1/ State is a necessary eveil--- it's a contemplation of laissez faire inidivisualism which contemplates minimal role of the state and particularly for those functions which can not be taken up by private entity.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There is nothing about laissez-faire which necessitates a monopoly state. What functions do you believe cannot be handled by a decentralized voluntary private system? Natural monopolies aren't really a thing.
Law & order
Security from External threat
national security and sovereignty
common minimum services
Governments routinely give themselves exceptions to the laws they enforce upon others, and claim immunity from prosecution for wrongdoing.Futher, your assertion that this requires a monopoly is not evidence, much less proof. Meanwhile, private security, private arbitration, contract law, and tort law all either can or already do function in a decentralized framework
National governments create the very conflicts they claim to protect us from suffering. Meanwhile, the militia is a voluntary decentralized defense system which consist of volunteers from the populace.
This point presupposes the legitimacy and sobereignty of the nation-state, and is this begging the question. You are assuming your premise in your conclusion. This is completely meaningless.
This is vague. What specific common minimum services require a monopoly state? The prior three do not withstand scrutiny. What else? Water, power, sewage, telephone services, groceries, etc. do not really require a government monopoly. And no, "what about my roads" doesn't, either.