The security agent risks their life and is liable for their mistakes, so they charge a lot but still have to keep their prices competitive. If the workers want to reduce their spending they can forgo security or find a better deal. The alternatives to this voluntary market system are 1) only one security provider that demands whatever price they decide (government), 2) no security at all (chaos), 3) a security agent voluntarily works for free (unlikely, unsustainable, unreliable, and suspect of an ulterior motive), or 4) a security agent is coerced into working for free or at a lower pay than they are willing to accept (enslaving and exploiting your army is usually a bad idea, and it means some government type entity is conscripting people). Note that the security agent isn't given carte-blanche to pass laws or force their will onto others and if they demean their clients they'll likely be replaced. I would not begrudge them having more money than I do, after all I herd sheep and they get shot at by murderous thieves. I chose low risk/reward while they chose high risk/reward, and they should certainly be allowed to spend their well earned pay.