Do you think private police forces would ever engage in preemptive attacks? Or do you see preemptive measures being mostly defensive?
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it depends on what you mean by "preemptive".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I know the language is broad. I suppose i mean attacking someone first when there is reason to believe they will attack. Stalkers for example, or rouge states randomly setting off car bombs, things of this nature. I guess i'm contemplating the question of would private protection ever take an offensive route to maintain protection?
Jeremiah Dyke: I know the language is broad. I suppose i mean attacking someone first when there is reason to believe they will attack. Stalkers for example, or rouge states randomly setting off car bombs, things of this nature. I guess i'm contemplating the question of would private protection ever take an offensive route to maintain protection?
I'll first admit my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I tend to believe the honest answer is "yes" and should be admitted, it is possible. However, I also tend to believe cases such as this would be kept to an minimum (far below what we now suffer through state-provided "protection") due to the knowing that there would be a much higher level of accountability for such actions through private courts, monetary damage awards and the like. What do you think?
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
John Q:I'll first admit my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I tend to believe the honest answer is "yes" and should be admitted, it is possible. However, I also tend to believe cases such as this would be kept to an minimum (far below what we now suffer through state-provided "protection") due to the knowing that there would be a much higher level of accountability for such actions through private courts, monetary damage awards and the like. What do you think?
I agree with you. Mere suspicions won't warrant attacks, but "clear and present danger" well may. For example, a person holding a gun to your head isn't committing aggression with that action per se, but I'd certainly say making a clear and present threat of aggression. On the other hand, writing "1 down, 534 to go" on a blog (as happened recently) cannot constitute such a threat IMO.
If a PDA is profit-driven and it can utilize coercion to gain a profit when peaceful exchange is not possible or more costly --- then coercion it is.
Note that if a PDA is not profit driven then this model is not sustainable. In fact, coercion is a beneficial means to reallocate valued resources from unproductive and inefficient individuals and enterprises to productive individuals and enterprises when peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.
Moreover, if the transaction costs of coercion exceed the expected profit -- of course coercion is off the table.
In sum, there will always be a market for coercion for profit in ancap society.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
Jeremiah Dyke: Do you think private police forces would ever engage in preemptive attacks? Or do you see preemptive measures being mostly defensive?
Most PDA's will be structured for defense. So while they could do a preemptive attack, their tools and equipment are likely designed for something else. Furthermoer its that much easier to grab the assistance of another pda, specialized in "Defense".
Who would be specialized in "offensive force" on a free market?
Rettoper:In sum, there will always be a market for coercion for profit in ancap society
An "ancap society" does not claim to eliminate theft. I think you've been told that several dozen times now. Thanks for your persistent repitition.
Private police governed by the rules of the non aggression principal would be restricted from preemptive attacks.This may appear to be a weakness in the chain of self defense, but it is also the premise the TSA uses to subvert the civil liberties of the masses.Liberatarians are forced to be counter puchers. Mohhamed Ali proved that a swift and effective counter punch will win a lot of fights against more capable opponents.ie; "rope a dope"
filc:Who would be specialized in "offensive force" on a free market?
Possibly some type of Special Response Team? For such things as hostages or property taken by force scenarios. Since breaching is inherently offensive.
I'm not sure if I'd consider manhunt/fugitive searches as offensive.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
"Do you think private police forces would ever engage in preemptive attacks?"
Do I think privately hired security guards acting on behalf of management to keep the venue safe from drunk patrons becoming violent, by intervening early and asking the patron to leave (of the private property) would happen? Sure. And the same principle applies above. But really.. the above scenario is a direct result of statist policies (taxation on alcohol - not cheap, thus results in incentives for establishments to have "happy hours"), people binge drink as a result.. then you get violence and fights... many other stuff I could go on about - licensing bumps up price, taxi cartel (lines to get home) etc etc.
The above though wouldn't be an attack.
"Or do you see preemptive measures being mostly defensive?"
Who is the aggressor? If you have been asked to leave a private property and you refuse (If you haven't got a contract stipulating you can be there or something else... etc.) - then you become the aggressor.
15Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (1998), p. 82:
... police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out ot be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against noncriminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault.
Ibid., p. 83:
.. police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals.
Ibid., p. 84:
... a defendant could not be kept in jail before his conviction, unless, as in the case of police coercion, the jailer is prepared to face a kidnapping conviction if the defendant turns out to be innocent.
15Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (1998)
If, in time, it turned out to be the profit-maximizing thing to do, yes they would. An anarchic legal system would evolve towards profit-maxim sing forms. None of the cannons of western justice we take for granted nowadays would be safe or insulated form the market test (of course such tenets by and large did emerge out of the market, but that was quite some time ago). Hell, not even the NAP would be safe.
Most PDA's will be structured for defense. --filc
wrong, most successful and sustainable PDAs would be structured to make a profit.
logically, aggressive offensive minded PDA that had a napoleon, alexander, lee, patton, patreaus, et al type command would likely attract the majority of investment capital, talent, customers, et al since they would be most successful in annexing and holding valued resources.
moreover, history has shown that static defensive -minded armies, enterprises, and nation-states simply postpone their inevitable decline.
Furthermoer its that much easier to grab the assistance of another pda, specialized in "Defense". -- filc
it is illogical to assert that PDAs and customers will flock to one-dimensional defense-minded firms. to use an analogy, wal-mart dominates the big box retailers -- it didnt reach this superiority by one-dimensional cautious (defense minded) business plan. The top PDA firms will utilize whatever means are available to gain market share and increase revenue and profits -- both offensive and defensive.
Moreover, the nature of armed conflict dictates that armies that -- act first rather than react to threats -- gain the initiative that is crucial to ultimate victory.
perhaps this lack of understanding regarding the true nature of force is why no anarchic societies of consequence exist
.Liberatarians are forced to be counter puchers. Mohhamed Ali proved that a swift and effective counter punch will win a lot of fights against more capable opponents.ie; "rope a dope" -- Bill Smith
And as long as libertarians remain reactive "counterpunchers" they will continue to remain irrelevent.
when libertarians learn to use coercive power to obtain goals, their marginalized status in society will change for the better.
however, that is the paradox and dilemma, isnt it.
Entrepreneurs are guided by profit and loss to a much greater degree than they are by moral standards.