There is no way to accomplish that given the current societal structure. Any private entity would have their authorization of force granted by the State, and be merely an extension of the State.

Then we abolish the state.

The legalization or legal status of justified force doesn't make private security actors extensions of the state.



I'm on board.

I disagree. They owe their ability to even 1) have the authority of force designated to them, and 2) become then regulated and overseen by the State, and 3) have what constitutes as both 'force' and appropriateness of response defined by the State.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jun 6 2020 01:08am

They dont owe the ability to the government.
They dont need 'authority designated to them'
They already have that right.

The state potentially stepping in and restricting/regulating their actions still doesn't make them part of the state.

Private security firms already exist to some degree. They are not the state.

How do private security firms "already have that right"? Who grants that right? Who protects that right? Who defines that right?

The natural human rights of self defense and association.
Rights are not granted by government.

If the state abolishes the police, private persons who step up to defend people and deal with violent leftist scum are not the government.
Its not that hard of a concept really.

Under a statist system the state may unjustly choose to get in the way, but that is not the same as them being the state.

There are no natural human rights. There are merely things we believe to be rights that we protect through some use of force. Current iteration in society is to establish the State as the definer, enforcer, and regulator of rights.

Private persons attempting to wield force in the abolition of the State do so not under the guise of natural rights, but of preferred rights that they're able to establish, define, and protect should they have a sufficient monopoly of power.

I would argue that society does not establish the state, the powerful do and everyone else is powerless to stop them, the state is created by the powerful to maintain their power and to keep everyone else from rising up against them.
A state is not some grand ideal, it is just a monopoly of power, and so far only nordic countries have actually used that power for anything beyond self gain.

I agree, and State abolition merely results in the same thing, but by a different name.