With respect, one doesn’t have to be an austro-libertarian to have views open to competing free market security agencies. There’s neo-classical free market anarchists out in the world, they just happen to be less noisy than the austrians.

Also, seeing as how those people are there because of the crash brought on by massive government intervention in markets and they are currently being abused by a government police force, I have trouble seeing how this would have anything to do with the type of societies that Rothbard, the Tannehills, or David Friedman talked about.

Seriously, the point of peaceful marches is so that the nation will be appalled and angry when they see the violent police reaction. Of course it’s always been difficult to gain the sympathy of the corporate media, which by and large misleads average Americans into thinking the protesters are punks and the forces of the establishment are in the right.

But it would indicate just how important it is for OWS to paint any episodes of police brutality as the result of some banker-government machine, and for the NYPD to paint it as a few bad eggs.

If anything, the willingness to use violence to break up peaceful assembly shows everyone how afraid the “powers that be” really are. Only someone in a truly secure position can say, “We all have the right to an opinion, and they are free to speak as they see fit.”

Improper scaling by the observer becomes the message.

These aren’t a bunch of assault rifle and machete-bearing revolutionies ready to kill the doctors and teachers. They are kids with cameras, who have every right to peaceably assemble as any tourist group or lunch bunch on New York streets.

If the NYPD could credibly commit to not enforce the laws that discourage people from hiring private parties to defend property rights, I’d immediately make arrangements to hire private security.