Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

First, the notion that the free market "has proven itself in practice" is meaningless when one considers that it never has been practiced. Theory is all we've got. Second, the notion of "applying a free market" to governance seems to misconstrue the very nature of what either governance or a market is. A market occurs in any context in which force is, essentially, not an option-- in which people can only deal with each other by means of persuasion and trade-- and only to the extent to which that is true. It presumes either a natural impossibility of force-- contradicted by millenia of human history-- or something else being in place. Among its many features, as you've mentioned, is permitting competition in activities considered "subject to the market". But what does it mean to allow competition in retributive force, which is the unique purpose of a government? (Defense as such is a misnomer-- policemen do not typically sit outside your door defending you, unless you are a very important person. Even "national defense" is based in significant part upon deterrence. And most Western governments have a history of permitting individuals to defend themselves freely, and even hire security guards, this in no way interferes with their role as government). It means-- that multiple parties can in the same context determine the outcome of a court case, or some equivalent thereto at will. But the nature of such things is that only one such ruling can be enforced. You cannot at once decide both in favor of Roe and in favor of Wade-- how could you? This would require it to be possible for a fetus to be both aborted and to remain in the womb. Yet you propose that Roe and Wade have no monopoly to take their case before. What are they going to do? The market? The market consists of them coming to an agreement of some sort, which if they could do they would never have brought the case forth in the first place! Reasoning would say "Arbitration--" which exists at present, and is merely another form of agreement they could come to, and did not permit them to decide. Should they hire private defense agencies? Roe goes to his private defense agency, Wade goes to his. One party armed with guns is unequivocally in favor of forcing the mother to keep the baby, one is unequivocally in favor of blowing the brains out of anyone who wants to force the mother to keep the baby. What happens next is called WAR. War may be the health of the state-- well, yes. Heart attacks are the health of cardiologists, but this does not speak poorly of cardiologists. A war does not end until one party defeats the other, as clearly both their demands could never be satisfied. In other words, one party forces the other to adhere to its law-- to respect its newly acquired monopoly on a jurisdiction. It is known as a government. The fact of the matter is that these disagreements occur. The market by definition cannot as such resolve them, unless the context of what "market" means is modified with a theory of property. A libertarian socialist is one who would say "Give up your monopoly on that land, leave that trespasser alone to compete with you and we'll see whose farming model is best." But two people cannot at once both fully farm the same square at the same time. An anarcho capitalist says "Give up your monopoly on jurisdiction." But two conflicting laws cannot at once reign supreme at the same time. Jurisdiction is a matter of property rights-- but it is a property right over a wider context than just one farm or so, as in your average landowner case. It is not an initiation of force for a government to defend it's jurisdictional property. If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction. It is impossible for competition to sort something out when two people can't simultaneously attempt the same task on the same terms without interfering with each other. It is all well and good, of course, for a competitive market to apply-- to deciding between the merits of the products of different farms with different owners, or to Intel and AMD, Microsoft and Apple. So long as one's property, one's creations from nature or the stuff of the mind, are respected. But a market cannot resolve a disagreement about the same item that cannot at once serve the interests of all those who use it.