If my question is redundant please point me in the direction of a book or article that answers this. I am not looking for "a monopoly on force could not do it better" I want a creative idea of how they could protect rights.
If there is a violent incident like a street fight or riot or gunfire or anything and the agency does not have time to check papers or Identification, how does it protect what may be it's customers without infringing on the rights of others to choose their own system of justice? It would be impractical for a company to make it citizens wear t shirts or get implants, and the company can not just stay out of it, because it would be neglecting its duty. However, the company cannot act like a state would act and shoot/arrest/tranquilize anyone dangerous on the grounds that it has to potentially protect its customers because
1) It's customers are not known
2) shooting people is not a revokeable action
3) It cannot just default on its duty and reimburse people, because then it really is not protecting them especially if they die
4) the people who are not the companies customers have indicated that they do not approve of the justice system of the company because they are not in it. If you aresst these people and it turns out they are innocent, you are still infringing on their right to choose their own system of justice.
thanks.
Uh, no one has a 'right' to riot or fight on someone else's street, so there is nothing wrong with chasing them off with men in body armor or pepper spray. Likewise, customers to certain companies would probably agree not to do these things except for sporting or self-defense purposes.
I agree with the idea that a person does not have the right to riot on someone else's street. However, if the premise of private defense is that people have the right to settle their own disputes, is it wrong to pepper spray people who want to resolve their own dispute? Why would we not be invading their right to settle their own dispute? I want to be persuaded, I am not trying to change anyones mind but my own.
Whose property are they on?
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
that is a really good point! It makes all the difference in the world whose property they are on! That solves part of it, if it is on property protected by the company they have the right to break it up no matter what. What if it is on someone elses property? Does the company not have the right to interfere if it is on "no mans land" or another company or countries jurisdiction?
A company may protect its customers in unowned or third party lands as best as is possible and - this is important - it may stipulatein its contracts that a person who goes to a no-man's-land is not under their protection, or a more limited form. Likewise a company would probably not be contractually required to protect you from the Chinese government if you go to China yourself; one of the requirements for insurance is that the customer not take unecessary risks.
If, for practical reasons, it can not figure out how to protect the person then it is required to pay out to its customer or heirs as its contract stipulates, and to seek prosecution and punishment of any who harmed its customers much the same. Libertarianism has no solutions for magically resolving terrible situations, what it can do is reduce their frequency and recover from them better than any statist system.
I would look at chaos theory to answer your question of how PDAs can do what you state.
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
go to page 15 to see one way how this could be done. Basically, insurance companies would pay damages for any crime that someone commits, if they are found guilty. However, insurance companies will not cover people who repeatedly coerced others, and businesses will boycott those without insurance, as there is no guarantee of recompensating damages for crimes. To bypass this, people could enter into voluntary agreements that they would pay damages if they were found guilty of a crime on someone's property. This encourages compensation to the victims, without people "forcing" their legal system upon each other. People, if they so choose, may invent any legal system, the issue is getting people to agree.
Schools are labour camps.
Common sense dictates that professional peacekeepers are justified in keeping the peace, within reasonable means. Should they use excessive force, injure innocent bystanders or be trespassing against the owner's wishes (e.g. this land is designated for brawling between willing participants, say a Fight Club situation), then the peacekeepers may be liable for damages. Otherwise, we could expect the norm to be that people are in the right to break up fights or other violent action. In the case of looting, the peacekeepers would likely be able to demand compensation from the victims.
Basically, insurance companies would pay damages for any crime that someone commits, if they are found guilty.
This is wrong. Insurance companies can insure against accidental damages, not against torts. An insurance against crime would be like unemployment insurance, you can not be insured against wrongful actions you take. What you can have is a vetting agency (we gaurantee that this guy is not a gangster, and will pay up if we are wrong), which is totally different from an insurance company.
Ricky James Moore II:Insurance companies can insure against accidental damages, not against torts.
Really? An insurance company couldn't insure you against, say, your car getting stolen? Or are you counting that as accidental damage?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I am saying it can't insure against you stealing a car. Obviously it can insure against failure to protect or recover property (so long as you took reasonable precautions).
What about in the case that a PDA is protecting a individuals in a high crime area? The PDA has a responsibility to protect the individuals, lets say they are 10% of the population. How could the PDA prevent the individuals from getting confronted and shot by people not under the protection of the PDA without infringing on the rights of others to have gun duels, assuming we are in a Somalia or no mans land, or south Africa kind of place? Put another way, if we are in a lawless place how would a PDA trying to enforce law for its customers deal with emergencies without impacting individuals who are both noncustomers and nonagressors?
"What you can have is a vetting agency (we gaurantee that this guy is not a gangster, and will pay up if we are wrong), which is totally different from an insurance company."
I guess I misused the term. Yes, I meant vetting agency. I was merely using the term that chaos theory used to define it.
I think that the PDA would probably have to detain everyone out of practicality. After breaking up the original conflict, arbitrators, who are selected and agreed upon by the two parties, could be used to determine who is at fault for any damages or was an aggressor. People who had been determined to be innocent in this situation could be compensated for their unjust detainment by the PDA.
I think that you may be trying to hold anarchism to too high a standard. There will still be injustices committed and rights will be infringed upon, but I think that private agencies that are actually held accountable for their actions will act more accordingly to their customers desires than a government, which can potentially get away with almost anything.
thank all of you for your help.