The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy

[@jcwebb540]

Dear Mises Institute, The questions from the audience are vital. Do not leave them out.

[@RedWinePlease]

I agree. I'd like to hear whether someone questions his statements that the State has a monopoly in defining and executing law. Which is clearly false. There are private law review journals and private and public colleges to review and make opinion on law. It's at best hyperbole to say the government has a monopoly on defining law given the number of law journals in existence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_law_journals en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_review#United_States I have yet to find it written that a government (US, state, or local) declares it provides the most effective and efficient security. In fact, states support private security firms. They license individuals and firms to give the public some assurance they are trained, protect rights and property, and use legal force. Private investigators are typically hired to locate and recover stolen property. California, for example, requires firms to have liability insurance, complies with Federal and State laws, is trained, had experience in a related field, uses appropriate weapons, and other requirements that assure the public they are not a threat in conducting their profession. California is not alone in recognizing the right of individuals to provide or hire private security services. www.bsis.ca.gov/about_us/laws/index.shtml www.dos.ny.gov/licensing/privateinvest/privatei.html www.dos.ny.gov/licensing/securityguard/sguard.html

[@William_Asston]

@@RedWinePlease competition between a private business and a public one is unbalanced. this is the case with everything from schools to investigators to defense agencies. the state has a monopoly over law, defense, and judiciary action in that they are the only ones with the unfair advantage of coercive taxation over the competitors. furthermore, the private agencies still must work under the law and regulation of the state, which is another restraint upon honest competitive markets. regarding law journals, they do not write the law nor enforce it. they have influence, but not nearly enough to act as a real market competitor the way dispute resolution agencies would.

[@moldyorangepeel]

Not gonna lie, i upvoted this at the start of the video based on the presenter and subject alone. I have complete faith Murphy is about to deliver an amazing speech.

[@OpenSourceAnarchist]

That's hilarious I did the exact same thing!

[@mishochu7050]

I waited and still upvoted...granted, the odds were in your favor

[@donaldclifford5763]

Yes, Murrphy is my go to guy for all things Austrian and Rothbardian.

[@Lechteron]

I always look forward to this presentation from Bob. It was the 2011 version of this speech that ripped away the last vestiges of minarchism for me and convinced me of anarchy.

[@rodvazfel]

t took me a whole year of studying to go from minarchist to anarchy. It's been a great journey :).

[@maciej.ratajczak]

@@rodvazfel Although there is overlap and polysemy, I always try to use the word ANARCHISM when debating with socialists. The word ANARCHY can be misrepresentative, offputting and frightening for them. ANARCHY - state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems. ANARCHISM - political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

[@rockwellspipe6115]

Bob Murphy is my favorite lecturer

[@OverlordSolvent]

Murphy's idea about prison being simply a place with low standards of customer trust was a real gem. It follows elegantly from the logic of people having the freedom to evict people from their property for whatever reason.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Crimes that cannot be recompensed, rape, maiming, murder, I put is a separate category. Genuine punishment, including capital punishment is justified with these transgressions.

[@SquareNoggin]

I really loved his theory on 'prisons' in the free society. I'd never even considered this, and it makes perfect sense. But consider that many of the people in prison right now have parents, wives, children, etc. that would be willing to keep the offender on their property, understanding that this means they'd have to check their behavior and that the neighbors and the community would likely have high expectations as far as them not allowing the serial killer, gang banger, thief, (or whatever) to roam the streets at night, that the family would have to provide for them, etc. But we all know there are many families of violent criminals that would be more than willing to do this, and frankly I think even that would be far preferable than housing them in a state prison with a bunch of other criminals where they simply develop and hone their criminal mentality. Instead they'd be living with presumably law abiding people who have every incentive to try and instill pro-social values and behaviors in their loved one. Over time the neighbors and the community might see the progress made in the individual, and might slowly start allowing them to live among the community again, given that they and their family have slowly but surely proven that the individual has changed and gotten better. You don't have to read about or know much about prisons in America today to know that so so many of the people in there would be far less violent and far more able to integrate socially if they spent the duration of their sentences living with their parents again... I'm sure there's lots of big bad violent dudes who resist and reject authority wherever they see it but are reduced to a puppy with their tail between their legs when the woman that bore them starts chastising them. Especially in the case of young men who act in criminal ways; they often have parents who have been trying desperately to get their son back at home to no avail, and obviously when they end up in prison their behaviors often just get worse and worse. But if they were forced to live at home again just because no other property owners in the community would allow them to actually be there, and the choice is between going back home to mom and dad or going to one of these institutions, they'd likely often choose going back home. Where mom and dad can have a second chance at instilling the right kind of values and behaviors in their son. Obviously this wouldn't apply to everybody, but it would certainly apply to many criminals. We all know that so many petty criminals are just young men who weren't given enough parenting, who spent their time in prison-like public schools and then actual prisons as opposed to being mentored and taught by people who love them unconditionally and have a personal stake in their lives, who's parents were forced to work all the time in our interventionist economy just to scrape by, who's fathers were given incentive not to stick around because of a welfare state... There is a natural order that arises when we start on the basis of property rights and the NAP, and it really seems that in every single instance the solutions that natural order would present us with are far preferable to what we have now.

[@donaldclifford5763]

I've read Rothbard's "For a New Liberty". It is mind expanding. I do however see a legitimate case for the state to control national defense. The true benefits of freedom can only be realized over a large enough safe secure geographic area. Collective self defense is a public good in that everyone benefits, indivisibly. The potential threats will use collective state power. A free society dare not trust the good will of all others at all times. And nuclear deterrence is best handled under some form of public auspices.

[@rodvazfel]

I desagree with you. Tha market can provide security better than the state, because it has better incentives. And it doesn't mean to trust the good will of others.

[@RedWinePlease]

Donald, I agree with you. Due to the benefits of the division of labor, experts in geopolitics, espionage, military tactics and defense would emerge. To be effective, they would be integrated into public and private institutions. It's laughable to think that a single isolated firm in Nevada, for example, would know how many snipers or surface-to-air missiles are needed to defend against an attack to Florida. What's needed, and what we have today, is an integrated intelligence service to assess risks and an integrated military force to respond to them. Today we have private and public organizations providing those services. Whether they are effective or efficient is a valid debate. What's not debatable is whether an integrated service is needed. It's structure would be top down, like any corporation today.

[@karlmarxthebolshevikrabbi2536]

Rodrigo, go ahead and explain how the market can provide incentives for national defence. Are you going to have little competing armies? If that's the libertarian solution, it won't be effective against a standing army.

[@MissCatherine1100]

34:29 "We will tell the convicted serial killer to come on in here, sign this agreement that you will abide by the rules..." The murderer does not care about rules, as is evidenced by his multiple murders. This will not work. You are assuming a moral people. That is not what we have.

[@sylviahalo]

“The judges would be fair…. If they were female judges, they’d be the fairest maidens in the land” lolllll

[@Mujangga]

"They don't take money from thousands of people and then insult you by saying that we're doing this as a favor to you..." Has Murphy never been to Italy? Why does he keep invoking works of fiction like _It's a Wonderful Life_ and now _The Godfather_ as examples? Banks don't operate like in that movie and the Mafia sure as hell isn't at all like in the _The Godfather_ . The Mafia wouldn't turn into the government: Different families would fight each other in a perpetual war like hey have been doing in Italy for 700 years now. Which is worse than the government we have now: Why did so many Italian immigrants want to come to North America?

[@holiday311]

I'd like to know what money is in a free society. Gold, Silver, Bitcoin? What do we base the value on?

[@suereed]

Bob Murphy and the Prisons, brilliant bloody brilliant. This will be the next default.

[@Mujangga]

John Jones...? Don't you mean LeShon Martin?

[@Mujangga]

Interesting how Murphy invokes the Metric system which happens to have been invented and enforced by a government specifically to solve the problem of unregulated and customary local systems of weights and measures...

[@JohnDaCajun]

What happens if one does not believe that killing their 1 year old child is murder in this system? Genuine question.