[zo1]

>"I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks."

Did that country also have laws against carrying firearms? How about laws that prevent individuals from defending themselves? E.g. Castle-doctrine, self-defense, private security firms, etc. You may hail it as proof that without a state, safety is not ensured. But I see it as an unfortunate limbo position where there is no protection provided by the state to the inhabitants, and there are also legal/state obstacles in place to prevent private individuals from performing that function.

I live in a country that is in the top 40 on the list of per-capita murder rates in the world. Probably much higher up on the list if you take into account violent crimes, etc. South Africa. It also has a huge industry for security services provided by private companies. Not only that, but a huge population of the country has opted to live in little "security" estates that have controlled access, private security guards, security cameras, electric fences, etc. Neighborhoods that spend large amounts of money on aiding the police in securing their neighborhood using cameras, volunteer patrols, paid private security company patrols, etc. In order to take private security any further, laws need to be removed because they are not being implemented effectively (like the rest of the country, but that's a separate debate). E.g. neighborhoods can't currently cordon off access to their streets, even if they had permission from all the land owners in the neighborhood. This is also the main reason why so many are moving to security estates, because they're huge chunks of private land and as such bypass those rules.

>"Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%."

One of us is right in this regard. Perhaps it's also some sort of gray area where everything except X, Y, Z can be provided for privately without the need for a state. But would you at least concede that we can never know the true point in this spectrum without testing it? I.e. By slowly allowing private companies/individuals to take over safety/security. Note, removing state protection/security services in one go would be disastrous, I would never advocate it as I think it would cause total violent anarchy overnight.

[rayiner]

> But I see it as an unfortunate limbo position where there is no protection provided by the state to the inhabitants, and there are also legal/state obstacles in place to prevent private individuals from performing that function.

Private security can't replace the state. In South Africa, the rich can hire private security because the state exists as a backstop to prevent security companies from turning on their clients. Without the state, any organization effective enough in the exercise of violence to provide real security has every incentive to simply enslave its clients.

> One of us is right in this regard. Perhaps it's also some sort of gray area where everything except X, Y, Z can be provided for privately without the need for a state. But would you at least concede that we can never know the true point in this spectrum without testing it?

We have tested it. In Somalia and Yemen and Pakistan. Feudal Europe. States didn't always exist. They arose as defense mechanisms to the power of organized groups to terrorize the majority with violence.

[zo1]

>"We have tested it. In Somalia and Yemen and Pakistan. Feudal Europe. States didn't always exist. They arose as defense mechanisms to the power of organized groups to terrorize the majority with violence."

Oh wow, I didn't know Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan were once, or currently are state-less societies? And yes, casual google searching yielded no fruitful results. Except for Somalia, which is a well-known failed-state that that's recently been in a brutal civil war. To compare it to the mild/incremental ideas that I propose/suggest is intellectually low-belt.

>"Private security can't replace the state. In South Africa, the rich can hire private security[..]"

I know it doesn't suit your preconceived notions about "private security" but security in South Africa is actually very affordable. Not that the poor get much "security" in civilized nations for free from the state, but that's a different discussion. You'd be surprised at how effective money is when a group of like-minded individuals spend it on their little neighborhood or slice of land.

>"In South Africa, the rich can hire private security because the state exists as a backstop to prevent security companies from turning on their clients. Without the state, any organization effective enough in the exercise of violence to provide real security has every incentive to simply enslave its clients."

Again, it's as if you're completely side-stepping what I'm saying/proposing with pre-made knee-jerk responses. Enslaving individuals would never be allowed to exist on a large scale in a digital/connected society. But besides that, I suggest slow, incremental shifts towards "more privatized" security that is not hindered by the state. That is the big problem when discussing these issues with "statists", you don't even make any room for the possibility of attempting these ideas, or trying milder alternatives. Alternatives that could signal individuals that 'hey, maybe we don't need the state'. Almost as if you fear competition.