[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"Who said there would be no police?"

You did. If you going to say private security forces then they won't have mandates to protect anyone who can't pay for their services.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private security *IS* "police".

I'll address your concerns about poor people in another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
"Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?"

Like rebellious serfs in the middle ages organized a resistence, then got killed.

"Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully?"

Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

How would these people organize. They will need to pool thier resources. To make sure thier army is the biggest one, and thus able to protect everyone, we'll assume there are many many people involved. They will need rules to govern when the force can be used, and rules governing how the rules are made. They will also have to make rules are applied universally and fairly to all members to ensure the members themselves don't violate the agreements. Without these controls in place they will be unable to organize thier power effectively in order to curb the aggressions of individual members or groups.

So what do we have here. A government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bunch of people buying protection services. The people from whom they buy the service can determine how to make their own rules (these processes would be considered in the purchasing decision). People would purchase whatever level of security that they felt they needed. Some would purchase nothing. Regardless, we can be confident that the results will be more efficient (and more moral) than state-run service.

Now let's talk about the uber-warlord-boogeyman. You seem to reject the notion that anyone will be able to oppose him.

Let's start with the extreme case, and allow that this single man has amassed enough power to conquer the entire world. So what? A-C can't 100% prevent conquest. But neither can any other form of government. The soviets could have wiped out the US had they wanted to.

Continuing in this case, which is easier for the boogeyman to conquer and to maintain power over after the conquest? A centralized state, or a dispersed population with no controlling authorities? Think about worldwide guerilla warfare. Is this really going to be a profitable endeavor for the boogeyman?