The production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition. … [… - Gustave de Molinari

No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.

The production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition.

Man experiences a multitude of needs, on whose satisfaction his happiness depends, and whose non-satisfaction entails suffering. Alone and isolated, he could only provide in an incomplete, insufficient manner for these incessant needs. The instinct of sociability brings him together with similar persons, and drives him into communication with them. Therefore, impelled by the self-interest of the individuals thus brought together, a certain division of labor is established, necessarily followed by exchanges. In brief, we see an organization emerge, by means of which man can more completely satisfy his needs than he could living in isolation.<p>This natural organization is called society.<p>The object of society is therefore the most complete satisfaction of man's needs. The division of labor and exchange are the means by which this is accomplished.

The interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer.

But why should there be an exception relative to security? What special reason is there that the production of security cannot be relegated to free competition? Why should it be subjected to a different principle and organized according to a different system?