Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Rent-a-Cop
Message-ID: <916@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 22:11:40 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.916
Posted: Wed Dec 18 22:11:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 02:59:25 EST
References: <883@mmintl.UUCP> <28200391@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 104

In article <28200391@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>/* 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.
>
>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.

No.  Today, there is an opposing organization which wishes to prevent the
mob from taking over because it wishes to exercize control itself -- the
government.

>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.

They only have to deter all the competitors, which is much easier.  It also
deals with the formation of other 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.

This is true in our society.  I am claiming that in an anarchy, extortion
would move to the top of the list, and more than make up for the loss of
the other revenues.

>>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).

I do.

>>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.

And once a large, well-trusted organization (it had better be bigger than
Pinkerton's) wipes out the mob, people will want it to stay around and
make sure it doesn't happen again.  Those in the organization will think
this is a good idea, too.

Either way, you wind up with a new government, and one which is less
responsible to the populace than what we have now.

>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.

Yes, but I hope I have at least given you some idea of what I meant a
while back when I said that social experimentation is dangerous.

Power abhors a vacuum.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108