RE: A Simplified Taxless State: A Proposal (part one of three)
I find your proposal self-contradictory.
It boils down to: "only a state can defend against other states, so against a state, people have no rights". Might makes right. Bow down to your military superiors with big tanks.
First: State is the monopoly on initiation of violence, and such monopoly has no benefit, including military protection. The state is inherently evil, not even a necessary one. There are many times police and military has turned against its own people. And committed mass murder.
See democides:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Second: If the state has a monopoly on land ownership, there can be no "free market rate" of land. Monopoly will lead to high prices and low quality service/products, as it always does. Don't like the state's terms? You can be an exile to some other state's territory, as the state owns the whole country.
Third: Private defense can be done much more cost effectively than any military, even against big guns like tanks. Consider this: A modern tank (like Abrams) costs 6 million dollars. An anti-tank missile (like Javelin) costs 60,000$. 1/100 cost.
Anything less than a tank can be destroyed by an RPG, or even a grenade launcher. Which costs even less.
Similar cost savings apply when defending against fighter or bomber planes, even nuclear missiles. See sam, patriot or hawk missile cost against an attack helicopter or fighter or bomber plane.
Every kind of service, including area protection (military), conflict resolution (courts) and security (police) can only best be supplied by voluntary free market means. Not by state, a monopoly on such services over a territory.
How about this: No one has any monopoly on initiation of violence. Anyone may defend themselves against violence, using any means necessary.
The problem with this is it means everyone has to be prepared to defend themselves against violence. This preparation creates its own arms race. Every person will need to become armed, which will lead to increased violence and fatality.
In the UK the police dont typically carry guns (except special units), so the criminal fraternity dont carry guns either. Guns are extremely hard to come by and murder rate is low.
Weapons only beget more weapons.
Every person does not need to become armed. They could simply pay someone else to defend them.
And if you cant afford to pay? You get squashed?
Have you ever heard of private charity? Insurance? Fraternity clubs? Voluntary militia or neighborhood watches?
How do poor people defend themselves against their own state, when the state turns against them, in the current situation? You assume (or imply) government is now effective in protecting the poor and the weak. The state itself is the biggest threat against the poor and the weak.
And again, an RPG is effective against anything on the ground, that is less than the most modern tanks, and they cost $500 for the device and $100 for the shells. Defensive security is cheap.
Here, a private security company helping the poor and the needy for free:
Because being charitable is good business.
If they can't afford to pay you should threaten other people with violence to pay for them..... oh wait, that's what government does now.
In all seriousness, I don't want helpless people to be defenseless. Do you? I bet we can find a way to fund their defense without threatening each other with jail, assault, and or death.
I think somehow you lost the flow of our conversation:
You stated that, "Every person will need to become armed, which will lead to increased violence and fatality."
I explained that this is false, "Every person does not need to become armed. They could simply pay someone else to defend them."
You responded that for people who can't afford to pay, this isn't an option.
But I never said it was an option for everyone or even a solution. I simply pointed out that your statement that everyone needs to become armed is false. Many people can pay others to protect them and so they don't need to become armed.
You can defend your claim or you can admit that your claim was incorrect. But your response is simply changing the subject. You said there was no other option for anyone. I pointed out another option that could work for many people.