Is this even imaginable in a city? I'm finding it hard to imagine how that would even work. Never mind how this would even emerge. Nice in theory tho
Discussion
1930s Britain, oddly enough.
Sterling MGs in private hands, but a taboo against shooting unarmed "Bobbies".
If most citizens are armed and support the police, then where's the problem?
(The second half of the equation is usually missing these days)
It'll be you with a gun facing 5 thieves with 5 guns. Is my thinking¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And the thieves will back away slowly and find something else to do. Probably stealing something unattended. Those that don't adopt that policy won't live long enough for most citizens to encounter one in a lifetime.
The government doesn't exist to protect the public against the criminals. Its there to protect (big) criminals against the public.
And how would you defend in the new utopia from the big coorporations? They can fund their military anyways. Only small people need stata sponsored Police. The rich would in every escenario without state be much more powerful, since this is just the way any good monarchy was working or is still working today.
Good questions, and I disagree with Rothbard on the answers.
Re police.
Private police will be for rich people, transport corridors and commercial precincts. Like the old days.
Working-class neighborhoods will have an old man sweeping leaves and asking "Oi! 'Oo are you?" if you don't look like you belong. And someone else with a rifle behind a blind on an upstairs window watching to see if you pull a weapon.
Like many "ethnic" areas of my city today. There are surprisingly few f_ckups, when one happens its all over the news for days.
Re corporations.
Without the State, who will defend the Board's interests against their managers?
And who will defend the managers' interests against their workers?
Without Big Daddy Government, tens of thousands of pages of legislation and regulations, and a myriad of tax-fed agencies, Big Business will die so fast you'll think it was a conspiracy.
Yeah, we can still have self-executing DAOs living in some blockchain, but if there's no corporate personhood and State enforcement of their rights, then what happens at the linkage between the DAO and real world assets? Private litigation / arbitration is what, and the DAO structure will be at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis sole traders and partnerships.
Blown up story. But sorry this still is the reality that was before democracies came up. Ones with much power control everything and the poor do have nothing to say. People that have free speech to oppose the powerful are imprisoned or shot directly as they are in Russia, Northkorea or Belarus. Those are states that live with your reality. There is no legitimated state. But this does not result in mor equality or anything like it.
It can be hard to imagine a world without state funded police or how a world without them would be beneficial.
In chapter 12 of "For A New Liberty" Murray Rothbard lays out how such a world could look.
You can read the chapter here:
Just having a quick scan of it now. It all seems p idealistic. Like how does it even work with a scenario of street crime, people travel 14 miles to work. Would there be no-go areas (even moreso than now)? It seems like it will likely be the same scenarios and problems but instead of state police you have private police who can do nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not sure when this was written or who the author is, but seems a bit like a lovely theoretical but impractical idea, just as bad as now.
Humanity survived a hundred thousand years without police. And Britain survived ~1820 to ~1950 with unarmed police in a heavily armed society.
Its not just possible, its normal.
We are living in the idealistic experiment, and its starting to spiral faster and faster into suck...
I agree, most people also survive now (part from the ones stabbed to death), most people also survived then (apart from the ones stabbed to death). I see no difference.
Here are a few questions you can ask yourself.
1. Do you think someone would be more or less likely to break into a house or attack someone if they assumed they were armed?
2. In general what provides better service and efficiency, private business or government services? Why would policing be any different?
3. Police are just a group of people. Why is this group uniquely able to provide security and another group would not? Why would we assume that police can offer this service better than every other possible group of people?
The concept of a world without government seems impossible at first but the more you think about it the more you realise that all the arguments for government quickly fade away.
The biggest criticism is that we would just end up where we are now with one monopoly in control but that hardly seems like an argument against anarchism as even in that worst case scenario we end up only exactly where we are now.
For" a New Liberty" is very in depth but if you want a succinct overview of Rothbard's view of the state then I would recommend reading the 60 page "Anatmy of the State" as a good starting place.
You can read it here.
I get the argument and agree that it would add another layer if there was an understanding all people are armed and willing to protect themselves. I have no idea what the stats are on eg street/home robbery from countries or states where firearms are legal and the majority of people carry. I also know of some areas in eg London that have private security.
I'm not entirely convinced that this anarcho thinking isn't just utopian, I'm just speculating if this would just be lots of inefficient private security instead of a state security. (I get the free market will solve this arguments against this too) but also have my doubts.
I should also add I'm not really against it either tho and it can't be too much worse lol. I'm just slightly sceptical ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you are interested in this topic I would refommend doing some reading in this area. I have found it quite rewarding and found my skepticism fade.
Another place that might be good to start is The Anarchist Handbook which had a collections of essays on this topic put together by Michael Malice.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58039014-the-anarchist-handbook
I thought of the legitimation of state power a lot in the last weeks.
One strong point is that the police works under the law. And when they do not behave according to the law a court has to possibility to bring them to the court and into prison for their illegal acts as anyone else too.
A just police corp always ever react, since all citizen need to be seen as innocent until there is proof against it. This means Police legitimized by human rights can never act preventive.
And when we already know that someone needs to have the most power. Why shouldn't it be legitimized by democratic rules?
You raise a lot of good questions and it can be hard to grasp how the police could operate outside of a government structure.
If you really want answers then I would say that the best thing for you to do is read the chapter of For a New Liberty that I linked to the other user.
In brief I think the biggest point that you have wrong is when you say we need someone to have the most power. All security organisations should have equal power. There is no need for a police with extra powers. You also make points on how police are held accountable but so often police are held to a different lower standard than regular citizens. Rothbard makes the point that free market security would be much farer and held to a higher standard than current public policing.
There would still be courts to hold security companies accountable they just wouldn't be monopolised state courts that can choose what to prosecute but would instead be private arbitration organizations.