Adam Reed wrote: "Yes, the problem is with the whole proprietary model for government."That is a different matter, entirely. One of the problems with this discussion -- not just here on SOLO, but historically -- is that these different threads get woven into one skein. How can you approve of capitialism when the business leaders lined up behind Hitler and Mussolini? Well, you can approve of capitalism because you tease the conceptually correct thread out of the twisted skein.
A proprietary model for government has some advantages over tyranny, monarchy, democracy, etc., etc. Under a proprietary model for government, you could buy more votes for yourself, for instance. That would need some checks and balances, perhaps, but that is government -- and I am discussing something else entirely.
AR: We know that people who own a government - or an equivalent, such as a "market government agency" can get away with murder ...As we agree the people who own anything always will maximize their opportunities.
1. I question the validity of "market government agency." It is a contradiction in terms. My point through all of this is that protection is not government. A locksmith is not a detective, or a bailiff, or a jury foreman or a judge or a warden or an executioner. A locksmith is a free market solution to your perceived need to protect your property.
1.b. As a corollary, you agree that socialism does not work. So, you will not be surprised to discover that according to the latest statistics, police detectives solve only 15% of the cases brought to trial. The other 85% are solved by the people in the area of the crime. Those people tell the police what the detective fails to discover in six cases out of seven.
1.c. If you disappear, do not look to the police to figure out what happened to Adam Reed.
2. The questions come down to what it is that the organization does and who it is that these people are. In many ways, organizations seem to take on lives of their own. I think they would do that whether or not corporations were "eternal artificial individuals" under the law. Why do corporations dump toxic wastes in streams and rivers? (I know that you are opposed to this, but that is not my question.) They do it because they can. (But not everyone does -- in fact, very few do. As it so happens that on a tangent The Hallcrest Report cites Mobil Oil for engaging its own environmental protection policies in 1956.) Even today, few police agencies are equipped or trained to handle such a violation of your rights. You have to go to a state or federal agency. You know what that is like.
On the other hand, the American Arbitration Association -- using many contractors and a small staff -- rendered 2 million separate decisions at an average cost of $30 each.
Obviously, the free market is superior to the government. You grant that. This means that even such excesses as must occur from human fraility and folly must be mitigated better by agoric alternatives better than by socialist solutions. And they are. This is not theory. It is practice. The number of uniformed patrollers in private agencies surpassed government cops sometime in the 1960s. The dollar market size of private protection surpassed tax dollars spent on police in 1977. This is how the world works. The government just continues to propagandize through its schools and television stations.
AR: It is in my interest that there be as few of them as possible.One of the reasons that before 1870, Germany and Italy were areas of culture and learning is that they were not states. You could move from one locale to another. If you did not like the prince or duke, you could go live next door. Rulers competed with each other for artisans and artists -- at least some did. Others did not like them and drove them out. Fortunately, with a plurality of polities, they had someplace to go. Pluralism is generally more conducive to the values we share than is "iron unity through blood and strength" or asking not what your leaders really are good for but asking how you can be good for them.