Lecture
Monopolies are usually bad for consumers. For example, AT&T was highly profitable as a legal monopoly in the 1970s, and in 1984, the company was broken up into seven regional telephone carriers due to government intervention. The breakup gave consumers access to more choices and lower prices.
Should the government have a monopoly on security? The challenge for citizens is the balance between security from those who do us harm and security from government agencies like the NSA, which has the right under the Patriot Act to check an individual's emails and phone messages. There is a case to be made for the privatization of security and defense. Watch this lecture to understand why it would be better for consumers if security and defense were privatized.
Topics covered include:
- Hobbesian myth
- Consequences of a government monopoly on defense • Arguments in favor of privatizing security and defense services
Key points:
- A monopoly in security is bad for consumers
- Private security is not only possible but will be far better for consumers
- The Hobbesian myth: In the state of nature, a permanent “underproduction” of security would prevail
- Constitutions don't fulfill their role in limiting governments because the government itself interprets and enforces the constitution
Source: Saifedean Ammous
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License.