Private security firms...
Turn on the "protected." Who could have imagined?
Central Planning Works!
Declares LewRockwell.com:
"All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimulating' it through artificial means, peoples’ perceptions of economic life have been transformed into that which was intended by the central planners: the economic crush is over, our government cured all the problems, things are great again, go back to your old ways. Rinse and repeat."
"All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimulating' it through artificial means, peoples’ perceptions of economic life have been transformed into that which was intended by the central planners: the economic crush is over, our government cured all the problems, things are great again, go back to your old ways. Rinse and repeat."
The Mexican drug cartels are a really interesting phenomenon since they have the power to rival Mexico's security forces. When I look at these things, though, I try to avoid using the labels "public" or "private", since those only make sense in a larger context. So, I'd probably call them for-profit security organizations or something like that.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine used to live in El Salvador. People in his neighborhood kept getting robbed, so they pooled their resources to hire a couple of security guys to patrol the area... only to have the security guys rob them all at knife point.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lesson here somewhere.
One of my friends bought food from a privately owned restaurant, and he got sick.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lesson here somewhere.
There sure is Bob: both states and private enterprises are populated by flawed human beings, and both screw up.
DeleteI'm beginning to suspect that labeling might have a distorting effect. For example, it seems perfectly fine to call the Pinkertons a "private security firm", but to apply that label to a clan in Somalia or a drug cartel seems off. The "private" in the phrase "private security firm" only makes sense if there is a "public" with which to contrast it against. Is this something along the lines of what you mean by rationalism?
ReplyDelete