Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Arming the Burbclaves
Fast Company has published a piece for fans of futurist scenarios. The next wave of terrorist attacks, John Robb argues,
will spur development of an entirely new, decentralized security system, one that devolves power and responsibility to a mix of private companies, individuals, and local governments....Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks--evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as Warren Buffett's NetJets--will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security--as they do now with education--and shore up delivery of critical services. These "armored suburbs" will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems. As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America's cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge.
Until, that is, the next wave of adaptive innovation takes hold....
Like all futurists, Robb offers no warranty, so don't assume that Blackwater stock is a sure thing.
PintofStout|3.20.06 @ 10:20AM|#
This scenario would require the revolution to be successful, meaning the minds of the public have been won. As it is, the worse the government does the more the public cries for the same government to do something. Even after the disaster after the disaster of Katrina, the solution in the collective mind of the American people is more government or perhaps better government. Better government being the figurative boy with his finger in the levy.
|3.20.06 @ 10:32AM|#
If things become bad enough to warrant this kind of security, we're already going to be living in Blade Runner land, so who cares at that point. As long as I can get my Basic Pleasure Model...
|3.20.06 @ 10:54AM|#
I think Todd is right. It is difficult to imagine terrorists
infiltrating our society to such an extent that the state and local
law enforcement breaks down to where private security has to take
over. Before that ever happened, people would rise up and just shut
down the borders and expel every Muslim from the country, something
I find highly unlikely as well.
The guy is right about one thing, the federal government is not
going to protect you from terrorists within the United States. They
certainly can go outside our borders and kill these people before
they get here, but once they are here, it is the state and local
law enforcement who are the first line of defense. By the time the
feds get there, the terrorism will have already occurred and it
will be too late.
bill|3.20.06 @ 10:57AM|#
At least the pizza will now be delivered in under 30 minutes, so I can leave the bimbo box in the garage and spend more time at the Black Sun.
|3.20.06 @ 11:00AM|#
While this solution would be nice, I don't see a rush of private
security firms taking over for the police. Consider the police a
sunk cost. Any private security firm would have to balance its
total cost with the benefit it provides above the current police
protection level. Don't believe that public police forces will
disband and return the cost to the public to be used to pay for
private police. The public school system is similar, where the
benefit of a private school over a public one must equal or exceed
the total cost of private education.
The one thing that would cause the rise of private security would
be the regular failure of police for whole communities, as schools
have failed them. But, crime most often happens on an individual
basis, and while it may garner sympathy throughout a community, it
isn't enough to get people to pony up the money.
Also, there is the overwhelming tendency to expect perfection from
private firms while excusing the failures of public entities. If a
private firm had been in charge of the levees in New Orleans, their
executives would be expected to face criminal charges, probably
manslaughter. I guarantee that a private police officer would not
be granted any leniency for accidentally shooting a suspect or some
other violation that the police tend to get away with (not a bad
thing). Ultimately people like to believe that they retain equal
control over schools and police as everyone else, although that
control often amounts to too little to actually change anything. If
they can't control something, then no one else should.
Jeff P.|3.20.06 @ 11:13AM|#
Somehow I doubt enclaved soccor moms would allow ANY underager to harpoon cars while skateboarding.
|3.20.06 @ 11:18AM|#
Johntheexintern,
Private firms would not get the benefit of sovereign immunity,
which would make policing well neigh impossible.
|3.20.06 @ 11:20AM|#
The first step toward the breakdown of society is the ending of
shared public goods. If you're protected by different law
enforcement, pay into different tills, recieve benefits from
different tills, and never encounter someone, then why should you
care what happens to them, and vice versa?
The great achievement of, I want to say democracy but that may be
inaccurate, is that everyone's interests are to some degree bound
up with everyone else's. Cut that and you go back to
pre-revolutionary Europe. No fun at all.
R C Dean|3.20.06 @ 11:23AM|#
I think what we're looking at is an increased ramping up of the
current private security structure.
There are already more private security guards than cops in the US,
I seem to remember seeing somewhere.
The cops will continue to be a sunk cost, but more people will want
an additional layer of private security. Hell, my neighborhood in
Dallas just hired out for extra patrols at night.
|3.20.06 @ 11:25AM|#
Private security will not replace the police. They may enhance
the protection available from the police, though.
I don't think any of this is likely, at least not as a result of
terrorism. I was more concerned about this kind of scenario before
we had the drastic drop in crime rates in the 90s. If I'm afraid of
the guy two blocks over robbing me, I might gate up my community,
but I'm not convinced that blackwater makes me feel any safer from
terrorists.
Timothy|3.20.06 @ 11:43AM|#
Remember, do not fight Mr. Protagonist in the Black Sun, especially if you only know Kendo.
Jeff P.|3.20.06 @ 11:53AM|#
I always found Snowcrash to be a beautifully rendered setting,
but narratively, its a mess.
I can't understand how one can wield a sword in the metaverse if
your only interface is stereo goggles. The climax, for some
unexplained reason, is between Enzo and Raven. There's a Chekov's
Pistol of an A-Bomb though the whole book that never goes off. And
MY GOD please no more infodumps.
Still, as fun settings go, it's great. We can olny dream of the
U.S. Gov't being reduced to a twelve acre campus...
|3.20.06 @ 11:58AM|#
In an effort to bar the door against expanding criminal
networks, certain communities will move to regulate, tax, and
control everything from illegal immigration to illicit drugs,
despite federal pressure to do otherwise. A newly vigilant and
networked public will push for much greater levels of transparency
in government and corporate operations, using the Internet to
expose, publish, and patch potential security flaws. Over time,
this new transparency, and the wider participation it entails, will
lead to radical improvements in government and corporate
efficiency.
Bwaaahhh haaa haaaa haaahh haaa haaa!!!!!!
|3.20.06 @ 12:04PM|#
"Bwaaahhh haaa haaaa haaahh haaa haaa!!!!!!"
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that passage.
What in the fuck is John Robb smoking? Seriously. Or if he was
actually completely sober when he wrote that, I think a strong case
could be made for involuntary commitment.
That said, it's nice to think that people will put the government
in it's place, but I haven't seen any evidence that the people now
alive will or could ever do so.
|3.20.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Can't happen soon enough for me. Bring it on.
Amazing how one setting can be both utopia for some and dystopia
for others (well, around here, maybe just me).
I always found Snowcrash to be a beautifully rendered setting,
but narratively, its a mess.
I remember thinking the exact same thing about The Diamond Age.
Maybe that's how he gets his readers to re-read his books over and
over.
|3.20.06 @ 12:43PM|#
While these proposals/predictions appear believable, in the short term, I doubt that the forces of the State (as in City, State, & Federal) will willingly relinquish/devolve power to private entities, nor will they allow the private security companies to equip (read: arm)the way they would need to to defend the strongholds of the wealthy.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Also: The most likely scenario I see would include corporate employers who provide their "drones" security as part of compensation (following the healthcare insurance model), would emulate the FED & States in barring/forbidding said employees from providing for their own personall defense. If this comes to pass it does not improve personal liberty as much as it moves the denial of liberty from "Public" to "Private" hands.
|3.20.06 @ 12:43PM|#
I find it peculiar that he didn't even mention the one current
movement that is resulting in de-centralized personal
security:
The number of states that now issue permits to carry a concealed
firearm on a shall-issue basis.
Only four states in the US prohibit Concealed Carry outright, a
handful more (38, if I recall correctly) are required to issue a
permit to anyone without a criminal background and who can jump
through a few simple hoops, and two states (Vermont and Alaska) do
not require you to apply for a carry permit at all.
|3.20.06 @ 12:57PM|#
Oops. that should have read
Only four states in the US prohibit Concealed Carry outright, a
handful more have discretionary issuance of permits, and the vast
majority (38, if I recall correctly)are required to issue a permit
to anyone without a criminal background and who can jump through a
few simple hoops...
|3.20.06 @ 12:57PM|#
Oops. that should have read
Only four states in the US prohibit Concealed Carry outright, a
handful more have discretionary issuance of permits, and the vast
majority (38, if I recall correctly)are required to issue a permit
to anyone without a criminal background and who can jump through a
few simple hoops...
|3.20.06 @ 12:59PM|#
I don't know if you guys have ever seen World of Warcraft, but playing it reminded me of parts of snowcrash. I could easily imagine one of the coders building in an extra trapdoor somewhere which is only usable by them, and allowing the coders extra fighting moves.
T|3.20.06 @ 2:01PM|#
While these proposals/predictions appear believable, in the
short term, I doubt that the forces of the State (as in City,
State, & Federal) will willingly relinquish/devolve power to
private entities, nor will they allow the private security
companies to equip (read: arm)the way they would need to to defend
the strongholds of the wealthy.
Shows how much you know. It's already much easier to purchase NFA
regulated items (read that as full-auto weapons, short barreled
rifles and shotguns, and silencers) as a corporation than as an
individual. You skip a lot of the intrusive paperwork by organizing
an LLC or S-Corp that holds the items. It also allows you to let
multiple people have access to the weapons without worrying about
all the nasty paperwork.
|3.20.06 @ 2:31PM|#
I don't know if you guys have ever seen World of Warcraft,
but playing it reminded me of parts of snowcrash. I could easily
imagine one of the coders building in an extra trapdoor somewhere
which is only usable by them, and allowing the coders extra
fighting moves
The WoW designers have characters on at least some servers, mostly
used for some public events and debugging, IIRC. I think they go
the "unbeatable power" route (you hit them, they don't get hurt,
they hit you, you go splat) with them instead of going to the
trouble of coding special moves.
|3.20.06 @ 2:37PM|#
John Robb's scenario sounds an awful lot like present-day
Colombia or some other coca republic.
"Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their
own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of
security--as they do now with education..."
As they do now with education?? Allow me to indulge in my
own "bwahahaha." I guess I musta missed that issue of Newsweek.
Last I heard, they were all breeding prolifically, and then looking
around for others to pony up the funds for educrap for future
rocket scientists and cancer-curers li'l Brattley and Snottina.
Can't have the wee precious miracles attending school in a pre-1998
building after all, can we?
I hate to spoil Robb's research 'n' all, but the kind of people who
put up their own "Slow Down for Our Children" signs in the middle
of a 30-mph main drag through their McMansionville, rather than
supervise their own spawn and keep them on their own property, are
not the kind of people who are going to pony up a thin dime for the
"security collective." It takes a village to raise a child, after
all. Just not theirs.
|3.20.06 @ 3:19PM|#
Predicting the future is a crap shoot. The next rounds of terrorist attacks could just as easily spur a massive concentration of power in the government. Just look at how much mileage Bush got out of the last round. And after the failure of the government's response to Katrina, people were clamouring for a strengthened DHS and FEMA. The next attack could very well bring us a real "Ministry of Love".
|3.20.06 @ 3:24PM|#
"John Robb's scenario sounds an awful lot like present-day
Colombia or some other coca republic."
Are music and passion always in fashion at the coca, coca republic
...?
|3.20.06 @ 4:09PM|#
Um, big companies already do hire private security...been doing
it for years.
Also, did anyone read about Louisiana talking about hiring a bunch
of DynCorp guys and deputising them?
|3.20.06 @ 4:44PM|#
I think pretty much everything in that paragraph boils down
either to "false" or "true but pointless". For example, "Members of
the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands
by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security--as
they do now with education..."
Uh, yeah. Those would be called "local government" and "local
police forces" (as we do now with "school districts"). Did Robb
fail to notice we already have those?
|3.20.06 @ 5:03PM|#
While private security firms will certainly have more business,
I certainly don't see a total replacement or even a strong push
against the government. It's easy enough for the gated communities
to do such, and certain private corporations, but I just don't buy
full-scale private protection of public utilities.
First, it would require multiple attacks on multiple cities in
order to really engender a mass shift in thought. While this is
certainly possible, it's unlikely due to the very "open source"
nature of terrorist cells. Unless it happens in your town (and
probably more than once), I don't see a mass desire to create
burbclaves.
Secondly, because of the partisan nature of our government and
popular political thought, I think it's much more likely that a
simple switch in power will happen, perhaps many times, each step
leading us into a more centralized society.
Finally, I don't think cities will become any more self-reliant.
While it's true that a few large targets will severely disrupt a
city, even full-scale blackouts haven't had even a little of the
effect he's talking about. He also ignores, just how decentralized
cities already are with regards to the basic need of their
citizens. Yes, terrorists could disrupt the electricty, water
supply and certain forms of public transportation, but they could
never stop the thousands of trucks that already bring in food,
water, medical supplies etc. every day. I would say cities already
rely as much on (if not more) individual, decentralized actors as
they do on large, centralized utilities. It's not like there's one
massive Feed line to destroy that will stop everything.
Kevin Carson|3.20.06 @ 5:51PM|#
Arguably the reason these large concentrations of corporate
wealth exist in the first place is their ability to externalize the
costs of "public goods" on the taxpayer without paying for the full
cost of what they use. If they have to fully internalize the cost
of their own "parallel transportation" and security, they may find
they're bleeding cash.
On the other hand, unless there's some kind of state licensing
cartel that restricts the supply of private security services to
expensive, high-tech Robocop firms, there's nothing preventing
neighborhoods and communities from organizing their own voluntary
security associations (imagine a Neighborhood Watch with guns and
surplus police equipment).
I'm pretty skeptical about the ability of big corporations to
survive under these quasi-anarcho-cap scenarios, unless the state
is brought under another guise.
The phony "free market reforms" under which big business does so
well involves the kind of fake "privatization" where the nominally
"private" firms operate in a heavily statist framework with special
privileges. This kind of "market reform" is like one of those
old-fashioned chess machines with a midget concealed in the
works.
Kevin Carson|3.20.06 @ 5:57PM|#
I should add: the defense provided through cooperative organization and other forms of small-scale voluntary association might be considerably more cost-effective than the high-tech services provided by large corporations with multiple layers of managerial bureaucracy, mission statements, and high overhead, following "best practices" and "industry trends." If Blackwater, allied with a rump state, tries to enforce corporate power on the rest of society, it may find the IEDs and pungi sticks of the neighborhood militias to be pretty effective.
|3.20.06 @ 6:24PM|#
"Arguably the reason these large concentrations of corporate
wealth exist in the first place is their ability to externalize the
costs of "public goods" on the taxpayer without paying for the full
cost of what they use."
I would love to have some real numbers to look at around this
issue. We can (and have) blindly discussed the extent of corporate
externalization of costs. There is just no way to tell what
corporations would look like unless we have a handle on the extent
and in what form their externalized costs exist.
|3.20.06 @ 9:43PM|#
No matter how private and free-market that is, that sounds like
a really scary scenario to me. I think everyone should be afforded
the best police protection possible by the government. Imagine the
breakdown of relative security poorer areas would suffer.
Additonally, the added surveilence, while offically optional,
sounds like it'd be with you from birth and you wouldn't have much
of a place to leave to escape it without venturing into
government-protected zones. And with those places guarding only
poor people, they're sure to be underfunded.
|3.20.06 @ 9:48PM|#
C'mon everybody, you're missing the obvious!
This is a tribute to Octavia Butler (RIP!).
What better way to celebrate the award-winning author than sample
from her novel "Parable of the Sower"?
|3.20.06 @ 11:02PM|#
"At least the pizza will now be delivered in under 30
minutes..."
Uncle Enzo guarantees it.
Larry A|3.21.06 @ 12:51AM|#
Finally, I don't think cities will become any more
self-reliant. While it's true that a few large targets will
severely disrupt a city, even full-scale blackouts haven't had even
a little of the effect he's talking about. He also ignores, just
how decentralized cities already are with regards to the basic need
of their citizens. Yes, terrorists could disrupt the electricity,
water supply and certain forms of public transportation, but they
could never stop the thousands of trucks that already bring in
food, water, medical supplies etc. every day. I would say cities
already rely as much on (if not more) individual, decentralized
actors as they do on large, centralized utilities. It's not like
there's one massive Feed line to destroy that will stop
everything.
"Feed" line, maybe. But destroy the sewer system and you have about
a week to abandon the city.
|3.21.06 @ 1:32AM|#
I think everyone should be afforded the best police
protection possible by the government.
How do you plan to get from the situation we have today -- where
people are virtually unprotected by government police -- to this
hypothetical condition?
Imagine the breakdown of relative security poorer areas would
suffer.
Yeah. After all, look at how secure poor people are today!
Where I differ with the argument discussed at top is with the
presumption that the trickle down of private security provision
will stop with the middle class. If government lets it proceed
without outlawing it, I see nothing that will keep it from getting
to the poorest classes.
Security is valuable. If the private provision of security becomes
as ubiquitous as the article supposes, and if things are as
insecure for the poor as the article supposes, then there will be
ample suppliers of security offering their services to the poor,
and ample poor bidding for those services.
|3.21.06 @ 10:50AM|#
The poor will just have to resort to charity: I hear the St
Maurice's Defence League will take care of you. And the Feliks
Dzerzhinsky Workers' Defence Collective does the occasional charity
job, if they can spare the time from campus guard duty.
Register your .ter domain name now...
|3.21.06 @ 11:49AM|#
For all of you wringing your hands over the poor not being protected, I will point out that a 12 guage by the bed is arguably a better form of protection than the cop (or contracted security guy) that's ten blocks away.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245