Rethinking Security: Beyond Monopoly and Toward Community Solutions

Everyone wants protection for their life, liberty, and property. Everyone wants peace and prosperity. Most people believe that only a political government can provide the protection that leads to peace and prosperity. Yet, there is a paradox: governments claim a monopoly on violence to maintain order, but that very monopoly can often undermine the security they are supposed to provide.

One definition of government is a group of people who claim the exclusive right to initiate force and enforce rules within a given territory. Many accept that a monopoly on legal violence is necessary for governance. Without it, they argue, society would descend into chaos, law enforcement would be powerless, and crime would run rampant.

But a monopoly on violence enables every other monopoly. Governments, by virtue of their authority, create regulations that protect established businesses, limit competition, and increase the cost of living. We see this everywhere, from zoning laws that drive up housing costs to occupational licensing that keeps people from entering certain professions. In the realm of security, monopolization leads to inefficiencies, lack of innovation, and a detachment from the needs of individuals and communities.

It’s time to question whether security must come from a coercive monopoly or if better solutions exist.

Why Government’s Monopoly on Violence Fails

Government agencies claim to safeguard us from crime and disorder. Yet, all around us, we see increasing evidence that they are failing at this fundamental task.

Crime rates had been declining for years, but now, reports of violent crime, theft, and civil unrest dominate the news. In cities like Chicago, strict gun control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves while criminals obtain weapons illegally. In San Francisco, relaxed penalties for theft have emboldened shoplifters to loot stores in broad daylight, knowing that police often won’t intervene.

It’s easy to blame these failures on specific laws, but the problem runs deeper. The very structure of government-run policing creates misaligned incentives. Law enforcement officers are not accountable to those they are supposed to protect; they answer to bureaucrats and politicians. Police departments are often more focused on generating revenue through fines and civil asset forfeiture than preventing crime. Meanwhile, prosecutors allow repeat offenders back onto the streets while punishing those who attempt to defend themselves.

Regulations designed to “protect” people often do the opposite. The war on drugs, for example, has fueled violent crime and mass incarceration, yet drugs remain widely available. The TSA subjects millions of travelers to invasive security screenings but has repeatedly failed tests of its ability to stop actual threats.

The Breakdown of Trust in Institutions

The issue goes beyond rising crime statistics. Social cohesion is disintegrating. People no longer trust their neighbors, their communities, or the institutions meant to protect them.

We see it in the explosion of road rage incidents and public altercations over trivial disputes. We see it in the polarization and hostility that dominate social media. The government’s response to COVID-19 eroded trust further, with draconian lockdowns, arbitrary mandates, and a double standard in enforcement that made it clear: rules don’t apply equally to everyone.

This breakdown in trust has created a vicious cycle. As people lose faith in their communities, they turn to the state for protection. But the state is incapable of providing real security—it can only expand its power. The more it expands, the more it erodes the organic relationships and voluntary interactions that create true stability.

The Case for Decentralized and Market-Based Security

The assumption that security can only be provided by a central authority ignores the reality that markets and voluntary cooperation create better solutions in every other aspect of life. The same should apply to security.

Private security firms already outnumber public police officers in many countries. Businesses, neighborhoods, and even entire communities hire private security to fill the gaps left by government policing. These firms operate on the principle of accountability—if they fail to protect their clients, they lose business.

Decentralized security models already work in small-scale settings. In some cities, private neighborhood patrols have successfully reduced crime where public police have failed. Some gated communities and private developments operate their own security forces, demonstrating that crime prevention can be handled outside of the state.

Morazán, a charter city in Honduras, provides an example of an alternative security model. Instead of relying on the national government’s police force, Morazán contracts private security to protect residents and businesses. The security providers answer directly to the community, not to distant politicians. Because they are hired based on performance, they have a direct incentive to prevent crime rather than just respond to it.

As more free cities and special economic zones emerge, they will demonstrate that security can be provided efficiently without a state monopoly. Competitive security services, voluntary dispute resolution, and private arbitration courts will continue to evolve, offering models that could eventually replace traditional policing.

Security as a Service, Not a Monopoly

For too long, we’ve been conditioned to believe that security must come from a coercive monopoly. But what if security were treated like any other service—something that individuals and communities could choose and pay for based on quality and effectiveness?

Imagine a world where law enforcement agencies competed to provide the best protection at the lowest cost. Where accountability wasn’t a matter of political posturing but a necessity for maintaining customers. Where communities could choose the security arrangements that best fit their needs, rather than being forced to accept a one-size-fits-all approach.

This isn’t a utopian fantasy—it’s a practical alternative to the failures we see today. The breakdown of government policing isn’t a reason to expand state power; it’s an opportunity to rethink how security is provided.

If we truly value safety and prosperity, we must be willing to question whether a monopoly on violence is the best way to achieve them. Instead of clinging to a broken system, we should embrace the possibility of a decentralized, market-driven approach to security—one that is accountable, responsive, and free from the corruption that inevitably accompanies unchecked power.

The future of security isn’t more government—it’s more freedom.