Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Libertarianism Mid‑importance Private defense agency is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does it say they're "hypothetical"? There is already private defense such as companies that offer security guards and body guards. There are also private armies, like the Minutemen in the U.S.Anarcho-capitalism 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's totally bullshit that will, and could, never happen. Funny how the article takes it seriously... <eleland/talkedits> 08:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out existence of private companies a good idea to point that out including links. However Blackwater is NOT a good example since they commit all sorts of aggression. Also, private organizations that run around hassling and suing polluters are another EXCELLENT example of such companies. See reference to Spencer MacCallum's recent book on how it worked in Somalia (at least til US cronies invaded!)

Carol Moore 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I have to say, I don't understand the point above - how is Blackwater USA not a 'Private defense agency'? They seem to meet the very definition of the word to me (yes, they 'commit all sorts of aggression', but I don't see where it says that stops them being a PDA). In fact, is there any real difference between this term and private military company (how Blackwater describe themselves), or is it just a question of who uses them? Terraxos (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-phrase that: the "ideal" private defense agency. Also, the assumption is PDAs will NOT work for any government agency but only for private parties and therefore will not receive any kind of government immunity from lawsuits or other protections if they screw up. Hmmm, I guess those points need to be made in the article! Carol Moore 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Subsidies and immunities. Once either line is crossed, the "defense" provider is, by definition, NOT a PDA. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I added immunities under subsidies which it could be considered to be; or it can be put as separate benefit in second sentence. Carol Moore 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I couldn't help myself and ended up beefing up the article quite a bit and merging important concepts spread through the article into more concise sentences. I am curious as to who wrote the last paragraph which is info had not seen before. Someone please reference it or some day or other I'll delete it. Thanks Carol Moore 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Obviously there is a dispute which you might bring here. While I see the point in each, I think it might help to present arguments to those also on the fence. Carol Moore 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Perhaps "anarcho-capitalist" is too narrowly specific. But it ought to be understood that most people who consider themselves "anarchists," outside of the USA anyway, explicitly disclaim the idea of private corporations (or "agencies") of any kind. Most anarchists would laugh in the face of any "private defense agency" scheme proponent. Maybe we should use something generic like "In certain branches of anarchist political theory, a private defense agency is..." <eleland/talkedits> 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're assuming an "agency" is like a private corporation today, an entity granted special legal rights. I take it instead to just be shorthand for some individuals who work together and sell a service. Would most "anarchists" object to that? Evan R. Murphy (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting reverted, but nobody explains their position. All but one of the authors mentioned here are explicitly anarcho-capitalist; one was an individualist anarchist and proto-libertarian. Again, it's totally off-base to say that "anarchist" political theory includes PDA's, when it's only included in right-wing anarchism. <eleland/talkedits> 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we may as well indicate that this is supported by anarcho-capitalists rather than anarchists in general. I also think that as the set of anarcho-capitalist articles expands, we may need to change that little sidebar to make it anarcho-capitalism-specific. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For balance, there really needs to be an article on workers' militias as in the Spanish Revolution or in that Cienfuegos pamphlet about defense without NATO (whatever its called....) Not that I know about either of these things. Chaikney (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please describe how something like this would work out? Consider the case where A was stolen of some of his crops. He hires detective B that points out C as the robber. How does A get C into courts and who executes the court decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.150.155 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A doesn't take C to court. A hires B to kill C. Since B honors the contract A placed on C's life, in an anarcho capitalist model all is well. This assumes A is richer than C, of course.

It's a bit more complicated than that. If A and C belong to the same community, they would likely live under the same laws. I.e. they would have signed a contract agreeing to certain conditions of living there, probably including a common legal code. It could be implemented by a homeowners association agreement or landlord/tenant contract, and in addition to typical rules (e.g. don't create fire hazards; don't let your lawn grow beyond a certain height) would encompass what are today regarded as criminal offenses and dealt with in statutes. Various competing companies would probably produce their own standard boilerplate agreements on criminal law that people would become familiar with; some might be more libertarian than others. People could thus choose what kind of society they want to live in.

If A and C are not members of the same community (i.e. they live under a different set of voluntarily agreed-to laws), then many different things could happen. Different communities might have arbitration agreements with one another, specifying how inter-community disputes are to be resolved. They might, for instance, specify a particular dispute resolution organization, or panel of arbitrators. In the business world, it is not uncommon for a panel of three to decide cases, with each party choosing one arbitrator, and those two arbitrators choosing a third to break any ties.

If C's community refuses to enforce A's right to restitution, opting to obstruct justice instead, then C's community may end up being ostracized by A's community. A's community can bring any number of economic tools of persuasion to bear in applying pressure to C's community, such as banning residents of C's community from the property. Given a system in which streets and other currently "public" property are privatized, and police enforcement were more efficient due to free market forces, it would probably be easier to enforce such a ban than under our current system. C's community might find it more expedient to pay the restitution; although it would only be able to get its money back from C himself if allowed/required by the community membership contract. C might opt to pay voluntarily, and resolve it out of court, rather than deal with the social pressures (and possible eviction from the community, if allowed by the contract) that might accompany refusal to pay.

All in all, the free market is pretty efficient in coming up with ways to solve these types of problems through voluntary agreements. There are a number of books, e.g. by Rothbard, Tannehill, Bruce L. Benson, etc. that go into this stuff in more detail. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]