Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

For the sake that this is a debate site I will take the side opposing you... this will be fun!Ah, come on. It's already me vs. the world here! =pMcDonald's is that a half-ass food service? To many yes, yet people buy from them despite them being half-assed and unhealthy... they do this by cutting corners to cut time and save money on products increasing profit. By your logic it should be out of business, it's not thanks to the fact that free enterprise doesn't care about quality, but about amount of money made. A robotized police force could go around some of these issues, but has a massive overhead cost.In this case it would depend on what is meant by "half-ass". Sure, the food isn't healthy, but people find it delicious and that's been enough to keep people coming back. I see no problem in it, they're supplying a demand and it's working for them. Any business can "cut-corners" to the extent that people don't care. People know McDonald's is unhealthy, but they don't buy their food for the health benefits, just the taste; so it doesn't matter. The same is true for privatized police. People won't care too much if they (the police agency) uses revolvers or go for the less expensive semi-automatics, so long as they do the best job for the price. Once a company starts cutting corners to the extent that it negatively affects their service (or product), you would see a drop off in customers. But in a free-enterprise system people can open up their own competing business and if people don't like the monopoly they can use your service... some people already use private companies for a police force (some gated communities, some resorts) so there is potential that a privatized police force could come into the mainstream (why hasn't it?). So the regular police force isn't as much of a monopoly as you think, but it still has a large share of the market. Very significant questions and points. First of all, for an organization to be considered a monopoly, it's not necessary for it to be the sole provider of the service, but rather just have sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.You were thinking of a [monopsony] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony). The reason why privatized police agencies haven't become more popular is because governments have a coercive monopoly over this industry. Which means, you have to pay for the governments service (via taxation) whether you use it or not. You can see how this would heavily cripple the free-enterprise agencies as very few people are willing (or could even afford) to pay for two police agencies.The fact that there are entire communities (even if they're only small) that are willing to pay for protection from a privatized company on top of paying for the monopolized service really shows how bare-minimum and unsatisfactory the government's police system really is. Can you give an example of costumers stop paying a company that starts to militarize? The business plot is interesting, but unprovable. If anything a private police force would be the easiest company to mask a militarization, they could get more funding because more customers would like the 'sliding' level of protection (with the highest tiers having Assault rifles and such) with the higher cost for the better gear; so people would be paying for the militarization.Governments need two things to function. 1. a Tax baseand2. a militaryThere are a lot more nuances and mechanisms in place, obviously, but ultimately you need only a tax base to fund your military and a military to expand and protect your government. The thing is, the foundation of a tax base cannot be founded on coercion alone. You have to actually convince the populace that they need you and are better off with you... which is hard to do when there are a bazillion other like-companies ready to serve you. If a company tries to start an "empire" or whatever, it would only be too easy for everyone to opt out of their business and invest in a less maniacal one.I don't know of any time where a free-market company was in such a position to militarize, but it's easy to see why.Actually there were states, but micro-states with limited influence over the individual... so libertarianism it is then? Also there was law, but unwritten laws and societal expectations; which have a large influence over what you do. So it differs on the cultural background, and about size of the micro-states.In Somalia some areas were better off, like banking and industry... and others were worse off, like violence but due to warlords taking advantage of the situation, and wanting control of it all through war...Understand, I'm not opposed to order and law; I'm very much for them, but only if it is emergent. Order that emerges from natural and free interaction is another example of the market, which really is simply people coming together in order to achieve more than they ever could alone. This is opposed to a top-down order meant to serve a few "elite" cowards which stems from heavy indoctrination... about 12 years worth. Prove it, why do states keep appearing? There is a reason. Get the facts out, I want to see them. I'm interested.Ah, now here is a question I am asked far too infrequently. It's no secret that ancient man was an insane ego-maniac... at least by our contemporary standards. Of course, man has become less insane over the ages due to changes in child-rearing. These changes have been labeled and divided into what's known as psycho-classes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory http://www.psychohistory.com/Here's were it gets interesting. Each class correlates to a certain form of government and guess what it ends with. =pGovernment exists and will continue to exist so long as people believe society cannot function without it. People are starting to wake up. And the more they wake up, the faster the process becomes.