Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy

[@mackuss]

Criminals need to be genuinely fearful of their actions.

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

This video makes me want to see Paul Krugman give a lecture titled "Coercive Monopoly for Security | Paul Krugman" just to have a good laugh. Way to go Bob Murphy!

[@Hashishin13]

This is probably my favourite lecture from Murphy, can't wait to see if hes made any revisions.

[@suereed]

Sure you want your TV back, and he should not get away with it. Hence your hiring a security agency to reclaim your private property. What if the guy is really big and violent and you get hurt? Is it worth getting hurt to claim back an item that is avaliable in any shop? Maybe the TV is insured and the insurance agency gives you a refund so you can go out and buy another one without the action of violence. How neat is that? But if you want to go and reclaim the TV yourself I wouldn't stop you.

[@mackuss]

His comment about a security guard breaking the arm of a kid who shoplifted, "It's not good for business" - says HIM. He's really not taking into account the almost unfathomable variability of humans. It's this video's biggest downfall. I would most certainly hire security guards who used intense force - because anyone who walked into my establishment and saw those guards would know to be civil.

[@ingolfringolfrson1577]

Exactly

[@d4n4nable]

I actually prefer David Friedman's "The machinery of freedom". Although similar, Murphy's arguments are rather weak from time to time ("they would agree on a judge eventually", etc.), imho. Friedman argues that everyone would hire a security agency and those are the ones who agree on an arbitrator, because they don't want to fight each other, because that would cost ot much. To me that's a better approach. They agree to not defend the one found guilty when enforcing the compensation.

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

The private military companies could get paid from the insurance companies who get paid by the consumers who pay premiums for the guarantee that *if* the peace time ends and there is a way then their property will be protected in such and such way. The insurance companies could pay the defense companies not just through bounties but through other ways which would keep them afloat during peace time.

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

48:07: "You wouldn't have sadistic guards. You also wouldn't have prisoners raping each other and all kinds of disgusting stuff that happens in the real world..." Ready for the smallest critique ever? By "in the real world" I think you mean "currently." The free society that will exist in the future will be real.

[@Bindahaha]

No, watch the first minute, then like, the watch the rest. Awesome lecturer right? Mises can bore sometimes, but this had me hooked.

[@kevinbabicz]

I liked this Seinfeld episode

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Fantastic lecture, Bob Murphy. I especially love your proposed extremely-humane voluntary market solution to the difficult problem of how to deal with criminals: hotel prisons. I have always felt uneasy when trying to answer questions about how to deal with violent criminals due to a fear of supporting something that goes beyond what is justified. Under what conditions can you justly lock someone in a cage? How long can you justly keep them locked up? Justice Hotels make these questions moot.

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Perhaps misesmedia should name this video "Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy 2012" to distinguish it from last year's version of the lecture: "The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy": /watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw It's lacking the "The" in the title but adding the year could be helpful to make it more obvious which is which. #NotSureWhyImSuggestingATitleChangeInCommentSection I loved last year's lecture. I'll watch this one tonight.

[@zJLpie77J]

just look at the replacement referees, where the union referees were obviously superior, and market chosen. murphy is right in saying that things that make sense would be brought about, such as NFL refs, cannot be fans of certain teams, and if one ref rules with the same team. this also goes forth on why the NFL knows that fair referees are important, and that's why they allow coaches to challenge rulings, and why they review very important plays.

[@mackuss]

Still watching it all the way through (at 30), but I really don't see this working at all..All of the scenarios he points out are too specific with subsequent solutions. It's just me but I almost have a Spartan way of thinking - personal strength, etc. I don't even mean physical. But quite frankly, if thieves didn't have fear of immediate death by thieving, then thieving suddenly because not SO BAD of a job...infact, there are incentives....

[@d4n4nable]

Today's private prisons get their revenue by lowering their costs as much as possible (without caring about living conditions) and by getting as many convicts assigned by the government as possible. Murphy's prisons would be paid like a landlord BY the prisoners, who would have to pay A prison, but they could chose. Because of competition the prisons would improve their living standards to keep the "customers".

[@BarrySlisk]

I don't have to get hurt. I send my security provider like I would send the police today. If he is big and violent then my security provider must hire some kick boxers and Jackie Chan types :) What happens to insurance premiums if people let others take their stuff all the time? I don't know the English word for it but usually you pay some money just for using the insurance also. It's best to live in a society where there are consequences for crime. This will minimize crime.

[@mackuss]

The part about judges not being used because they were "too hard on crime" or vice versa is also a fallacy as well as another problem. It would turn into punishing a judge if he just HAPPENED to rule (lawfully) against lots of criminals. I mean, ultimately, that IS the end goal of judges - to rule in the favor of justice. And people would be in court unless there was a crime.

[@d4n4nable]

I also don't see how the private military companies would survive peace times if they are only paid by bounties. It's not as if you could just buy a tank on the spot and fight the invaders. I belive it's more sensible to belive that the insurance companies themselves would play the "army"-part, together with security firms in some way through contracts.

[@BarrySlisk]

Murphy seems to think that a free market will remove all need for violence or force. This only "works" if you let others dominate you without a fight. But what is my incentive to sign up with a security provider who is too scared to get my stuff back? Waste of money. I want to buy the meanest (but still somewhat civilized) mothers I can find.

[@mackuss]

And the TV thing was stupid because he didn't once entertain the (and probably more realistic scenario) of not knowing at ALL who stole the TV. Literally coming home and it's gone and the only evidence is a tire track.

[@robertturley2974]

The problem is cost. If someone stole you TV there is not enough economic benefit for anyone involved to take it to court, especially if you have insurance agencies covering costs, they would just pay you the cost of the TV and be done. There is however a a social benefit in catching thieves, both in terms of punishment and in deterrence. His vision also thinks a right to privacy is suspicious. You also lose the right to innocent till proven guilty. Bob Murphy just doesn't seem that smart, especially in subjects outside of simple economics. Why is he so prevalent in libertarian circles?

[@boscopit]

This is a ridiculous scenario. Not everyone is an upstanding citizen. Go watch Demolition Man

[@aretlev]

There is always going to be a government whether we like it or not, not that I am going to stand in the way of Rothbardians in their endeavors.

[@pgplaysvidya]

/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw same title same lecturer same content? I haven't watched either

[@TheMisterMaster3000]

6m10s -> That was a good Insider with Paul Krugman and the aliens. "and buy his book". This is my humor^^

[@Caleb983]

Is it okay to hit like before watching the video? I mean, like... it's ROBERT P. MURPHY!!!!!!

[@SaulOhio]

Bob Murphy and Tom Woods never bore.

[@PSExposed]

Albeit, at times, this certain skill is mastered, too, by Walter Block.

[@boscopit]

He isn't even making any sense. He's just rambling

[@MrJigssaw1989]

Horay ! Another lectury for Bob Murphy. He rocks !

[@MuffinTopExpress]

A photo of Han & Chewy would have been much more appropriate.

[@d4n4nable]

What if the guy has an security provider too and says that he didn't do anything? Do you think the two security providers would fight a war over your TV? Of course not. They would go to an arbitrator.

[@jl9062]

d4n4nable What if one side doesn't want to go to a arbitrator?

[@bobleglob162]

minarchy - just the tip, please.

[@BarrySlisk]

The thief would never agree to that if if knows that he has a bad case. Why would he? What would he gain?

[@kylehasgeniusbits]

Being able to interact with other in society. Same as when a company or individual defaults on their credit, future credit will be hard if not impossible to secure. A criminal that does not settle their crime debt might be socially, economically, and otherwise ostracized.

[@rumco]

For goodness sake. It's his personal preference.

[@imajinl.]

11 years later and this still hits the spot!

[@Waltonruler5]

Or they stop coming altogether.

[@humanhiveanomaly]

Murphy in a shiny coat!

[@NormanBauer]

Interesting, I was just reading Gustave de Molinari two weeks ago and this pops up. Thanks Dr. Murphy!

[@goldenplayroblox5985]

:D

[@LukeAvedon]

Wow that suit is shiny!

[@Loyal2Liberty]

Nice link! Thanks.

[@BarrySlisk]

I think Murphy's views are a bit naive. I someone stole my TV I want my security company to kick down his door and get my TV and break the guys jaw (OK at least he must be punished somehow). I certainly don't want them to wait for hours or days outside hoping he will "surrender". Who pays for all those wasted man hours? ME THE CUSTOMER!!! And Murphy obviously thinks that stealing his stuff is OK unless it's very expensive things. No, the bastard stole my TV. He should not get away with it.

[@RothbardianMe]

Just a couple hundred years ago, people almost certainly said things like "There is always going to be slavery whether we like it or not, not that I am going to stand in the way of abolitionists in their efforts." I'm definitely not expecting to see a stateless society in my lifetime, but screw that defeatist-noise!

[@Hashishin13]

Really, so coercive taxation is similar to subscribing to a service huh? Millions being thrown in jail for non-violent victimless crimes is exactly the same as those people being free? Also, make more assertions why don't you.

[@BarrySlisk]

But in the anarchist mindset I would not be allowed to go get my TV. Because I cannot enter another mans property. This is the major problem with anarchism.