Because arbitration requires force. Even in an anarchist society you need defense agencies that use force. What prevents these agencies from becoming local monopolies on force? And what could break that monopoly? The present situation seems to indicate that competition against localized monopolies on force is almost impossible. Granted, they have tanks and airplanes and in many cases, the population is completely disarmed, but I still don’t understand how a stateless society can be preserved.
Their own clients’ rights to produce their own security.
Because a PDA cannot force you to remain it’s client. A PDA that begins to become heavy handed would begin losing customers and would soon be out of business. Assuming, say, a small city used one particular PDA for their protection service – that is EVERYONE in that city used them. We could then assume the PDA is starting to think it has the ability to make up rules and laws for everyone. The problem for that PDA is that in a stateless society people can always take their business elsewhere. If the PDA tried to force people to stay with them (perhaps even taxing them) then it is likely that competing businesses would be established to compete with them. Customers would leave the former PDA for the new ones that have been established and it goes out of business.
But why isn’t this happening now? Why aren’t PDAs being established to compete with states? Is it because the states have economies of scale in their favor?
There are all kinds of security companies that offer protections domestically and abroad. Do you mean courts of law? There might be some dispute services – a lot of people resolve their stuff talking with a layer instead of going to court – but those decisions couldn’t be enforced. In Britan, a lot of islams would like to have jihad courts. But you’d have the police at your leg, if you emprisioned someone if they steal or you cut his hand or something.
Btw, as I understand it, economies of scale is when you can reduce the fixed cost of your products because of how big you are. The state isn’t an economy of scale: taxing almost 50% of people’s word, they simply have a big pool of resources they can use as they please.
This is a relatively new idea. I believe that 10-20 years from now, there will be PDAs that are competitve with government.
Agreed. In hindsight, I misused the term.
Ok, so arbitration “requires force”. Well, not really. It’s mutually agreed-upon. Further, the “force” is that of reputation lost if the arbitration isn’t adhered to.
Also, what allows the agencies to become monopolies? That is the proper question. It’s not “what prevents”, but “what allows”. So how can they become monopolies? I don’t see where the power structure would be to give rise to it. The present situation is about political force, and the monopolies are either private and state-backed, or state-run and state-backed. There are no other monopolies that I see. So without the state: how do monopolies arise?
No, it’s because states outlaw anything which could compete with them. Even private police must use the “state” police to put people into real custody.
If enough ‘customers’ don’t care about the quality of service then the private security providers can morph into a monopoly/state. “Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty” - sorry about quoting a politician, but the idea is correct, I believe.
But what’s the probability of that? Your security is paramount to you (unless you’re suicidal), so a poor provider would be replaced.
What about Judge Judy? 
Seriously, plenty of people take matters into their own hands when the state justice fails… This of course is illegal activity.