as the natural state of the world. The "free" in "free market" meaning free from restriction - meaning the only special condition that must exist is you do not hinder the natural state.
The rights we have that are protected by laws exist independant of the laws.
For example the right to free speech is not some magical right that a benevolent government grants us but rather a natural state that the governments promises not to infringe on.
Your points about warring security firms are also discussed in the book I linked. If you are interested your questions will be answered there.
-
I think the fundamental point of difference between us is that you view the government as having the ability to grant us something that we do not already have when I see them only as an organization that is able to place restrictions on what we can do.
The government has no power to create anything that its people could not independently. It has no power to grant any fundamental rights.
The only thing a government can do is violate rights, impose restrictions and enforce those restrictions through violence.
Are the Statist police, now?
LOL we both know the answer. Prostitutes and the homeless go missing all the time, at best a rookie cop will ask pro forma questions of the nearest random. But they can move heaven and earth for a politician's niece, or a fellow cop.
Even under Anarchism, the poorest are SOL unless they have family who care and are willing to pay someone or go out and investigate themselves.
That's a step up from where we are now.
The police do not come out looking like this when the weakest are threatened, they come out looking like this when the government is threatened.
Anyone who thinks that primary concern of the police is protecting the average citizen vs protecting the state is not thinking clearly.
How could a crime lower the crime. It is a dilemma.