As we all know, in an anarcho-capitalist society, roads, police, judges, prisons and army (if there is any, that is) etc are all private.
Now, don’t you think there is a risk/chance that the state will begin to exist again, supposing that a police company merges with a road company (very practical since they would be able to use all roads, and maybe block other cops from doing so), then with some courts, some prisons (also very practical, courts have certain prisons they send the convicted to) and finally the army - the police will then get information about threats to the area they are protecting and may be able to help the army.
Army. Police. Courts. Prisons. Roads. This begins to look like a state…
You also have to admit, it would be hard to replace such a company once it is in place. It’s not like you can just boycott the police when they are trying to help you (well, you can, but you won’t, believe me).
Now, the question is: Would it be better if a private company provided all the things a minarchist government did? Why/why not?
You’re missing the essence of an anarcho-capitalist society. Market diversity.
There is no reason why one firm would provide everything, because there would be constant competition from every market segment. And if a single firm or group was able to provide the broad range of formerly state provided services, then they would clearly be better than all competitors.
Sure you can. You have a weapon, and you defend yourself. It’s pretty basic. You don’t “NEED” the police. It’s a service, and different people, of different means and circumstances, will have different requirements for security and defense.
If you don’t understand a free market, or try to pigeon hole a free market by trying to replace today’s institutions straight up for private institutions, then you’re not going to be able to appreciate the upside of anarcho-capitalism.
Without monopoly service provision, and with market freedom, there will be all sorts of new and radical ways to do everything, from garbage collection to courts, to travel to security. Everything will change and the offerings will become much richer.
Isn’t this circular? First you’re saying rid the State, but then the State may emerge again so you call for a non-State again: “…would it be better if a private company provided all the things…”. But then you add you want this private company to provide for a “minarchist government”… so then this whole scenario is back to a State again.
The difference is that people would still have the right to start a competing company/government/private defense agency/rights-securing institution.
If a company as you described started prohibiting people from doing that, then it is doing something immoral. In our discussions, what we are doing is talking about what uses of force are proper and which are immoral. Is it possible that a private government might become powerful enough to use force to prevent or obstruct its competition? Yes, in theory. The point is that it’s wrong, both in that hypothetical situation, and in the identical and very real situation that we live in today. Of course, many people have some very good reasons why they think that if we actually did become an anarcho-capitalist society, it would have to happen by means of a process that would make freedom so valuable to people that they would never want to give it up again, and thus any company trying to do what you’re suggesting would find itself opposed with justified defensive force. I certainly hope they are right. And in practice, such companies are very likely to be smaller than our current government, and thus less powerful, and thus more easily opposed.
If a private rights-securing institution grew powerful enough to suppress competition, but chose not to, and was selected by everyone in a region to be their government/defense agency, I think that would be just fine. The only key is that that institution needs to continue to recognize the right of people to terminate their relationship with it. Even if the company required people sign themselves up perpetually as part of their (voluntarily entered into) terms of service, I think that would be fine, as long as they realize that nobody can bind their children’s choices once they reach adulthood by such an agreement.