"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'." -- David Friedman
So Apple went out of business at one point? What are you talking about? How was microsoft a monopoly? They had a large market share but it wasn't a monopoly and it wasn't due to unfair trade practices it was because they provided a superior product and a reasonable price.At the moment, no. But it was and without state support.
And what stops the military and police forces from ignoring these laws any more than a private institution?And we can legislate laws to limit that.
Your system is already despotism. Your argument boils down to "potential monopoly on the use of force bad, existing monopoly on the use of force good."Your proposal has no method of recourse. Your proposal has no method to control groups who do not play by the rules. Your proposal is nothing more then Despotism.
"Private defense service employees would not have the legal immunity which so often protects governmental policemen. If they committed an aggressive act, they would have to pay for it, just the same as would any other individual. A defense service detective who beat a suspect up wouldn’t be able to hide behind a government uniform or take refuge in a position of superior political power. Defense service companies would be no more immune from having to pay for acts of initiated force and fraud than would bakers or shotgun manufacturers. ... Because of this, managers of defense service companies would quickly fire any employee who showed any tendency to initiate force against anyone, including prisoners. To keep such an employee would be too dangerously expensive for them. A job with a defense agency wouldn’t be a position of power over others, as a police force job is, so it wouldn't attract the kind of people who enjoy wielding power over others, as a police job does. In fact, a defense agency would be the worst and most dangerous possible place for sadists! Government police can afford to be brutal—they have immunity from prosecution in all but the most flagrant cases, and their “customers” can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency. But for a free-market defense service company to be guilty of brutality would be disastrous. Force—even retaliatory force—would always be used only as a last resort; it would never be used first, as it is by governmental police." -- The Market For Liberty
Actually there is nothing stopping public police forces from doing that, in fact they already do that and are insulated from reprecussions behind the protective shield of the state.Who needs customers when we can just take their stuff? Who needs to pay for anything when we can just execute anyone who gets in our way? Who needs to even play by the rules when we have more guns then you? You think PMCs act to protect. And there's where your argument fails. Nothing is stopping PMCs from taking what they want when they want.
No Somalia resulted from the oppression of the existing state under the tyrant Siad Barre, this led to the civil war between two major participants the failed state of Siad and the United Somali Congress led by Aidid. Actually the only thing that led to some semblance of a return to stability after the government completely collapsed is when citizen militias formed into private security firms who provided protection for hire, during this time services and goods were all provided by private businesses as well. The civil war between state actors caused the catastrophe that is Somalia; whereas, anarcho-capitalism brought them back from the brink.Except there was no government. Do you know what anarchy means? Unlike Civil wars between defined groups, such as a suceeding government or rebel factions, Somalia was little more then a free for all.
You mean how each and everyone of us gets rolled over by the state every single day?And why you'll get rolled over by people with more guns.