[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But there is more to it than that. Just because a free market big security insurance service doesn't exist doesn't mean that the poor aren't actively seeking (and using) security. Try thinking about what will happen if you pick a poor person and just keep stealing from him over and over again. It's not going to take long before that person realizes that he HAS to put priority on security, and he will do what he can to defend his property. It could involve calling a favor from a friend to watch the property, it could involve getting a gun, it could involve double-padlocking the door. Whatever it is, this person is going to seek to reduce your chances of repeating the crime, increase the chances of your detection, and increase the chances of you being punished for it. Bottom line: you're better off just buying your cheap crap off of craigslist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this might happen. This is still, effectively, a "tax". Does that make sense? There are neighborhoods in the world in which people have money, in which people have not much in the way of defense and yet in which crime is low. I think ACists (although not AC per se, which I keep saying) fail to grasp this sort of value in strongly tied communities. That's really my point, and one which just seems to be glossed over in the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. And to be honest, I can't say for certain how private security would pan out in a libertarian society. Personally, I see ACism as a collection of small minarchist city-states. I don't think total individualism will be possible for a very long time (I mean, if you get married and share expenses in the co-owned house, couldn't that be considered democracy?)

The ACists here don't think about AC from the perspective of "we simply cannot allow any form of anything that might be considered government into our world!" What we want is to increase the number of options from which people can freely choose, and decentralize power as much as possible. At this point, I can't concieve of how it would be possible to provide security with the same decentralized consumer-friendliness as canned soft drinks, and it is entirely likely that jurisdictions would be confined to homeowner's communities. In that sense, yes, these would be "taxes," however the ease of entering and leaving such communities makes the contract with the "state" a legitimate one. That's how I see it anyway.