Over at Liberty Forum, "Steamship Time" posted an argument against
anarchism:

"The market does not bring about justice. It brings about the most
efficient use of resources in the then-prevailing conditions.
Possibly, a market-based legal system would bring about a regime
where literally every man regardless of his geographic location could
pick at his whim among different legal codes enforced by his own
private band of mercenaries but I doubt it. At best, such a system of
competing laws and loyalties would give rise to a lawyer-class at
least as large as the present one. At worst, it would be a
subsistence existence with raids by competing armed bands being a
common occurrence. The transaction costs would be enormous as
businesses and individuals struggled to negotiate contracts and
insure against risk.

Human beings are pack animals which is why they form families,
businesses, neighborhoods, fraternal societies, D&D clubs, churches,
etc. The model for these communities is for the members to subscribe
to a single code of conduct to provide them with a sense of security
and predictability. Individuals who refuse to conform are punished
and/or evicted, but if enough individuals decide they've had enough,
then the community dissolves. The same holds true for pack animals in
the animal kingdom, so it would appear the process is entirely
natural.

If all government everywhere were to be abolished tomorrow, people
would set about the work of forging communal ties in order to secure
their persons and property and conduct business transactions.
Homogenous communities would be relatively conflict-free and would
require little more than a constable, a court for resolution of the
handful of intractable disputes, and a militia composed of the
community's able-bodied men. The community would also pool resources
in order to develop economies of scale for those commodities where
such a model will produce the lowest cost per individual. The
foregoing activities and institutions would undoubtedly involve some
common expense, and individuals who refused to pay would be made to
leave."

There are many proiblems with this argument. The most obvious is that
D&D clubs do not claim the allegiance3 of everybody living in a
certain geographic area, and members of such clubs may well not want
to live under the Pro-Football Appreciation Society, so the fact that
such communities are formed is not analogous to an argument for the
state.

However, one respondant did applaud what he saw as "Steamship Time's"
account of "the genesis of the nation state and its
advantages:'homogenous communities would be relatively conflict-free
and would require little more than a constable, a court for
resolution of the handful of intractable disputes, and a militia
composed of the community's able-bodied men', don't you know those
are fighting words to our crusading,'anti-statist' heroes?"

Looking back at Steamship's argument, though, it reminded me of
Nozick's argument that a dominant protection agency would arise as a
natural monopoly through the workings of the free market, and so we
would get a state in a manner that would not violate people's rights.

My response, then, was this:

"Suppose that you have two gas companies. If one company selles to a
whole bunch of people in a specific area, it becomes much more
expensive for the other to sell to people in the same area, because
its customers become much more dispersed. In the end, it becomes
cheaper and easier for everybody in that area to have gas piped by
one company.

This is analogous to what you are saying about police (because,
presumably, you aren't saying that simply the biggest police force is
able to beat up all others, and anybody who subscribes to another, as
this would give your new state no legitimacy at all). The trouble is
that even now we would not have a state in any recognisable sense of
the term, because everybody would still have the right to withdraw
from the state without the surrounding state having any power to do
anything about it.

Take the example of the gas company. It becomes the sole provider of
gas in a specific area. Why? Because it is cheaper and easier for
customers to accept its services than those of any other company.
They are still free to accept the services of any other company,
though, and that is the crux of the matter. If they are willing to
pay the higher price and accept the difficulties involved, they could
have their gas pumped by a competitor.

Now what state has ever been like this? It may be cheaper and easier
for me to accept the protection of the police laid on by my state
here in the UK, but do I really have the right to complain to the
French Gendarme that my house has been burgled? It might be cheaper
and easier for me not to do so, but I don't have the right to do so
even if I was willing to bear the additional costs. I can't call the
LA county sheriff if my brother gets murdered, can I?

No state has ever allowed these things, because it is essential to
the definition of a state that it have the sole right to interpret
and implement the law over its particular geographic area. The gas
company or the successful police company do not have this right,
regardless of the fact that they hold a dominant position in the
market.

(For anybody that cares, this is an argument against Nozick's claim
that a state can arise out of the free market order without violating
anybody's rights)."

Any thoughts, anybody?

Rich