The most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. I imagine it would mostly be for defensive purposes and to protect employees but you never know.
> most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent.
Monopoly on violence requires enforcing that monopoly. Such a firm would also stomp out its competition. You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.
> You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.
Government run healthcare, the healthcare where you just go to the hospital and then you just get treated.. (?) Government run healthcare does not have a great reputation for doing cutting-edge health care, but on the other hand it does have a good reputation for taking care of people for basic needs. How is that describing a monopoly on violence? Repairing broken bones is the same as breaking bones? (If the implied argument is that health care is so heavily rationed, that people are left untreated, tantamount to violence, I would beg you to look at the statistics of which countries have more complications due to untreated illnesses (hint, the US is high on that list [1]; or we could look at health outcomes per dollar spent, US is very far down on that list, US spends multiples of other countries for the same outcome))
I would think a more apt description and example of a monopoly on violence would be narco-states. Otherwise the example is a well functioning government, and that is demonstrated in the police force and judicial system (not healthcare).
When considering the absence of the government monopoly on violence, drug markets are the closest thing there is to a true free-market. And yes, there contract enforcement is contingent upon a bunch of people standing behind you with guns.
Thanks for considering the response. I did not quite miss that bit, it's a bit of a tangled web of nuances. Ultimately, I don't think it matters whether a government provides healthcare was elected or not relative to that _not_ being an example of government exerting a monopoly on violence.
For the good track record, I'm referring to governments like the UK, Norway, France & Canada that all have better health outcomes compared to the privatized healthcare system of the US. The US system tends to stand out for the very specialized cutting edge (and super expensive) procedures; though you still have to overcome a lot of accessibility problems to get that. At present day, if you break a bone, have a child [1], need to be in hospital for a few days - generally you're better off not in the US
[1] "Despite spending less on coverage, France has comparable or even better health care outcomes than the United States. The United States has a higher rate of infant mortality. In France nearly four children die out of every 1000 live births. In the U.S. that number is closer to six." https://healthchoiceofmichigan.com/lectorium/MHzUCToycks
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/dutton.... This resource sites that France was ranked #1 back in 2001. While the US might have improved in that time, it goes to show it has been decades where the US is not the leader in healthcare. This implies that on average and for at least a couple decades running now, there are better outcomes in other countries (than the US). The dependent variable does seem to be how healthcare is financed, payed for, and how the profit incentive compares between those different places.
Why would companies that claim their own monopolies on violence and have no laws to answer to other than their own allow customers to do so? What's to stop companies from blacklisting such customers or collaborating to fix prices?
What's being described here is what anarcho-capitalism and pure free markets always devolve into - the mafia. You don't get to just shop around for a better mafia if you don't like the one running your town.