{Editor’s Note: This is part of a continuing series in which I will explore the concepts of Anarcho-Capitalism.  I introduced  the concept here. The series will follow the general structure of a class on Anarcho-Capitalism I am currently taking at The Mises Academy taught by economist and author of Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy, Robert Murphy. Each week I will examine a different aspect of how free market forces could take over areas currently run by government in a hypothetical Anarcho-Capitalist society. You can read the 1st 2 parts introducing the concepts of Private Law here and here.}When discussing the concepts of how an anarcho-capitalist society would handle defense, it’s important to first distinguish between two different types of defense.  The first type is theoretically handled by present day “police” forces, tasked with protecting citizens against infringements on their property by other citizens.  This would include protection against theft, murder, rape, etc.  The other type of defense is military defense of a population against foreign armies.  It is the contention of anarcho-capitalist economists that both of these services would be better provided by the free market, but nonetheless it is important to distinguish between them.  They are clearly dealing with different types of problems, and therefore would require different types of solutions.  Today I will first take a look at the concept of “police protection”.The first problem with the concept of “police protection” as provided by the State is the idea that it is some sort of absolutely quantifiable commodity that can be evenly distributed across a population.  Everyone pays their “fair share” of taxes and in return everyone receives “equal protection under the law”.  The reality of this situation is much different of course. As Murray Rothbard points out in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto:

there is no absolute commodity called "police protection" any more than there is an absolute single commodity called "food" or "shelter." It is true that everyone pays taxes for a seemingly fixed quantity of protection, but this is a myth. In actual fact, there are almost infinite degrees of all sorts of protection. For any given person or business, the police can provide everything from a policeman on the beat who patrols once a night, to two policemen patrolling constantly on each block, to cruising patrol cars, to one or even several round-the-clock personal bodyguards.

The general point Rothbard is making here is that the amount and type of police protection offered or desired by different populations is not homogeneous.  A small town in the middle of nowhere may have little crime and may not employ much more than one Sheriff.  Whereas, say, the Mayor of New York City likely has around the clock police protection.  Various levels of government have different, yet finite , resources at their disposal by which to purchase equipment and distribute police forces.  And yet, without price signals delivered by a free market, they have no rational way in which to make these decisions.  How much money should be spent on patrol cars? How much should be spent on surveillance equipment? What areas should see an increase in police patrols? What areas should see a decrease? Of course these decisions are all made, but without market signals to guide them they can be seen at best as educated guesses made by various levels of bureaucracy.In a free market, consumers would help pay for whatever level of protection they wish to purchase from whatever protection company they wish to purchase it from.  In an anarcho-capitalist society, “regular” citizens would have no greater or lesser access to weapons than police services.  Some citizens may simply decide that they are best equipped to defend their property on their own.  Perhaps the “loner” citizen would be well trained in self defense and the use of firearms, and carry a weapon on him much of the time, or any time he felt he needed to. Perhaps he would setup his home with an alarm system and some guard dogs, and feel confident that he would not need to purchase protection from a protection service.  Others might want to purchase some sort of “basic protection plan” from a reputable company where, in the case of some sort of threat, they would call the equivalent of “911” for that company who would immediately send agents to assist with the situation.  Still others might want to purchase an even more preventative service plan, with protection agents patrolling their property at all times.The typical Statist argument is, as always, "But what about the poor? Would people who couldn't afford police protection just be left to fend for themselves?" Not very likely.  Firstly there would likely emerge voluntary charities in the form of "police aid societies" much as "legal aid societies" exist to help people who can't afford legal services today. Secondly, in a competitive market, police firms would want to create good will in general and not be seen as heartless.  It is likely that officers would be directed to help any in need without first "checking to make sure they paid their bill", another common objection.  A police firm that was known for simply looking the other way and ignoring a plea for help would likely not last long.  If they did act in this manner, there would be other more hungry firms attempting to establish a reputation that would likely offer aid to anyone in need in emergency situations.But what about when one isn’t on their own property? It is true there would be no such thing as “public” property in the technical sense in an anarcho-capitalist society, as all property would have an owner.  But many areas would still operate similarly to today's public areas, such as a  “Main Street” of business in any city might.  People that own businesses would likely either own the street they do business on, or perhaps have contractual agreements with the private street company operator.  It is these business owners or street owners who would make decisions about police protection for their particular property.  Business owners would want to create a safe environment in order to attract customers.  If a street is full of junkies and other ne’er do wells constantly harassing and robbing people, clearly this would be bad for business.  So street owners would decide to have a certain amount of police presence based on the desired level of protection needed.  By the same token, potential customers would not want to be harassed by unruly or abusive police officers.  Any firms with a reputation for employing abusive officers or using unnecessarily violent tactics would certainly not last long in a free market.  Who would hire thugs that harass potential customers? A business would of course be free to do so, but they likely would not stay in business for long.  And, as discussed in previous articles about private law, the police agents employed here would be beholden to the same legal recourse against abuse as any other person would be.  Under today’s system of monopoly police protection, there is no such recourse.  For these reasons it is very unlikely you would see police randomly beating up a kid on a skateboard, for example.  The police would be beholden to legal recourse and the firm would likely lose business if they were to abuse potential customers.As I touched upon briefly in my last post on private law, there would also likely be a large role for insurance companies to play when it comes to police protection.  People would likely insure expensive items in their household against theft, and even their own lives against murder.   The primary goal of an insurance company is to take in more in premiums than they pay out in benefits.  Therefore it would be in the best interest of insurance companies to also offer protection and investigative services.   An insurance company would have a vested interest in both keeping items safe and in tracking down stolen property.  If say, a $100,000 insured diamond ring were stolen, it might be less expensive to use private detectives to track down and recover the stolen items.  By the same token, the insurance company would also have a vested interest in keeping known diamond thieves out of a particular area to prevent theft in the first place. Whether private security and private detectives would be contracted out or operate as direct branches of the insurance companies is unknown, as only the market would be able to figure out what is most efficient.The motivation of protecting and compensating the victim for his losses is secondary or non-existent under the state monopoly police system.  The state police system largely operates after the fact of a crime.  If a theft or murder occurs, they show up afterward and take notes and log the details and perhaps launch an investigation. But the intent of that investigation is primarily to punish the perpetrator, not to compensate the victim.  The goals of insurance companies and the agencies operating with them would be first to prevent the loss from occurring, and then to compensate the victim for their loss.To sum it up using an ‘80’s TV Show analogy, an anarcho-capitalist society would see a lot more “Magnum PI”’s than “C.H.I.P.S.”.   Sure, maybe that’s just an excuse to use an awesome photo of Tom Selleck and his killer ‘stache, but excuses be damned look at that glorious facial hair!Another common criticism of competitive police services is when two competing police firms have differences that they would "shoot it out in the streets".  But this doesn't make any more sense than saying that two car insurance companies would settle their differences by having a shoot out in the streets.  Any disputes between two competing police firms would either settle their differences by sitting down in an office and negotiating, or by bringing their case to a third party arbitrator (see my last post on private law for more on this.)  Again, who would want to hire a police agency known for just showing up and starting shoot outs?Now we’ve discussed how an anarcho-capitalist society would deal with the police protection services that our current state police system is tasked with. But what about foreign invaders? Wouldn’t an AnCap society be completely vulnerable to a military invasion by those evil Communist Chinese or Those Crazy Muslim Iranians???Well, Statist Contrarian Voice In My Head, I’m not really sure what I’d do without you. Once again, you have seamlessly set up my next post, where I will discuss how an anarcho-capitalist society could deal with military defense. Hope to see ya then!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!