Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
So how is this in conflict with my claims? Violent guys are not really strong - your bank robbers run away because they are weak, instead, the police forces the bank to pay taxes and does not run away. So, who is the strong one, and who is the weak one?Not very realistic. Bank robbers rarely are more than a three man team. "Second story thieves" work alone. In general, the reverse is true - i.e. the most violent ones are not well socialized.
Of course. But organizing drug trade is, in itself, a highly social activity, it creates a lot of jobs, a lot of people live from this. This is a quite general effect: Organised crime appears where the state forbids something which would exists in a free market society on the base of volitional contracts - prostitution, gambling, drugs, alcohol and tobacco, all this requires cooperation to be provided to willing customers, thus, is in this sense an illegal form of social, cooperative behaviour.The Mexican drug lord who recently escaped, has killed several thousand people. He gets lots of cooperation, via terror; as evidenced by multi-year construction of a mile long tunnel 30 yards below the surface with lights, ventilation shafts and air conditioning! - Not a weak guy at all.
No. The security firms would, of course, offer also defense against such killers, and this defense would be as dangerous for the contract killers than police today, if not more. One can expect that the contract killers will make different prices for killing customers of different firms in dependence of this danger, and that, in reaction, these prices can be used as arguments in the competition between security firms.You may need to pay a little more (now because of governments making it a crime with huge penalty if caught) but even now, "contract killers" are for hire. With your system, getting someone killed you don't like would be cheap, it you don't want to do the job yourself.
Sorry, but this is wild phantasy. Alibis is something which works only if people believe them, but if a firm offers them for money nobody will believe them, thus, this is nothing which could be openly sold. Then, there is, of course, punishment of crime, always has been, even without states. And democratic law is also vindicatively.Not true. Bad people may just pay more, especially to firms that supply rock solid alibies for crimes the bad guys commit. Without punishment crime, including violent crime, rates would soar. True that without government vigilante groups would form a they did in the early days of the "wild west" but quite often they are vindictively used.
In fact, gated communities will be much safer than states today, because they are based on volitional agreement of all who live there with the rules of the community, and banishment would be a possible cheap penalty for those who violate the community rules. This would allow the people to leave their doors unclosed and let their children play outside without supervision. And, no, gated communities are not only a possibility for the rich, the costs for them are not that big.