When demonstrating the vast history of government failures and shortcomings, most people will invariably point to protection as the shining beacon of government’s efficience and superiority. Comprehending protection without government, for most people, is like asking them to piss in the corner of a round room. “How would anyone feel safe? How would anyone be protected from squatters, rapists, thieves and murderers?” goes the normal line of questioning. Ignoring the implicit premise in that line of thought (that men are terribly evil opportunists, just waiting for the next person to rob, rape, or thieve from – I think it’s fairly easy to demonstrate that this is not the case), with apologies to President Clinton, one is tempted to respond cleverly: “It’s the Market, stupid!”
Fortunately, there are men among us who see the forest for the trees, and endeavor to demonstrate how protection might occur, with more than a simple platitude. Like Yazad Jal, who contributes to the Times of India, and recently wrote a very lucid and enlightening piece about a real world problem and how it might’ve been dealt with (or prevented) under a truly free-market system of law, justice, and protection. He doesn’t update his blog often enough, but I enjoy it.
Anyway, the idea of private insurance, and private protection agencies – I mean really, I don’t think is that hard to get a handle on and understand the concepts. Additionally, I don’t believe that they’re outside the realm of possibility. The problem at present is that the coercive nature of government has basically crowded them out of existence. What else has government got its hands on, that is better taken care of privately? Social Security and OASDI come to mind immediately. The fact of the matter is that the Rich will always be able to compensate for government’s shortcomings. The poor and middle-class cannot.
Of course, in the case of protection, private provision might be seen only as “supplemental,” to the baseline protection offered by the government. But the dichotomy is more profound in the case of education. The public schools, in essence, are so utterly wortheless, that families are willing to pay for two sets of schooling, even though attendance to (and consequent benefits from) are mutually exclusive events. The market for private schooling is preciously small when all people, regardless of income or ability, are required to fund the public schools. Similarly, only the wealthiest neighborhoods, most exclusive clubs and resorts, etc., can afford to piggyback supplemental protection on top of the government-provided protection they are forced to fund, no matter how competent (or incompetent) they may be.
