Violence is expensive and undesirable. The same reason why the history of the nation state is not dominated by perpetual war (with the exception of America).
There is nothing which can prevent bad things. If there was, the state would be redundant. We’re not Utopians, although Randians sometimes seem like they are.
Two things.
If you trust people to voluntarily support a government, why can’t we support those same people if they choose not to support the government? In other words, do they have the faculty to make the decision or do they not?
The market can do everything the state can, EXCEPT commit acts of aggressive violence. If you feel aggressive violence is necessary, then by all means choose the state. But if you argue the state should exist to protect people against aggression, then it seems to me to be contradictory.
Part of the problem is that anarchy is not an end in itself - it is a means to the end of moral consistency. Any child understands the idea that what is wrong for you is wrong for me, that is, if I wouldn’t want you to be permitted to hit me over the head then I must accept that I should not be permitted to hit you over the head, either. There are several names for this idea, the most famous is probably the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is more profound than just “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you”, it’s a statement about human nature and what humans generally regard to be rightly constructed moral rules.
Consider the following Monty Python-ish sketch:
If someone takes money from your wallet, by force, it’s a crime. Unless they’re the King. This is an obvious violation of the most basic moral principle that even children understand, yet it is the most essential aspect of the State… without the legitimized power to tax, there is no State. So, anarchy - statelessness - is a requisite state of affairs in any society with moral consistency. Private property, free exchange, and so on, immediately follow from moral consistency.
The State order, on the other hand, is characterized by dual morality. There is one set of moral rules for people, generally, then there is another set of moral rules for people specially designated by the hat they wear or they badge on their lapel or the robes they wear or the parking space reserved for them or the last name of their ancestors, and so on and so on. Understanding why the masses are susceptible to dual-morality is, I think, an unsolved problem… but it is very easy to see that they are susceptible to dual-morality and that the consequences of this are terrible.
I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer his question. Sieben asked how a monopoly can exist in a market when freedom of entry and exist also exist in the market. You have not offered any explanation; you merely repeated your assertion that “the state has a monopoly on the application of force”.
If a state is purely voluntary, it cannot prevent other states from arising. Doing so would imply that the state is, in fact, not voluntary on some level. Can you see any flaws in this reasoning?
I might also add that a “monopoly on the application of force” necessarily negates the use of force by individuals who are not state-agents in a defensive manner. The question begged is whether or not such a negation was intentional. I like to think that it isn’t intentional, but I suppose it wouldn’t be safe to make such an assumption.
Augarundus: Does this: “the state has a monopoly on the application of force,” also include defensive force? Or do you mean to only limit the use of aggressive (i.e. non-defensive) force?