About The Establishment Of Anarcho-Capitalist Companies In Current TimeGünümüzde Anarko-Kapitalist Şirketlerin Kuruluşu Hakkında

Unlike other anarchies, Anarcho-Capitalism does not need a revolution to happen. We can legally establish companies. We can legally establish police & court companies. Of course, they cannot forcefully arrest & imprison humans. They can only punish by boycotting. But most things the state police can do, private police can do legally. The only state with laws that permanently allow this is probably the United States. This is the main topic of this article.

According to some, Ancap society cannot be created by declaring it. It builds up by proving itself over time. One day, someone will establish these companies. As people become more convinced that corporations are much better than state, state will become smaller and smaller. This is how Ancapistan will be established.

The first thing that comes to mind is that since people already pay taxes for the police and the court, people will not subscribe to them even if they are better and cheaper. However, in this article I also argue that this is wrong. The service can be very cheap and very high quality. People may subscribe even though they pay taxes.

There are 4 reasons for this. I saved the most important for last.

I hope I don't make language mistakes.

Number 1: The fact that victimless crimes, especially drugs (drug crimes: 20% of the American prison population), will not be prosecuted by private companies. Guns, sex, drugs and alcohol are some of the victimless crimes. Still, the big majority of criminals in prison are incarcerated for property and violent crimes. The most common crimes reported to the police are: Larceny/Theft(60%), Burglary(18%), Motor Vehicle Theft(10%), Aggravated Assault(7%), Robbery(3%). So ~98%. Not dealing with victimless crimes reduces costs significantly. This allows you to direct your time and energy to the issues that matter most.

Another issue I would like to draw attention to here is how wrong the view that "People in prison for violent or sexual crimes are too dangerous to be released" is wrong.

More incarceration is not what most victims of crime want. National survey data show that most victims want violence prevention, social investment, and alternatives to incarceration that address the root causes of crime, not more investment in carceral systems that cause more harm.

- prisonpolicy.org (The fourth myth)

The more you examine the prison system and the conditions of imprisonment, the more convinced you be that they are wrong. Therefore, our task is to establish a non-prison rehabilitation and punishment system. Consumer demand is not about putting criminals in prison. Consumer demand is the compensation of the damage and the commitment that the offender will not commit a crime again.

Being unable to imprison criminals gives us the opportunity to develop a much more modern and advanced system. I will address this issue in more detail later in the article.

Number 2: The inefficiency of the state in all fields is also present in the police and court areas. We cannot know to what extent there is inefficiency until we do a thorough research. -In fact, no results can be found with research. Only simple guesses can be made.- But when we look at the precedents in other fields(Privatized sectors that were public in the past), we can guess that it is not less at all.

Mises’s argument was that without private property in the means of production, there can be no market prices for capital goods and therefore no way of calculating the opportunity costs of using capital goods to produce certain goods instead of others. The decisions of central planners of what to produce and by what means would be arbitrary and chaotic.

Because state policing is provided bureaucratically, without market prices and profit and loss, there is no way for police to know whether they have allocated resources to their most highly valued uses. Instead of consumers determining what problems police focus on, bureaucrats and politicians decide.

Number 3: We can integrate unused technologies into the justice system due to the state's inability to keep up with the times. We can revolutionize the justice system. The privatized justice system will be intertwined with the software industry.

Number 4 and the most important thing: We can develop advanced technologies that, although possible, will not be deliberately used by the state.

Before we talk about technology, let's talk about how private companies will operate and the market.

In most countries of the world, the number of private security workers is more than the police.

The global market for private security services, which include private guarding, surveillance and armed transport, is now worth an estimated $235bn, and is projected to grow to $338bn by 2030.

But they are not our rivals. The state is a rival. Although private security is called private police, they are private security. The company partnership that has planned the closest job to the private police to date is called Citizen(An app with 7 million users) & LAPS. An SUV bearing the logo of the Citizen app and the text “Making Your World a Safe Place” was spotted in Los Angeles. However, they have since stated they do not have plans to launch this service.

Another company -that is less police-like compared to them- is MyLocalBobby in London. They are serving. I say police-like because these companies didn't try to be private police. They did not intend this. They just planned to mobilize private security. It's not just about prosecuting criminals. Private security is much more expensive than police. Because the police provides security in a distributed manner. Security does the opposite.

These companies are not Anarcho Capitalist. I doubt they've even heard of libertarianism. They developed this idea completely independently. Citizen must have shelved the project when they realized that they really needed to be a police to get the ideal price level. You can't compete with private security unless you're a police. And if you're a police, you don't compete with private security. That market is already taken. It will still be expensive for the average person in a service between the two sectors. They aimed at this point. Somewhere between the two sectors. That's probably why the project ended before it even started. MyLocalBobby succeeds because they doesn't target the average people. They're police-like, but they're just a simple security company.

So how can a private company become a police/court company? Moreover, without prison?

First of all, I should emphasize that none of what I wrote is legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I am writing based on my own knowledge and internet research. I may be wrong.

People are not required to report crimes to the state police, with some exceptions.

Generally speaking, most people are under no legal obligation to report a crime, whether they knew about it in advance, witnessed its commission, or found out about it after the fact. However, there are exceptions to this law that you ought to know about.

Exceptions are very few. In fact, most crimes do not report to the police:

In its annual survey, BJS asks crime victims whether they reported their crime to police or not. In 2019, only 40.9% of violent crimes and 32.5% of household property crimes were reported to authorities. BJS notes that there are a variety of reasons why crime might not be reported, including fear of reprisal or “getting the offender in trouble,” a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help,” or a belief that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report.”

Also:

Moreover, issues of police aggression and its desirability can be thought of as calculation problems. Some will argue that police need qualified immunity, which protects them from civil liability, so that they will not be hesitant to use force when necessary. Others respond that this encourages police to use more force than is actually needed. Not being able to calculate the value of more aggressive policing, state police are in the dark. However, entrepreneurs providing security in the market, being civilly liable for damages their employees cause, will strive to find the balance between aggressive policing and minimizing civil liability that consumers desire. To a degree far greater than state police, private companies face real consequences from consumers when they use force unnecessarily, as United Airlines is coming to realize.

- How Much Policing Do We Really Need?

The vast majority of crime reports to the police remain unresolved:

Most of the crimes that are reported to police, meanwhile, are not solved, at least based on an FBI measure known as the clearance rate. That’s the share of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution, or due to “exceptional” circumstances such as the death of a suspect or a victim’s refusal to cooperate with a prosecution. In 2019, police nationwide cleared 45.5% of violent crimes that were reported to them and 17.2% of the property crimes that came to their attention.

Due to the unnecessary seriousness and weight of the bureaucracy, people hesitate to report to the state's justice system. And they prefer not to report at all, as they will not get results when they report. Apart from all that, many people also don't want criminals to suffer poor prison conditions. And the destruction of a person's life for committing a crime. When everything comes together, the state's justice system is slow, scary, unnecessary, expensive, inefficient, meaningless and to some people, cruel.

Also, prisons are expensive. Very expensive.

The U.S. spends $81 billion a year on mass incarceration, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and that figure might be an underestimate. In 2017, the Prison Policy Initiative estimated the actual cost on state and federal governments and impacted families is roughly $182 billion. Those dollars go to staffing the criminal justice system and meeting the basic needs of the more than 2 million Americans who are incarcerated.

pbs.org

I said it: The more you study the prison system, the more convinced you will be that it is very bad. Let me put it this way: How many millions would be in prison if everyone reported crimes? 4 MILLION! Well, what if every crime report was resolved? Of course, most crimes result from criminals committing more than one crime. But everyone has had a fight or been beaten once in their life, right? Are you going to put everyone in jail?

At any one time, nearly 6.9 million people are on probation, in jail, in prison, or on parole in the United Sates. Each year, more than 600,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons. Another 9 million cycle through local jails. More than two-thirds of prisoners are rearrested within 3 years of their release and half are reincarcerated.

aspe.hhs.gov

At first glance, it may seem that these people deserve to be there despite everything. But this couldn't be more wrong. The community supervision and the rehabilitation system terrible. No, I'm not even talking about their ineffectiveness.

Community supervision, which includes probation, parole, and pretrial supervision, is often seen as a “lenient” punishment, or as an ideal “alternative” to incarceration. But while remaining in the community is certainly preferable to being locked up, the conditions imposed on those under supervision are often so restrictive that they set people up to fail. The long supervision terms, numerous and burdensome requirements, and constant surveillance (especially with electronic monitoring) result in frequent “failures,” often for minor infractions like breaking curfew or failing to pay unaffordable supervision fees.

In 2016, at least 168,000 people were incarcerated for such “technical violations” of probation or parole — that is, not for any new crime. Probation, in particular, leads to unnecessary incarceration; until it is reformed to support and reward success rather than detect mistakes, it is not a reliable “alternative.”

prisonpolicy.org (The fifth myth)

And jails:

Misdemeanors: Minor offenses with major consequences

The “massive misdemeanor system” in the U.S. is another important but overlooked contributor to overcriminalization and mass incarceration. For behaviors as benign as jaywalking or sitting on a sidewalk, an estimated 13 million misdemeanor charges sweep droves of Americans into the criminal justice system each year (and that’s excluding civil violations and speeding). These low-level offenses account for over 25% of the daily jail population nationally, and much more in some states and counties.

It is not possible to examine the entire justice system in detail. (At least for average person.) But it's perfectly reasonable to assume that every single step of the system is this bad.

• Punishing things that are not crimes. (NAP)

• Inability to prevent crimes.

• Punish very-simple/simle crimes with imprisonment.

• Too long punishment.

• Not being able to identify persons who are rehabilitated.

• Inability to rehabilitate criminals.

• Making criminals more criminal.

• Imprison as many criminals as possible.

It's like a giant monster. What's worse: It's worse if a bureaucrat is claiming that these people really should be in jail. Because why should people have to pay for them? Fortunately, such a thing cannot be claimed. If they had the capacity to imprison 10 million people, they would! The only reason they're releasing people is because there's no room inside. Not that they have a criteria.

When we think of prisoners, we think of extreme violence. However, this is not true. Get rid of the perception that people in prison are too dangerous to be kept out of prison. This is not true. We can punish and rehabilitate them in much better ways than jail. Of course, we want to remove serious criminals from our environment. We can do that better outside of jail, too. We can do this with a hard boycott, that is, with exile.

I think there would be no prison in the free market justice system, even if there were no state barriers. At least for most crimes. Because prison is expensive. People have no motivation to punish the offender after the crime has been committed. -Revenge is irrelevant- They don't want to pay for criminal. They want compensation for damage and a guarantee that there will be no recidivism. But rehabilitation facilities are more expensive. It is not necessary to spend money to rehabilitate criminals. Boycott them. Make the products/services they want to buy expensive. So that they have to go into exile.

Well, isn't that more cruel? No it is not. Let's talk about how to do it first.

Justice company subscribers choose which crimes they consider serious and how serious they are. For example, he/she may want to boycott the criminal by only 5 percent for a simple fight. But 50% for a scammer. That is, by raising the prices of purchased products and services.

The identities & crimes of criminals do not need to be disclosed to customers. A facial recognition program can tell you that the scanned face belongs to a criminal you want to boycott. For example, the same criminal may appear as 13% to John and 20% to Bob. (In fact, it is better if just the person is determined to be guilty. Businesses require that criminals can only pay by credit card. So they don't know how many percent they boycotted the criminal.)

People will boycott criminals unless they can prove they will not commit crimes again. There will be companies that check this. Criminals who want to be rehabilitated go to these companies. The expense belongs to criminals and foundations. People reduce or remove the boycott when companies they trust give their approval.

Deportation of criminals who refuse to be rehabilitated and serious offenders who have not been rehabilitated is a good thing. With the boycott. Those who do not boycott them will also be boycotted. Thus, serious criminals will be concentrated in certain isolated parts of the country. Just high prices for simple criminals. Exile for serious crimes. Prices so high that they lead to exile for serious crimes.

That's interesting. Because it actually means you can sentence someone to death in accordance with state law. By not selling him anything. And by not buying anything from him. He will starve.

This should be the system that the free market will implement. (I don't know if anyone has written this before.)

So people have no motivation to operate a prison. Instead, they will want the money to be spent on preventing new crimes from occurring, and deporting the criminals. (Boycotting someone means you're giving up on making money. So you are passively spending money.)

To summarize:

• The main consumer demand is to prevent crime, not punish it.

• People's demand is a system that will detect criminals very quickly and effortlessly.

• Measuring whether criminals are reformed should be left to the free market.

• The monetary penalty is equivalent to imprisonment. It even equates to the death penalty.

Wouldn't this system condemn serious criminals to living in a crime city from which they could never get out? They can be kept safe much cheaper and more efficiently than in prison. They also have to work and earn money. They cannot steal from other criminals and they cannot kill them. Because criminals of equal rank group together in the same places. They have to try to establish a normal life.

In fact, once this system is implemented, crimes will decrease so much that they will be very few in number. Because you spend money on preventing crimes before they happen and spotting simple criminals before they become serious criminals. And but yes. No one cares what happens to those people. And this is not cruelty.

So this will be the punishment system of companies: Boycott.

Peaceful and lawful. At least it's legal in the U.S. Let me know if I'm wrong.

***

Legally taking over the justice system is possible because people do not have to report crimes to the state.

Let's say John robbed my house. I don't have to report to the state police. I can report to the private justice system, which I think is better.

The justice company sends John a message: If you do not agree to be tried by us, we will tried you in the state court.

John has a vested interest in accepting this.

1. There will be no crime on his record.

2. Punishment will be more merciful than prison.

3. The system that ensures their acceptance back into society will be much more advanced.

4. Those who do not accept will be punished twice. Boycott by us, prison by the state.

What is even more interesting is that if reporting was mandatory, nothing would have changed. Because there are so many crimes that the state justice system cannot handle. There would be no meaningful difference as the state could not compete with the private justice system.

However, there is no such risk for America.

Private police can do anything private security can do for security. Because there is no difference other than the name. Private police can prevent suspects attacking customers, can protect customers. (In public & private spaces) They are agents of the client and thus are extended the same rights as the customers would have. They can force persons out of private property. And they can shoot attackers to save customers from dying. There is no difference in authority between private security and an ordinary citizen. Anyone can help people who are in request. Of course, there is authorized private security. But this is limited and it is obvious that the state will not specifically authorize us. Fortunately we don't need it.

There's a licensing barrier, but it's not a big deal. The license topic is laughable. Apparently to prevent violence against people. When we consider that the same requirements exist in state policing, it is clear what prevents violence.

This is why private policing may be possible in the country where citizens have the most rights. In the United States. Also, our job will be easier if the Supreme Court blocks states that do not allow people to carry guns in public. We can work in permitted states even if the case does not yield a positive verdict.

In fact, in many crimes, forcefully arrests can be made to turn the criminals over to the state police. But we will not use this method except in serious situations.

Under common law every citizen, like the law enforcement officer, has a right to make an arrest. A private citizen can make an arrest for a criminal offense without a warrant if the arrested person has committed a felony in his/her presence or if the arrested person has committed a felony offense outside the presence of the citizen but the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed. The scope of a citizen's arrest power is similar to that of a law enforcement officer. However, a citizen's arrest is always made at the arrestor's own risk. That is, if the arrest proves to be unlawful, the arrestor is exposed to the risk of criminal or civil liability. A private police officer is subject to these limitations and must balance the need to protect the interests of his employer with the need to avoid making false arrests.

law.jrank.org

The point I bolded is also laughable. This is the reason why people are afraid of the state police.

The method we will use in police companies is the same as the method that justice companies will use. Criminals will voluntarily want to be arrested. It sounds weird. But otherwise they will be handed over to the state police. They will be tried in state court. That's why criminals will prefer the private justice system. They will sign a contract voluntarily. That way, there will be no barriers to legally arresting them. (Of course, it is not true to call it voluntary, as there is a threat of punishment by the state if they do not sign the contract "voluntarily". I mean legally self-consent.) In fact, we can put them in private prisons in the same way. It's not necessary for the reasons I described. Still, this is interesting. If you don't request to go out, I can put you in a cell. This is not a crime. We will only use cells in private police stations. And not for long term use. But if you want to have the criminals jailed for a few months, you can. State laws have a long timeout period. Even years long. But also this reduces the desire of criminals to prefer this system. So this is not the method we will use. Maybe with some exceptions.

In a nutshell, criminals will voluntarily waive their state laws. They will sign a legal contract. As long as they do not withdraw from the contract, we will be authorized.

But will people take the private police seriously? Will cars patrolling the streets really be effective? There isn't enough research on private security in the public spaces. Here is an article's abstract. Unfortunately I couldn't read it as it was behind a paywall.

Only a few studies have examined how private security guards operate in public spaces. In order to address this gap, this paper examines a public/private partnership of installing security guards on a public square in Aarhus, Denmark. This was a response to the presence of a group of homeless and marginalised alcohol and drug users. The policing of the public square was investigated through document analysis, interviews with different stakeholders and observations with a patrolling security guard. The case study illustrates that private security guards are able to exercise considerable control in public spaces, without having any legal authority over these spaces. Furthermore, by drawing on the analytical framework of governmentality studies, the case illustrates how the security guards were engaged in practices of ‘soft power’ in their policing of the public square. This constitutes a contribution to the growing literature that has started to survey the different powers and resources at the disposal of private security.

tandfonline.com

It's just private security. What about private police? There is no reason why people should not take the private police seriously. Private police protect from criminals, use weapons, patrol and intervene. Yes, they has no legal authority. But they has authority when persons demand it. Let's say someone is beating someone. The private police are there. It doesn't matter, even if He's not pre-contracted. Will the potential customer not request for help? Verbal agreements are also sufficient. Well? What sets he apart from the police? Can't he chase criminals after the crime has been committed? No.

After a crime is committed, even if it involves armed robbery, once a criminal actor flees the situation the crime is over. Your desire for retribution or revenge has nothing to do with it in the eyes of the legal system. Once the threat is over, the justification for lethal force is over. If you pursue a fleeing criminal that just stole something from you, the law now sees you as the aggressor that is starting a separate fight. You might not like it, but this is how the law views the circumstance.

Being the aggressor that starts the problem is never good for you under the scrutiny of the legal system. Upon making contact with a fleeing criminal actor, you will be held accountable for any force that transpires. If everything goes well and you tackle and detain a robber or shoplifter you may be hailed a good Samaritan. What if things get violent and you end up using force? What happens if that action results in significant injury or death for the fleeing criminal? You may face severe legal repercussions.

usacarry.com

It looks scary. But it is not. Note that this is written for average person. It's not different from the previous ones. Private police can chase the criminal. But they cannot arrest by force. Same thing.

Most criminals have no motivation to make an big effort to escape the private police. They will not be punished with prison. And not serious enough to warrant shooting. They will have much more motivation to give up. They will not be prosecuted in the state justice system. Of course, many will still flee. But note the point I highlighted though.

Will people take the private police seriously? From the people's & criminals point of view, there is no difference between the private police and the state police. Both have the same psychological effect. Because both are really prosecuting. Differently, but it doesn't matter.

Imagine you are a state cop. Both the people and the criminals don't want you. They don't call you when a crime is committed.

We need lawyers to examine all these subjects.

An article from my old reddit account.

Second Episode