how to eliminate damage from crime (and police)

[EJinCT]

I would not trust a privatized policing force to protect me any more than the current method.

Please read the article. The idea is NOT a "privatized police force". The idea is that instead of being forced to pay a government monopoly to institutionalize various sorts of crime, you would purchase insurance from a private company. Their goal is to NOT pay you your claim, so they want very much to have you NOT be murdered. Thus they have the right incentives to provide the most cost-effective anti-crime services, whether those be patrol officers, Boba Fett's services, or wolf-poodle hybrids. (As opposed to the current method, where the governments get more money the more crime they create).


What is your option now if you don't like the police monopoly that "protects and serves" you up to the special interests? You have to abandon your home.

I've never relied on others to foster any illusion of safety, so my options are exactly the same under either system. I protect myself and my own, and I am more capable now, than ever before, to do so.  I'd consider supporting a voluntary, community-based protective service though.

How would the "insurance method" effect those that may not be able to pay such costs? They are then undeserving of protection?


Back to my initial question: How would having insurance eliminate damage? After the crime has been committed the damage is done.

[David]

Quote-<I've never relied on others to foster any illusion of safety, so my options are exactly the same under either system. I protect myself and my own, and I am more capable now, than ever before, to do so.   I'd consider supporting a voluntary, community-based protective service though.>

That is good.  Anarchy is a lifestyle.  The expectation of others providing for 'security' is an illusion and a false crutch.  While it is true that any new business idea has to go through a stage where it is not very redily accepted, I prefer to rely on simple basic means.  Proactively protection ones self is more productive than trying to clean up the pieces afterward. 
It will never be possible to reduce risk much.  And gov't will never go away.  (They are more likely to shut an insurance company or private (vigil ante) policing down.) 
I expect restitution from those who injure others or cause damage, but I am not willing to use force to compel it.  Knowing that the rate of restitution compliance is not likely to be particularly high, since I am not willing to commit revenge to compel it; I make a consciese effort to find reliable safe business partners, and I hang around those that are not dangerous to my personal safety (as best as I can). 
In practical application, I protect myself, and if that fails, I move on and try not to make the same mistake twice. 
Shunning is more about protection ones self than trying to hurt the offender.  A dishonest person is not likely to be hurt much by me not doing trade with him.  But I reduce my chances of having to deal with fraud if I avoid a known crook.