No, there would be some life insurance that would prevent that (for those who have token their responsabilities of course).
Besides, I don’t see the problem, I don’t see why a state would help more wives not to be beaten by their husband than some private rights-enforcement institutions.
In a capitalist society, thanks to division of labour, all men and women are virtually equal in strenght. So aggression would never be profitable. In a market anarchy, you’d see some private institutions emerge to respond the need of protection of people., no matter the form they would have.
That’s why I think a market anarchy would be much safer than a state-parasitized society.
I don’t know if anyone else here reads Robert Higgs, but if not, you should. Those who like Rothbard will love him. This snippet from his ‘Neither Liberty Nor Safety’ is on target, in terms of this thread topic:
HL Mencken famously said that “every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” By now however, I am no longer ashamed, because I do not identify with the government under which I live. Rather, I view it as a criminal organization that without provocation has chosen to make war on my just rights - not only mine, of course, but everyone’s. Although this vile enterprise is my problem, because it robs and bullies me relentlessly and without mercy, it is not my responsibility: the nail is not the hammer. I did not ask for it and I do not want it. I fervently desire that it would simply disappear without a trace, leaving individuals free to conduct their affairs by means of voluntary cooperation, free of its incessant, gratuitous thrats of force and violence against unoffending people, and free of the ceasless, insulting drumbeat of its moronic propaganda.
Of course, the government is not about to disappear; indeed, it grows stronger daily. Social scientists must therefore understand how it operates and what consequences its operations have for the public. The foremost difficulty of understanding the threat of modern government is its nearly complete infiltration of society. Not only does it permeate virtually every part of social and economic life, but people constantly pass back and forth across the line that separates predator and prey - so commonly, in fact, that the masses easily fall for the myth that in our blessed democracy “we are the government.”
This highlights the problem I have with the notion of minarchy as it tends to be put forth: those putting it forth do not generally seem to be aware of the facts as outlined above by Higgs. And so any solution they posit is not based on fact and reality, but upon wishful thinking. And such solutions are, simply, not worth serious analysis. If someone were to acknowledge the above, and then go on to show how a minarchist system could function in a way that seemed likely to - on an ongoing and ceaseless and powerful basis - constrain the criminal organization that is the State, then I’d be willing to look at the proposal. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a minarchist proposal that actually did that.
As in this threat, there is instead the presumption that we have ‘learned’ from our mistakes and would surely be able to do ‘better next time.’ But no specifics, nor evidence, is given that these presumptions do or would hold true.