It’s the same sort of government Rand proposed. To me it is entirely consistent with market anarchism.
Haven’t you learned anything from DiLorenzo’s The Myth of the Natural Monopoly?
In any case, I suggest reading Ronald Coase’s The Nature of the Firm.
It is very unlikely that only one court could exist, perhaps one court of one kind in terms of first appeal, debtors court, etc. But as the firm continues to vertically integrate it becomes increasingly inefficient.
first question: what does it mean Minarchists? ? are they any different from monarchist? if so- what ? joke?
other question: why do you discuss taxes?
important question - how to push deserters, like myself, to join the war?
there should be some moral argumentation, not just money and propaganda.
someone has to make me believe in math ( or any other, non-democratic government)
Minarchists are libertarians who support a limited state, as opposed to market anarchists who reject all states. Minarchism is not (necessarily) monarchism, though they sound similar 
I will attempt to answer your questions although it is somewhat difficult to understand your writing. Minarchists are not monarchists at all. Minarchists believe in a state or government that is limited to only protecting the rights of citizens. Most minarchists believe in either no taxes or extremely low taxes. Both anarchist and minarchist libertarians are opposed to conscription(drafting people into the military against their will). Many minarchists would favor a democratic process to choose law makers and some other government workers but anarchists are against any form of democracy that uses force against an individual for any reason. As far as moral arguments go, libertarians believe that everyone owns their own life and the rest of their ethics seem to flow from that principle. We believe that nobody should initiate force or fraud against any other.
Thanks a lot for detailed explanation. I know i was bad with my homework. Good luck
The “state” and “government” are different. See Nock via Oppenheimer.
Very simple. Either the state is funded voluntarily (best), or, failing that, the very small state (i.e. a county) is funded through some generally accepted means of taxation. If you object to the generally accepted means, you have two choices: 1) Submit to it anyway, or 2) Move to the next county. If government were properly decentralized, anarchists could have their “state” (territory) and minarchists could have there’s. No one would be forced to live under a political regime with which they disagreed because choice would be rampant. Personal secession would be another possibility – i.e. you may forego taxation, but you would not receive any government services – including the courts or protection from the police, etc. – though you would be subject to them.
In which case it ceases to be a state can may as well be called a “private protection agency”. However, if it still maintains a coercive monopoly by initiating force or threatening to do so in order to stop people from forming or patronizing any other protection agency within the territory, which is the underlying problem in the Objectivist state (despite the fact that they eliminate taxation), then it is not truly voluntary either. So even if taxation were abolished, states would still be involuntary if they still tried to maintain a coercive territorial monopoly. This part of my own case against Objectivism specifically, but it applies to any similar notion of “voluntary states”.
Here we start to run into some ethical problems. The choice between submission and being forced to move is a false choice. If I truly have property rights, then I should be able to keep my property and still not pay and not recieve the services. Otherwise, you must initiate force against me, or at least threaten to do so, in order to make me pay the taxes. This is part of why market anarchists view any state as inherently violating the principle of the non-initiation of force. And as outlined above, even without taxation, we still face an ethical dillema if competition is not allowed in the field of security and arbitration.
In an inelastic, scarcity market for locations, exclusive use forces costs upon those in proximity that you exclude (prices for other locations goes up).
In a free market anarchy the landowner then becomes a state because forcing these costs upon those being excluded violates the excluded’s absolute right of self-ownership.
Requiring that the absolute right of self-ownership be enforced by an obligation to those in proximity that you exclude is a rightful use of defensive force. I t does not violate the absolute right of self-ownership of the landowner because they contribute no labor towards the creation of economic rent.
A monopoly on force is required for this because the costs are spread over a territory in proximity to the location in question.
Again with the Georgist nonsense? [8-)]
Our current system of land tenure removes socially created locations from market forces.
It is Georgist nonsense and it does not counter the fact that such a monopoly must initiate force or threaten to (against any competitors within the territory) in order to come into being and maintain itself. I also find it rather amusing and nonsensical that one could be a Georgist while supporting the territorial monopoly of the state. For they are proposing a land monopoly as the solution to an alleged problem of land monopoly.
So you say. But it doesn’t.
The force used to require the sharing of economic rent is just because it is defensive in nature. In anarchy where all lands are legally occupied, the landless are forced to pay economic rent to the landowners - there is no choice in the matter. So in anarchy landowners ARE the state.
I am a Nockian. Nock (via Oppenheimer) defined a state as handing out privileges without any obligation to those whose natural rights (right of self-ownership) are being denied. Local governance as legitimate authority requires an obligation and this is a just use of force because it is upholding the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded.
The right of self-ownership of the landowner is not violated by requiring the sharing of economic rent (directly and equally) because by definition the landowner contributes no labor towards the creation of economic rent. It is the exclusive use of a location in an inelastic, scarcity market that does and the value is determined by the location’s proximity to the labor and services (including public infrastructure) of those being excluded.
The reason a monopoly on force is required for this particular economic phenomena (that violates the absolute rights of those being excluded) is because the costs are spread over a territory in proximity to the location in question. This says nothing at all about any other sort of polycentric law arrangements.
In a geo-mutualist anarchy (end all privilege and where exclusive use was necessary require an obligation in exchange for backing by force), it would not matter where anyone else located or who owned the capital - everyone’s absolute right of self-ownership would be upheld and labor would always get it’s full & just due.
Can you actually prove that there is such a thing as land rent?
It is a standard term used in the study of economics. See Ricardo’s “Law of Rent”
That it is a word does not mean that it exists in reality. What is the logic behind the existence of land rent?
It is not a word. It is a standard concept within the study of economics.
Economic Rent: Any excess that a factor earns over the minimum amount needed to keep that factor in its present use.
But that presupposes that you can objectively know what that cost is. If we can’t know that, we can’t prove the existence of land rents.