Will the establishment eventually lose?

Ist I can't believe you're actually asking that. You really want to live in a society in which the only law enforcement works for your boss?
2nd You only get lobbyists when government chooses economic winners and losers. Please note most of those places in which the cops are absent is because the people living there ran them off by second guessing every thing they did rightly or wrongly. Please further note that the private security is generally less well trained and far less professional than the regular cops and who are they working for?

Go watch Gangs of New York. Then read the history of the Five Points area in NYC and tell me that's a winning proposition Boss Tweed ran the town in no small part because the cops and the fire department were just another neighborhood gang

 

Of course not. I'll hire my own law enforcement, as will my neighbor, and maybe the local HOA. Anyone who needs protection for themselves, their family or their property can hire security. There has been considerable speculation as to the details of security in a private law society and the general opinion is that security services would be associated with insurance. If you buy insurance on your house for example, the insurance company then has a vested interest in preventing damage or other loss to your house. They would be better served to prevent damage to the house as opposed to paying for repair or replacement so they have a security company patrol the area to prevent vandalism or theft.

Which they do constantly, making themselves the first winners, then their contributors, then their lobbyists, then somewhere way down the list the voter, if it doesn't conflict with anyone higher on the list.

In a private law society the cops work for the people in that area, for the businesses or HOAs or anyone who wants to hire security. If the people don't like the job the company is doing, they fire them and hire someone else. Government cops are absent in those places because they can't be fired and they weren't doing the job the people there wanted done. Really, who would hire security services from a company that you can't fire, decides what they will and won't do and charges whatever they decide to charge? Nobody would voluntarily hire that company but that is exactly what you get with government "services".

They work for the people who pay them and they're accountable to their clients for the quality of service they provide, unlike government cops.

Exactly my point. Tweed ran the town because government force was for sale. That is still going on today but now its called "regulatory capture" and it doesn't usually require as much violence.

 

Yes right we will all hire our own personal cop makes perfect sense. The insurance company's vested interest is equal to the maximum possible dollar value of the theft which will almost certainly be significantly less than the cost of a trained detective/cop/gunslinger. We've ridden this horse before. Actually Tweed ran the town because he took bribes. And let the dozens of gangs do whatever they wanted while making sure his wn private force covered his ass, including a pier six brawl at one point between the two sets of cops/firemen over who was going to put out the fire

 

In America, we once again need to come to grips with the flaws of human nature as the Founders did. May take another revolution.

 

It does make sense and it has worked well and continues to work today. There are more people working in private security than there are government cops because the government police forces aren't able or willing to actually protect private individuals and their property.

That is the case now. If the insurance company finds it more to their benefit to pay for lost or stolen property that is what they do. If they find that recovering the goods is possible they would do that. In either case the victim is compensated to some extent. The government police have no interest in recovering property or mitigating the victim's loss in any way. The insurance company's interest in a single case might not be sufficient to hire investigators but they already have investigators on staff because they have many cases and iits worth the expense to recover losses in cases where that is possible.

Tweed was a politician in the system you seem to be trying to defend. His corruption and that of the government agencies you mention is illustrative of the problem I mentioned. When you have a system that legitimizes the use of force by a ruling elite, what you get is a ruling elite that will inevitably use force to promote their own agenda. Tweed was the embodiment of political (government) corruption. The video I linked in my original post illustrates the viability and superiority of private security.

 

I defend no system. Merely stating that what you envision is no better. Every system starts out containing human beings who are not now, nor have they ever been nor will they aver be perfect. There are always flaws, flies in the ointment, if you will. You are attempting to replace city cops with insurance company agents. Please note the system you describe only works now because there are city cops and laws on the books that insure that your insurance company treats you fairly.

By the way insurance companies don't recover much of anything . Those city cops do because that's. In there job description

 

You say you're not defending the current system but then make assumptions and claims that it is as good as my suggested alternative. I disagree. Tax funded police services have no bottom line and therefore no economic incentive to perform. They can't be fired so they have no incentive to keep their customers satisfied. The organization decides what it will and won't do without taking into any account what the citizens who are forced to provide their funding want. This is a recipe for poor performance. A private company that can be fired, does have a bottom line and must please their customers to stay in business will have considerable motivation to perform well at a competitive rate.

Exactly so. Human nature, incentives and motivations are critical here. A system that leverages human nature and incentivizes people and companies to better performance is better than one that doesn't. Private companies that can be held to contracted performance standards or fired and replaced with a better performing competitor will perform better or go out of business. Organizations that are funded by force (taxation) that can't be fired or held to defined standards act negatively on human nature and have incentives that are counter to good performance.

This is an unwarranted assumption. In a free market system the insurance company has to treat their customers fairly or they will go out of business when all their clients leave for other, better alternative companies.

To the extent this is true, its because the insurance companies leave it to the city cops and the city cops do a terrible job at this, if they try at all.

 

We will have to agree to disagree.