anyone who wants protection against aggression (which is probably everyone) will pay the private army of their choosing.
they would work for a living because the majority of them would not agree to just rob everyone and would uphold the non aggression protocol,
that's pretty much why the current U.S army doesn't just take over the whole country even though they hold all the weapons.
this also shows how in the current situation if the U.S army does decide that it wants to take over it can do so easily because it has the monopoly on military power.
in a true free society no single organization can just take over, because the other honest armies will destroy it, again this scheme relies on the majority military power upholding the protocol, just like bitcoin.
the courts will follow the laws which they make, they will likely ask people to vote for the laws with a referendum or the free market will find some other way to make laws.
no one will pay for the services of a private army that works with a court that makes laws nobody wants, and in any case the laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding.
* So, instead of paying taxes, we pay protection money?
* Why do you assume these armies would uphold the "non aggression protocol"?
* "In a true free society..." Again, I refer to afghanistan - you had tons of private armies, and the Taliban came through, swept up public support and decimated most of those private armies.
* "the courts will follow the laws.... will likely ask people to vote..." Again, not reality based. This world is usually one where "he who has the guns makes the laws"; In a scenario that you're creating, I'd assume the armed protectorate would make the laws, not let the people vote for such things.
* "no one will pay of the services of a private army that works with a court making laws nobody wants" - again, ignoring the fact that the private army has the guns and therefore can extract their pay from you whether you like it or not. In fact, this whole scenario you're creating seems to mirror, exactly, the scenario you claim to deplore so much.
* "laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding." - what insures that these private armies are enforcing a non-aggression protocol? leap of faith?
No thank you. Any of that.
yes, you pay protection money, there will always be a minority of bad people and taking care of them requires resources,
you don't have to hire the services of a protection army but then you'll have to provide it for yourself.
i assume the majority will uphold the non aggression protocol because armies are already doing it.
every western country today has an army that is capable of taking over the country, but they don't do it, they play by the rules, so this works in practice.
Afghanistan never had private armies, it was a British colony and then in 1919 became a monarchy which became a democracy in 1964 and then in 1978 the communists grabbed power, the Soviet Union and America had a proxy war between them using Afghanistan as a battle field.
in 1992 the communist rule fell and a civil war started which the Taliban won.
it was always a violent and aggressive society, it never succeeded because of that, the majority of people there did not follow the non aggression principle.
why doesn't the army in any of the western countries simply makes the laws? after all they hold all the weapons and all the power and yet even with their monopoly on power people get to vote.
why do you assume that in a far better situation where no one has the monopoly on power any single private army will be able to dictate the laws?
today a single army has all the guns and can extract whatever it wants from anyone, and yet it doesn't do that and upholds non aggression against the chosen government and the people in general,
why do you assume that in a situation where there is no single controlling army suddenly no one is civilized anymore and simply starts to rob everyone?
