The Cola Wars were not violent and we are a better judge of the risks we face than the State... they have no price to act upon
Individuals have a natural instinct to prevent crime, they want to live in a safe and secure environment and instinctively detect and seek to extinguish threats against them. The State monopolises security services (makes vigilantism illegal) to the detriment of Society.
There is no monopoly on truth and certainly not of justice so the authority of the State to administer "justice" has no legitimacy.
Crime would be handled by communities but without a centralised authority. The outcome (of the action) would be the judge of (the quality of) any interventionist act. Centralised authoritarian crime-prevention doesn't work because they are removed from the problem, ignorant of the subtleties of the local situation. Failure to solve the problem efficiently does not harm the State because their revenue is not dependent on performance.
Public sector policing doesn't work because there is no price incentive, there is no way to reliably differentiate between that is genuinely important to people so they end up doing whatever is easiest for them to avoid reprimand.
Helping someone out of fear of punishment for not doing so is a destructive way to organise Society because it means we do not answer to our own instincts but instead must guess what would be valued by others. If we do nothing we must answer to a perceived authority and give an explanation of our apparent laziness... instead we should act only if the impulse to so is our own...
It is damaging to act on what we perceive the desires and wants of another person to be because we are only guessing and our wants are often not shared or common to all.
Public sector policing doesn't work because people are not acting out of their own instincts and biases, they are acting on behalf of others... Someone always acts more efficiently when they are providing for themselves and so security services run by those who would most directly benefit are more efficient. We are more adept at solving our own problems than the problems of other people and more greatly motivated to do so.
People are better at looking after themselves than being protected by someone with no price incentive. They are a better judge of what makes them feel secure than the State who mandate what they consider to be suitable protection without choice. People should be able to choose their own police protection by rewarding efficient services and removing favour (funding) from those who fail to do a good job.
It might be a good idea to have competing Police services in an area and for the locals to have the ability to reward one or the other for doing a good job with increased funding and financial rewards...
To commit violence always comes with some degree of risk and is costly: People and companies will avoid doing so if the reward is not sufficient compensation and if people are well-off (we generally attack those we fear, or if we have no better choice out of poverty) the rewards will rarely be sufficient. People wouldn't do crime if they were not already made desperate... A competing firm cannot prevent you from improving your product whereas they may be able to prevent you from harming them directly.
If people have freedom, the best way for them to improve their situation is to do something constructive. If someone is not free then it becomes efficient to be destructive. It is important for people to be able to express their disapproval in a meaningful way... to make theft damaging to the thief (if discovered).
We applaud achievement even if it harms our business because it is helpful to mankind, sabotaging another firm achieves nothing for others.
People are themselves a better judge of what makes them safe and efforts should be made to further autonomy of security by allowing people to choose their own form of protection, and removing (to the extent that it is possible) this right of discretion (to chose on their behalf) from the centralised State.
We are less motivated to look after other people than (we are) to look after ourselves. Power should be given to the individual: We can police ourselves
1st February 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment