Via the Distributed Republic comes this from John Hasnas. Just from what Micha quoted it seems rather sensible, and I’m certainly open to private means of defense (both self-provided and hired), but I would expect that the remedial state (distinct from the minimal state in that it subsidizes rather than monopolizes the minimal public goods) would still adjudicate disputes between a person and their security provider and ensure that the latter do not get out of line, in addition of course to preventing any competing state from taking its place (which is really what I’m interested in).

For a good critique of Ed Stringham’s hypothesized version of anarcho-capitalism from its author’s anarcho-capitalist colleague, see Peter Leeson’s “Anarchy, Monopoly and Predation”, which people of the lefty persuasion will like for its attack on concentrated power in “private” hands. Stringham joins up with Bryan Caplan against Tyler Cowen to explain why there will sufficient cooperation in anarchy for it to function well but not enough to create monopolies in Networks, Law and the Paradox of Cooperation. Per Bylund attacks all anarchists who speculate on how their preferred version of anarchy will replace the state as “blueprint anarchists” in The Statist Mindset of Anarchists. I rarely get tired of pointing out what Bob Black noticed in My Anarchism Problem: many visions of “anarchy” don’t really seem stateless, and it seems all anarchists actually agree on is to call whatever they dislike (in Bob’s case it’s work) “the State”.