Any discussion of the role of private security agents in a free nation must begin with the individual. An individual is the only "real" entity that exists. All other forms of entities — partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, etc. — are artificial persons formed in a voluntary fashion. Ultimately, each individual is responsible for the protection of his person and chattels. Individuals intuitively practice protective activities when even vaguely aware of a possible threat. Contra to LeFevre, if an individual is granted the ability to take preventative measures, but denied the ability to defend himself when faced with an aggressor, or to seek to be restored from a violation of his property, then one must question the value of the ownership of property or the value one places upon one’s own life. Since crimes are activities conducted by one person against another, an individual acting as a principal is rightfully entitled to LeFevre’s entire hierarchy of enforcement. It is only when an agent is employed that an unequal or tyrannical "crossing of the boundary" is likely to occur in day-to-day situations. In practical terms, most individuals are not the victims of crime. In the same sense, few individuals are criminals. The vast majority of individuals do not hire agents for individual protection. Those that do, do so for only limited periods of time and for special circumstances. It has been my experience that individuals who feel the need for private protective agents decide to protect themselves when the cost of such services becomes known. This would likely be the case in a free nation as well. It is quite possible that no special protective agency could financially survive if it offered only this type of service, at least on this basic level.
Historically, the individual’s right of protection has occasionally been extended, not to an agent per se, but to another entity. Family protective organizations have been used in many societies. Another example is the spontaneous group reacting to criminal activity — otherwise known as vigilantism. It is quite possible that these adaptations will occur in the absence of a monopolistic police power. Further, one should not discount the effectiveness or the wisdom of such practices under certain circumstances. Vigilante groups have usually consisted of property owners who have each been a victim of a particular aggressor. Once the aggressor is no longer a threat, the vigilante group breaks up and returns to normal productive activities. Vigilantes have been defamed by government police agents — whose jobs do not consist of normal productive activities.
» Protective Services in a Free Nation (Scott McLaughlin).
