Protection?
People tend to feel content when there is a form of protection guarding them. Protection is the act of X being guarded against outside interference,Y, by means of B. B could be anything in particular. For example, X is a person and is walking down the street; he is confronted by Y who wants to physically harm him. X can use B as his/her form of protection, whether it be a gun, knife, or X's own body, all of that represents B. If a company had commercial property, in their best interest they would have B to guard them. B could be a wall, an alarm system, or even a security guard. All of these measures are to insure the survivability and productiveness of the property. The matter of protection insures the survivability for an individual as well. From antiquity the State has assumed the role of absolute protector over its own dominion. Let me explore my first reason why the State cannot be a rightful protector on economic grounds.
Factors of scarcity
Imagine if the State's aggression, wherever you live, were to be magnified that every facet of industry was completely subordinate. You only have 1 hamburger company, 1 car company, 1 bread company, 1 radio station, etc. Everyone would be in a cohesion of regimentation where the pursuit of goals are marginalized. No one could compete against the monopoly industry. Without this competition there is no assurance of quality and price. A business cannot calculate costs without competition from other businesses because in that scenario the consumers can properly show the level of demand for a given product. With that demand the business can adjust costs and prices. This is the norm in a market economy, when there is competition the prices will go down and the quality will go up.
The State is a monopoly on the use of force and protection. Although in the present age there are many private security companies, the State is overseer over all of them. I know this from personal experience because I am a security guard. The most I do is observe and report. I have no police powers. The State has assumed primary specialist in that field. For that reason, the State has no competition from anyone else from that region.If the notion of competition is universally viable, then the monopoly of the State is inefficient. The possibility of competing companies can bring about more efficiency and less cost. The companies would be subject to the demands of the consumer and for a protection company to assume a State-like role(i.e. murdering, stealing, destruction of a client/non-client property) then they would be subject to the scrutiny of the consumer and fault er like any business would. It doesn't have to be business companies to provide protection. Communities,churches, guilds, organizations of differing degrees can provide that needed service. As long as they're voluntary it is all perfectly fine.
The State as aggressor
The very nature of the State is aggression. Whatever power or wealth it accumulated, it came about through the initiation of violence. In the book, The State, Franz Oppenheimer details how the State was developed through conquest. The initiation of aggression is not grounds for legitimate protection. It is up to the property owner if he/she would like protection or not. If that person wants that protection, then he or she could be able to decide what type of protection they need. Considering that the State forced its will on the populace, it's hard to see how the State could rightfully protect a property owner. A private security company can be hired voluntarily, an alarm system company can be hired voluntarily but the State cannot be done away with voluntarily. It will not allow it. It yearns for power. Is that protection or is that slavery? If 4 men for example were to invade your property and then say you have to be under their "protection" is that really protection? Just think about it.
People tend to feel content when there is a form of protection guarding them. Protection is the act of X being guarded against outside interference,Y, by means of B. B could be anything in particular. For example, X is a person and is walking down the street; he is confronted by Y who wants to physically harm him. X can use B as his/her form of protection, whether it be a gun, knife, or X's own body, all of that represents B. If a company had commercial property, in their best interest they would have B to guard them. B could be a wall, an alarm system, or even a security guard. All of these measures are to insure the survivability and productiveness of the property. The matter of protection insures the survivability for an individual as well. From antiquity the State has assumed the role of absolute protector over its own dominion. Let me explore my first reason why the State cannot be a rightful protector on economic grounds.
Factors of scarcity
Imagine if the State's aggression, wherever you live, were to be magnified that every facet of industry was completely subordinate. You only have 1 hamburger company, 1 car company, 1 bread company, 1 radio station, etc. Everyone would be in a cohesion of regimentation where the pursuit of goals are marginalized. No one could compete against the monopoly industry. Without this competition there is no assurance of quality and price. A business cannot calculate costs without competition from other businesses because in that scenario the consumers can properly show the level of demand for a given product. With that demand the business can adjust costs and prices. This is the norm in a market economy, when there is competition the prices will go down and the quality will go up.
The State is a monopoly on the use of force and protection. Although in the present age there are many private security companies, the State is overseer over all of them. I know this from personal experience because I am a security guard. The most I do is observe and report. I have no police powers. The State has assumed primary specialist in that field. For that reason, the State has no competition from anyone else from that region.If the notion of competition is universally viable, then the monopoly of the State is inefficient. The possibility of competing companies can bring about more efficiency and less cost. The companies would be subject to the demands of the consumer and for a protection company to assume a State-like role(i.e. murdering, stealing, destruction of a client/non-client property) then they would be subject to the scrutiny of the consumer and fault er like any business would. It doesn't have to be business companies to provide protection. Communities,churches, guilds, organizations of differing degrees can provide that needed service. As long as they're voluntary it is all perfectly fine.
The State as aggressor
The very nature of the State is aggression. Whatever power or wealth it accumulated, it came about through the initiation of violence. In the book, The State, Franz Oppenheimer details how the State was developed through conquest. The initiation of aggression is not grounds for legitimate protection. It is up to the property owner if he/she would like protection or not. If that person wants that protection, then he or she could be able to decide what type of protection they need. Considering that the State forced its will on the populace, it's hard to see how the State could rightfully protect a property owner. A private security company can be hired voluntarily, an alarm system company can be hired voluntarily but the State cannot be done away with voluntarily. It will not allow it. It yearns for power. Is that protection or is that slavery? If 4 men for example were to invade your property and then say you have to be under their "protection" is that really protection? Just think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment