Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Private protection of our neighbours
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Private protection of our neighbours  (Read 3512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Private protection of our neighbours
« on: May 03, 2009, 01:09:36 PM »

Wow, it really kicked off on Saturday with that whole thing about whether the market could provide police protection!

Anyway, Mark said that, in a free market society, firms would only be incentivised to protect their clients, not anybody else. So he said that if your neighbour was getting burgled, and your security firm knew, it would have no incentive, or little incentive to do anything about it.

My thoughts on this are, firstly, it is simply not true that security firms have no incentive not to protect people who are not their clients: Think about mall security. If you were gtting beaten up in your local mall, the security would come help you. You aren't their client, though.

Secondly, Ian's point was good that the firm might want to increase goodwill towards it, kind of like Wal*Mart following hurrican Katrina. However, Mark's point in response was good, that the burglar could have his own security firm, and so yours and his would have to resolve disputes between them, which could be costly for your firm, but it couldn't cover those costs in you bill, etc. On the other hand, though, your firm could film the guy burgling, keep a record of the movements, and submit this in case your neighbour wanted to bring the burglar to justice. This won't cost as much.

However, another thought on this I had was, OK, so that means that if you don't hire the services of private protection agencies, you may not get protected - other firms may have little incentive to protect you, because you haven't paid them to. But so what? Should it really be the case that people should be robbed to pay for the protection of others against being robbed because those others don't get their own protection?
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Private protection of our neighbours
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2009, 03:32:56 PM »

Wow, it really kicked off on Saturday with that whole thing about whether the market could provide police protection!

Anyway, Mark said that, in a free market society, firms would only be incentivised to protect their clients, not anybody else. So he said that if your neighbour was getting burgled, and your security firm knew, it would have no incentive, or little incentive to do anything about it.

My thoughts on this are, firstly, it is simply not true that security firms have no incentive not to protect people who are not their clients: Think about mall security. If you were gtting beaten up in your local mall, the security would come help you. You aren't their client, though.

Secondly, Ian's point was good that the firm might want to increase goodwill towards it, kind of like Wal*Mart following hurrican Katrina. However, Mark's point in response was good, that the burglar could have his own security firm, and so yours and his would have to resolve disputes between them, which could be costly for your firm, but it couldn't cover those costs in you bill, etc. On the other hand, though, your firm could film the guy burgling, keep a record of the movements, and submit this in case your neighbour wanted to bring the burglar to justice. This won't cost as much.

However, another thought on this I had was, OK, so that means that if you don't hire the services of private protection agencies, you may not get protected - other firms may have little incentive to protect you, because you haven't paid them to. But so what? Should it really be the case that people should be robbed to pay for the protection of others against being robbed because those others don't get their own protection?

and...

isn't that what we've got now?

Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Private protection of our neighbours
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2009, 03:37:41 PM »


here again we're falling into the trap of attempting to flesh something out BEFORE ending the current looting...

your question is based on a questionable premise to begin with...and that is that a person would be inclined to pay a protection service...


sounds like how the mafia works...put a mask on...go beat up some people...take the mask off...go back and offer to provide protection for a small fee...


AND THAT'S WHY ALL AGGRESSION/FORCE/FRAUD SHOULD BE REFUSED, REPELLED, DESTROYED, AND ELIMINATED...

no more mobsters...government approved or otherwise...

enjoy!

Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Private protection of our neighbours
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2009, 06:12:42 PM »

Wow, it really kicked off on Saturday with that whole thing about whether the market could provide police protection!

Anyway, Mark said that, in a free market society, firms would only be incentivised to protect their clients, not anybody else. So he said that if your neighbour was getting burgled, and your security firm knew, it would have no incentive, or little incentive to do anything about it.

My thoughts on this are, firstly, it is simply not true that security firms have no incentive not to protect people who are not their clients: Think about mall security. If you were gtting beaten up in your local mall, the security would come help you. You aren't their client, though.

Secondly, Ian's point was good that the firm might want to increase goodwill towards it, kind of like Wal*Mart following hurrican Katrina. However, Mark's point in response was good, that the burglar could have his own security firm, and so yours and his would have to resolve disputes between them, which could be costly for your firm, but it couldn't cover those costs in you bill, etc. On the other hand, though, your firm could film the guy burgling, keep a record of the movements, and submit this in case your neighbour wanted to bring the burglar to justice. This won't cost as much.

However, another thought on this I had was, OK, so that means that if you don't hire the services of private protection agencies, you may not get protected - other firms may have little incentive to protect you, because you haven't paid them to. But so what? Should it really be the case that people should be robbed to pay for the protection of others against being robbed because those others don't get their own protection?

and...

isn't that what we've got now?



No.
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Private protection of our neighbours
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2009, 06:17:57 PM »


here again we're falling into the trap of attempting to flesh something out BEFORE ending the current looting...

"If we don't know where we're going, chances are we won't get there." Linda and Morris Tannehill

Quote
your question is based on a questionable premise to begin with...and that is that a person would be inclined to pay a protection service...

Why wouldn't they? Don't people want protecting against those that would harm their person or property?

Quote
sounds like how the mafia works...

The security guard in your local mall is a mafioso?!

Quote
put a mask on...go beat up some people...take the mask off...go back and offer to provide protection for a small fee...

That sounds to me how like how states work.

Quote
AND THAT'S WHY ALL AGGRESSION/FORCE/FRAUD SHOULD BE REFUSED, REPELLED, DESTROYED, AND ELIMINATED...

no more mobsters...government approved or otherwise...

enjoy!

Errrrr... ok. What does that have to do with anything?
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Private protection of our neighbours
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2009, 04:09:51 AM »


here again we're falling into the trap of attempting to flesh something out BEFORE ending the current looting...

"If we don't know where we're going, chances are we won't get there." Linda and Morris Tannehill

Quote
your question is based on a questionable premise to begin with...and that is that a person would be inclined to pay a protection service...

Why wouldn't they? Don't people want protecting against those that would harm their person or property?

Quote
sounds like how the mafia works...

The security guard in your local mall is a mafioso?!

Quote
put a mask on...go beat up some people...take the mask off...go back and offer to provide protection for a small fee...

That sounds to me how like how states work.

Quote
AND THAT'S WHY ALL AGGRESSION/FORCE/FRAUD SHOULD BE REFUSED, REPELLED, DESTROYED, AND ELIMINATED...

no more mobsters...government approved or otherwise...

enjoy!

Errrrr... ok. What does that have to do with anything?
Just ignore him, he's a nutter
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Private protection of our neighbours
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2009, 06:50:58 AM »


here again we're falling into the trap of attempting to flesh something out BEFORE ending the current looting...

"If we don't know where we're going, chances are we won't get there." Linda and Morris Tannehill

Quote
your question is based on a questionable premise to begin with...and that is that a person would be inclined to pay a protection service...

Why wouldn't they? Don't people want protecting against those that would harm their person or property?

Quote
sounds like how the mafia works...

The security guard in your local mall is a mafioso?!

Quote
put a mask on...go beat up some people...take the mask off...go back and offer to provide protection for a small fee...

That sounds to me how like how states work.

Quote
AND THAT'S WHY ALL AGGRESSION/FORCE/FRAUD SHOULD BE REFUSED, REPELLED, DESTROYED, AND ELIMINATED...

no more mobsters...government approved or otherwise...

enjoy!

Errrrr... ok. What does that have to do with anything?
Just ignore him, he's a nutter

Fair enough
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Private protection of our neighbours

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.