Looting and the Free Market

natedogg · #1 09-01-2005, 02:07 AM

The police are unable to protect the property of many millionaires, fortune 500 franchise outlets, and small proprietorships who earn a meager living from their corner bar, etc. etc.

Now, If I lived anywhere close to New Orleans, I'd be calling up all these people and offering to go in there with armed private security to guard their property. For a few thousand bucks a week, I'd park a couple guys on the roof with shotguns and put another guy in front of the door. They will only need this service for a couple weeks most likely.

This seems like such an obvious solution I have to wonder why it's not happening. During the LA riots, many retail store owners did this themselves.

But these are not riots, I doubt there's much threat of violence if you are parked out front with some firepower.

So why isn't this happening?

My guess is that between the insured value of the property/merchandise, and the cost of actually sending people in to protect it, there is very little gain to the owners when you consider the liability they might face for any actions taken in defense of their property.

natedogg

#2 09-01-2005, 02:15 AM

Might be true. Except for the fact that these owners cant get to their businesses because of destroyed infrastructure and, if you havent noticed, extensive flooding.

BCPVP · #3 09-01-2005, 02:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like such an obvious solution I have to wonder why it's not happening.

[/ QUOTE ]
Asked
[ QUOTE ]
between the insured value of the property/merchandise, and the cost of actually sending people in to protect it, there is very little gain to the owners when you consider the liability they might face for any actions taken in defense of their property.

[/ QUOTE ]
and answered.

Cyrus · #4 09-01-2005, 03:19 AM

I think you are right. I think we should replace policemen, federal agents and all kinds of law enforcement everywhere with private security and intelligence firms, who will be only answering to the highest bidder.

It has already started, with resonatingly good results, in the prison system. And we know how far it can go if we only remember the visionary movie Robocop.

natedogg · #5 09-01-2005, 03:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are right. I think we should replace policemen, federal agents and all kinds of law enforcement everywhere with private security and intelligence firms, who will be only answering to the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you realize I wasn't advocating any such thing.

I am wondering why, in the absense of police protection, Nawlins property owners have not turned to private means. I think the answer is a combination of the liability they would face due to actions taken to protect their own, and the insurance protection they have probably purchased.

Note that the police also face liabilities for actions taken. They are sued and lose all the time. But it's not their money so this rarely alters their behaviour or standards. It's OUR money. We pay them to brutalize our citizens and then pay off the citizens when the cops get caught brutalizing them.

Just a few thoughts.

natedogg

Boris · #6 09-01-2005, 03:40 AM

maybe looting is the most efficient way of mobilizing scarce resources?

I mean honestly, any business in N.O. is going to claim complete and utter loss of all merchandise. Let the looters have their take.

xniNja · #7 09-01-2005, 03:56 AM

That's a pretty euphemistic way of looking at it, even from a liberal standpoint.

As for the OP, above business interests stated are true, but I'm pretty sure it was tried in the past, and the reason it was discontinued is because privatized security turns looting into a riot.

mackthefork · #8 09-01-2005, 04:28 AM

You mean an extortion racket, it most likely is.

Mack

elwoodblues · #9 09-01-2005, 10:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty euphemistic way of looking at it...

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

SheetWise · #10 09-01-2005, 11:00 AM

In many of the posts on looting it's assumed that all business owners carry insurance. First of all, I really don't see what difference it makes -- unless you're arguing that it's OK to steal from a nameless faceless third party. Second, it's simply not true. I've rarely carried business insurance other than liability. Most mature businesses self-insure, especially if they're high crime areas.