Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals.

CAA 1>>> There are three separate issues: 1) preventing tyranny without infringing on liberty, 2) monopoly, and 3) free riders for what I will call "watchdog companies". 1) This was answered in R1; the transparency of transactions would make it impossible for any company to pose a tyranny. 2) A monopoly won't rise in a free market. Let's take an example: five companies are on the market for resource X, each with 20% market share. Company A wants to have a monopoly, and companies B through E selling for 200M each. A must buy B and then proceed to buy C and so on; if A tries to buy them all at once, everyone's going to find out what's going on and A will be screwed. A buys B, then goes for C. Well, C's not going to be 200M anymore. Going from 40% to 60% is worth more than going from 20% to 40% - so C is now selling for 300M. A buys C, and goes for D - D's going to be exactly like C, and D sells for 500M. A buys D, and now bids for E. E would jack up their company's price to an incredible fortune, because once E's gone, A has 100% market share and will be able to do anything it wants. Now given that the last to sell will make a massive amount of money, each company will want to be the last to sell. As a result, none of them will sell because they're going to wait for someone else to sell first. 3) Watchdog companies wouldn't be in demand. If people fear that a company will become an oppressive government, that same company will address concerns - they could, as I suggested, make their monetary transactions transparent. If they took this action (which would be likely), then yes, a watchdog company would not be very strong and would have many free riders. But it wouldn't be a problem, as the concern would already be addressed. 2>>> I stand by my R1; a vigilante justice system is non-unique to anarchy. A private justice system doesn't need compulsory authority. Though not a perfect example, I thought it would be nice to use something familiar. The following is from an article by Stefan Molyneux: (http://www.lewrockwell.com...) "Currently, over 300,000 people rely on it for a significant portion of their income. Most of what they sell is so inexpensive that lawsuits aren't cost-effective - in other words, they operate in a stateless society. So how does eBay resolve disputes? Simply through dialogue and the dissemination of information (see http://pages.ebay.com...). If I don't pay for something I receive, I get a strike against me. If I don't ship something that I was paid for, I get a strike. Everyone I deal with can also rate my products, service and support. If I get rated poorly, I have to sell my goods for less, since, everything else being equal, people prefer dealing with a better-rated vendor (or buyer). If enough people rate me poorly, I will be out of business, because the risk of doing business with me becomes too great. There are no police or courts involved here - thefts are simply dealt with through communication and information sharing." Non-compulsory authority. I'm still not sure where corruption comes in. Companies will do all in they can to please their consumers, and if their consumers are worried about corruption, then they will fight it. And anyways, if corruption happens in a company you subscribe to, all you have to do is cancel that subscription and they'll fall. Only desirable things last in a free market, and since corruption is not one of them, it won't happen for long. If corruption happens in the GOVERNMENT, it's a long process to get rid of the person in question, and even then they'll still have their pension and lofty lifestyle. If accountability is a problem, a state has it worse. 3>>> 1) A company has three types of relationships: With its customers, its employees, and with other companies. It is in the third relationship that the free rider problem is solved. In absence of a government which holds people to their contracts, the free market provides a solution, which Molyneux has termed "Dispute Resolution Organizations" . To prove their trustworthiness, companies and individuals would to sign contracts with these DRO's, agreeing that this third-party entity will solve disputes. It would be in every person's interest to sign up for this DRO system. DROs, like private security companies, would be the first to disappear if the anarchy was invaded and taken over. Ergo, there wouldn't be a single successful DRO that wouldn't also have in their contracts a specified payment to national defense. The private security companies would not enter into association or partnerships with them otherwise; any DRO that didn't support private security companies would quickly die off. 2) The source is irrelevant, if they all use the same method. Think about it this way: you get sick and you have the flu, and you take pill X to get better. Would it be different if your doctor put it in your mouth? In both cases, pill X was used. The "pill X" from my example in R1 is "arming the populace". If invasion was at an anarchy's doorstep, private security companies WOULD arm the people, as it is cheap and it makes invading a near-impossible task. Invading a country is like breaking into an egg - you poof the army, you get into the capital, and you're set. Invading an anarchy is like breaking into a rock - you get past the first row of houses, you'll have to take down the next one. It never ends. There is no central structure to take. And this is all assuming that an anarchy would not take preventive measures in the first place, like buying a couple of nukes. CFM 1>>> I have shown that no such weaknesses exist. 2>>> Also addressed. 3>>> IF COERCION IS A PROBLEM, USING COERCION IS NOT A SOLUTION! It does not take much brainpower to figure this out. A kid will quickly realize that if putting his hand on a hot stove will cause pain, then the solution is to NOT put his hand on the stove! The voter must realize that this thought process is the exact same one the word "addiction" refers to. Thinking that the solution to a problem is to create the problem - it is madness. Slavery will not occur, as it is not profitable. Slavery only existed in America for so long because the government caught the escaping slaves. Brazil did not need a civil war to end slavery - the government stopped catching slaves, and slavery ended soon after. >>>>>> Anarchy is not coercion. You can choose to submit yourself or to not submit yourself to a DRO system. If you do, great! Problems are solved peacefully. If you don't, well that's fine too, you just won't be as well off as those who do agree to show that they're trustworthy. In both DRO and statist systems, not submitting oneself to "the law" has consequences - but only in a statist system would one be in constant fear of a law enforcer using violence to drag them back in. A DRO system is collectively controlled. If you have a concern, then the DRO will address it. Don't like your contract? You can sign up for a different one, or you can go and choose a different DRO! The system is responsive - exponentially more responsive than any government. It is natural law that people respond to incentives. You would be the DRO's incentive: you have the money, you get to have a say! Politicians don't always respond to you (but respond to lobbyists) for this very reason - they will get your money regardless, so they don't need to care about you. Finally, the Jefferson quote - This is EXACTLY what DRO's and private security companies are. If no agreement can be met, you can choose to not subject yourself to them. Government (as defined) is completely different: they will do what they like to you, whether you consent to it or not. If we are going to agree with Jefferson, then an anarchy is what we want. A "collective compulsory authority" does NOT necessarily get consent from the governed. An anarchy MUST.