“Markets Can’t Provide Policing” – Why, Exactly?

Critics of voluntaryism often claim that free-market provision of protection would be bad; perhaps they envision a resultant Hobbesian nightmare.

But replacing police with people who do not have sovereign immunity, who are held accountable for excess force and murder and manslaughter, who have economic incentives to prefer peace to mayhem, would be bad because … why, exactly?

Why do today’s armored car firms not engage in a Hobbesian war of all against all? Might it be that peace can be more profitable than war, that their business model really is about peace? A security firm may obtain a reliable, steady stream of income simply by making sure that goods travel safely from point A to point B. What’s not to like?

Advertisements

1 thought on ““Markets Can’t Provide Policing” – Why, Exactly?”

  1. Exactly, war and killing is expensive, and can only be consistently paid for with stolen funds, as no one will voluntarily fund these exploits to their own detriment. Private police would have real incentives to be peaceful.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s