Thanks for your lengthy reply! I assume we had different initial reactions to these articles, and are coming at this from different directions, but don't necessarily disagree on everything.

> Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft

I agree, for the most part, outside of edge cases I guess. Some states let you kill someone trespassing on your house (I'm thinking castle doctrine), others only if you are threatened. I'm fine living in a world that goes either way.

I wonder if a shopkeeper in Texas can legally shoot a shoplifter? I'm curious how you would feel about a victim of wage theft shooting their employer? Monetary loss is a monetary loss, right?

> This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2?

The article I linked to talked about the actions these guards were taking out on the streets. Portland allows tents on sidewalks, and these guards broke laws by physically removing people, amongst other things (including beatings, and a shooting). The prosecutors there were frustrated trying to hold them accountable. This is the kind of stuff I have a big problem with. I'm not saying that having homeless camped on the streets is a good thing, but the answer is to address the problem or change the laws, not extra-legal activities.

I've got a buddy who is an armed security guard. They send these guys out with 40 hours of training, and they don't know the law. Many better-trained police officers don't know the law. He makes a couple extra bucks an hour being armed, and it's not much. He really needs the money.

> Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues?

I do not object to these things.

> I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.

I grew up in a bad neighborhood and got used to being careful. I don't know that we greatly differ, but yeah I assume we do to some extant. The world needs all kinds, right? My thinking on things like this has changed over the years, as I've moved in various circles of haves and have-nots, as I've gotten more perspective travelling and reading about other cultures and how they organize their societies, what they value, etc. I've ended up wondering more about root causes, social and community dynamics, the difference between low-trust and high-trust societies, etc.

But to be honest I've paid more attention lately to how the rich rip off the poor, then the reverse. Just questioning assumptions, mostly. A lot around politics, how the rules are rigged sometimes. Health care is an example - unknowable billing, $5k+ deductible if you get sick, insurance companies get the subsidized premiums, etc. A lot of things revolving around campaign finance reform - rich people donating to politicians they aren't eligible to vote for, corporate/union/trade-association lobbying, politicians who care more about money than voters, etc. Housing as an investment, restricted supply, increasing homelessness. Also places like amazon warehouses that just chew through people, treating them like garbage, doing their stock buybacks, or walmart telling their employees to get food stamps, swaths of the country inaccessible without a car which many can't afford, etc. I don't mean to side track us! But if I were poor I'd choose many developing countries over many areas in the U.S. and I'd have better quality of life, just not measured in dollars.

> I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime.

Agreed. That still leaves some grey area, like how far to go detaining people, but is a great starting point. Ideally we could make the rules of engagement for people in doing these jobs easier and more effective. Ideally they wouldn't need to be armed - they are not that well screened, trained, or paid. Police in other countries like the U.K. are not armed. Catching criminals can be the priority, as opposed to preventing crimes at the moment they happen.

The private security guards in the article, the article talking about their abuses, were operating outside the stores, doing things like clearing people off the streets at night. Maybe we'd agree this isn't a good idea? I certainly don't want to have to deal with someone like that.

> if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it?

That's what a lot of crime victims have to do, all the time. It sucks when it happens. Some people in this thread had a "too bad" attitude about wage theft, and others others have a "too bad" attitude about shoplifters. A lot of people feel like big corporations are squeezing people for profits too much, politicians bought and paid for, and they don't care if people steal form them. No love lost. Personally I'd rather fix things as opposed to double down.

> Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone.

You said the above when I mentioned the Pinkerton people. I think it would help a lot of we reformed some things about policing in this country. A lot of people don't trust the police, and that is a problem. There was a huge outcry with the BLM movement, and nothing changed. Personally I think that reforming internal affairs needs to happen, it is a big problem that local police investigate themselves, along with local prosecutors. If those with money and influence don't care, then I agree we'll end up living in quite a different country down the road.

Aggressive enforcement and protection of property is not the only job of the government, people's constitutional rights are of paramount importance also, and the authorities fucked up, too many people don't trust them. It's not good with 20, 30 or 40 percent of people feel stepped on. That outcome from that degrades things for everyone.

-

After all this perhaps we agree that the rules of engagement for private security need to be closely looked at when they are operating in public, both inside the public spaces of stores and in the streets? That would go a long way towards assuaging my concerns, although I still think police reforms earning back the public's trust would be a better long term solution to the specific problems in Portland.