[jclaytonw]

@Chris Box

Porphyrogenitus gave a pretty good explanation. As stated, the State can already use its large and powerful police and military to remove anyone it wants to from their property by using eminent domain, where the state, instead of the property owner, determines what price shall be paid for the property. So in the current situation, because property rights aren’t well defined not protected, one is already vulnerable to such a situation. The difference in a free society is that one would be fully within one’s rights to hire an insurance/private defense company to protect against such scenarios. Under the current system, such types of insurance/private defense companies would likely be harassed by the state. Further, because the state can expropriate wealth from the rest of the population, it has a significant advantage over competitors (it can raise as much money as it wants by taking it from others).

Also, nothing stops a community from having a police force funded by voluntary contributions. That is, the city of Columbus may have a police force funded by everyone. The key difference between this and the situation today (under the state) is that any residents would be free to not fund it. And anyone not funding it would not necessarily be protected by the private police. This doesn’t mean the police wouldn’t protect them; it just means they wouldn’t be contractually obligated to.

[jclaytonw]

^ this. +1

We can conjecture about what we think it likely, but it is precisely because the future is uncertain that we act purposely.

[jclaytonw]

johnwires – “I feel that voting in morally objective officials, who are not incentivized by money may the best option we have…”

Any system that relies upon only good and ethical people to be in power is not a good system.

bryandunmire did a great job explaining some of the basics as to why it is possible to privatize police forces and the judicial system. I find it more likely that a police force or court that is privatized (meaning it relies upon voluntary contract to conduct any business) will be just than will a police force or court that is funded involuntarily (in other words, through taxation) and can coerce individuals to use their services and only their services. As was previously stated, if a police organization or private court is considered by one or some to have done corrupt work, word of mouth spreads and they will receive less business, giving an opening for other entrepreneurs to compete and other the kind of service that those people expect. And if a certain individual or company refuses to use any police or court except ones that others have heard or found to be corrupt, people will be less likely to do business with said indiviual or company. Thus, the market’s ability to root out corrupt businesses is self-reinforcing in this way.

Example: if Court ABC has built a reputation for being corrupt, especially in favor of Corporation XYZ, not only will you be less likely to take your business to Court ABC (since you don’t trust their business practices), you will be less likely to do business with Corporation XYZ (since, if you have a dispute against them, they will only be willing to settle it in Court ABC). If Court ABC refuses to change its ways or has done too much damage to its reputation to be reconciled by the public, the receive less patronage, and their decreased demand allows their competitor, Court DEC, to capitalize and see an increase in demand for its services. Likewise, the reduced demand for the goods or services of Corporation XYZ allows for their competitor, Corporation UVW, to capitalize and see an increase in demand for their goods and services. Thus, it is in the best interest of private courts and police forces to not be corrupt and offer what consumers consider to be fair and just services and prices; likewise, it is in the best interest of private corporations to not patronize what their consumers consider to be corrupt private courts or police forces.

[Author]

Posts