Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Rent-a-Cop Message-ID: <28200391@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 15-Dec-85 14:17:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200391 Posted: Sun Dec 15 14:17:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 19:53:51 EST References: <883@mmintl.UUCP> Lines: 117 Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-88300:inmet:28200391:000:5826 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Dec 15 14:17:00 1985 >/* Written 5:08 pm Dec 12, 1985 by franka@mmintl in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Rent-a-Cop" ---------- */ >It has been suggested by various libertarians, on the net and elsewhere, that >it would be desirable to eliminate governmental police forces, in favor of >private law enforcement. I will here set forth what I think the most likely >result of such a development would be. > >Consider what this new industry would be like. It would be a new business, >in which the use of guns and other instruments of power is at a premium. It >would also be a business whose domination is a source of considerable power >in itself. In short, it would be an ideal target for organized crime. > >I am quite sure that organized crime would take over the private police >business in many areas. I suspect it would come to dominate it overall, >although some areas might manage to remain free of it. For a good example of libertarians having anticipated you (somewhat) see "The Syndic" by C.M. Kornbluth. Were your argument correct, the logical move for the mob to take NOW would be the domination of politics -- and they would have succeeded: not just in a relatively few places like the regulation of gambling, but more on the order of limiting the current round of mob-leader roundups. Nobody argues that they haven't partially succeeded: there are certainly mob-connected politicians. They haven't entirely succeeded in politics for the same reason they wouldn't entirely succeed in the rent-a-cop business: people don't regard the Mob as dependable and honest: given a choice, people choose to deal with others. The Mob has two choices then, if it wants to succeed in the rent-a-cop business: it can become honest and dependable enough that people are willing to deal with it (that's sort of the scenario in The Syndic) or it can become vicious and tough enough that it kills all the competitors, which would be very difficult indeed, and wouldn't prevent the formation of private police organizations later. The Mob would certainly have other troubles in a Libertarian society though: it would be in danger of starving to death. Consider what I understand to be the three main money sources of the Mob: o Drugs o Prostitution o Gambling My understanding is that the rest (leg-breaking, protection, fraud) are really minor adjuncts to these. In a libertarian society, you can get the drugs from 7-11, the prostitution in a clean (if inherently sleazy) bordello down the street, and the gambling at any street casino. Right now, our government obligingly gives these activities into the hands of criminals (by keeping them out of the hands of honest folk). Given a choice, I'd rather gamble in the "American Express Casino" than in the "Don Carleone Emporium" -- but I don't have the choice. In the areas where gambling is partially legalized it is heavily regulated, and those regulators are indeed often Mob-dominated. The "American Express Casino", to defend itself, would of course hire or form a security force emphatically NOT connected with the Mob. As would 7-11 and the bordello. This is not to say that the Mob wouldn't exist in a libertarian society, merely that it wouldn't have nearly the chance to grab power that you seem to think it does. Only in its least-profitable ventures (leg-breaking protection) would it be relatively free from competition. Even these would become much more risky, given an armed populace. It's also not to say that Libertaria is safe from internal imposition of a government -- Libertaria isn't, and neither is the US. To answer one or two of your points directly: >Why should organized crime be more effective at taking over private police >than public police? Because they have more ways to accomplish it. The only >method available for taking over a public police force is infiltration. (I hope by this you include corruption, both of the police and of their superiors, otherwise you've missed a bet). >With private police, one can also set up competing organizations. Also, >when police forces are run for profit motives, the temptation to resort >to extortion is strong; even those which are not taken over by the Mob are >likely to become centers of organized crime. The same argument applies to banks and barbershops. The problem with the argument is that part of what you'd like to buy from a police force is trustworthiness. If "Don Carleone Protections, Inc" refuses to allow open review of its actions, it will find that folks are a little queasy about hiring it to protect them. If it is exposed in the press, and takes military action against the press, it will find itself in a small war (the critical press is no more likely to hire Mob-connected protection than is American Express). The Mafia is not good at war -- they're good at extortion. They'd lose. All it would take would be one large, well-trusted organization, such as Pinkerton's, to offer competing protection in the neighborhood to make folks able to choose trustworthy service over the untrustworthy. Remember, the Pinks wouldn't be required not to entrap the mob in Libertaria -- a few aborted attempts at leg-breaking would probably expose the Mob operation pretty fatally. Of course, it is possible that the Mob would conduct this aspect of its business scrupulously, in which case it would suffer from a PR problem, nothing more. >It is not out of the question that the final result of such an experiment >would be the takeover of government by organized crime. And again, I suggest "The Syndic", which makes for entertaining reading. In the end, of course, this is simply counter-speculation to your speculation. Neither of us can show it to be correct, but I hope I've pointed out some of the forces that would counter your scenario.