We'd all pay for a soldier stationed at the end of the street.
Your lack of imagination is not an argument. Lets say you're a homeowner, what would you want to pay into? Well, I personally would want to pay into a business that had the following aspects:
Some kind of incentive to invest in the protection of my property and my person
Some system to ensure they will not use those investments against me
Is competitively priced
I could imagine many different ways such a business could exist in a free market. One simple idea is that people pay into a company on the promise that said this company will have to pay damages if their property or person is harmed by an attacker. The company would have a very large incentive to protect this property from attack, both to prevent losing money and to protect their very business itself. They need to be cost effective but also capable of large-scale defense. They also know they will be able to get the most customers by creating some system that proves that they aren't using their customers money to backstab them.
This could also be done in different ways. If I personally was running one of these companies, I would use a capital-intensive defense system. Not a standing army, no aircraft carriers. Just a lot of high-tech defensive weapons to defend against attacks from air, land, and sea. I would also arm locals in every border town. All of this would cost money, but not nearly as much money as a standing army.
RP is not about personal responsibility. It's about strategies that work. This is NOT a strategy that works for defence.
The free market model for defense has been tried exactly zero times, so the empirical evidence for your claim is somewhat lacking. All we have are successes and failures of state militaries, which tells us nothing. Your lack of imagination is not an argument.
What happens when a dictatorship takes the street with a dozen paratroops?
If China decided to invade America tomorrow, and sent fleets of Y8 aircraft full of paratroopers up from South America to drop into American neighborhoods, how would the US military stop them? We don't have troops in our streets even right now. What would stop those planes would be America's anti-air capability. After those troops hit the ground there is no easy way to stop bloodshed without a lot of drawn out combat. Also armed Americans would be the first combatants, not Marines or National Guard.
This isn't even a "free market vs government" question, its just a military strategy question. The answer is simple, you build up enough defense weapons that the invaders can't get enough people into the area to establish any kind of foothold. You don't spend fortunes on giant standing armies built for invasion, full of APC's and Tanks and strike fighters.
how are you going to stop small areas defecting to allow "invasion hubs" in critical areas ? If they don't pay their insurance, going to let armies setup shop there unmolested ? If you won't. How is that street being protected for free ? Wouldn't that cause others to not pay?
If, for some weird reason, small groups of people decided they want to let the invaders into their little pockets, if they were "strategically critical" [and again assuming I am running a company responsible for this area] I would just keep them defended anyway, as it would be more cost effective (as if they used such a critical area to damage my customers property I would quickly start having to pay tons of damages)
Who pays the whopping fees to insure the wilderness ?
If you own a forest, you can decide to insure it or not insure it. Its your own decision how you want to deal with the risks.
Didn't stop hitler. What happens when they don't want your factories, just lebensraum?
What do you do when anybody comes to attack? You defend. Again neither you nor I can claim that any system can protect you perfectly 100 percent of the time. If every country on earth bands together and they all invade the US simultaneously, I imagine America would probably lose. Does this mean that America's military is ineffective?
What happens with a fucker with an unusual brain state starts a jihad ?
The idea of ISIS or another similar group conducting a full land invasion of anything really doesn't keep me up at night. They can barely manage maintaining power in their own country.
You rely too much on the profit motive. Almost no wars have been started with that motive.
Nobody goes to war without some idea of profiting in some way. Back when Muslims actually had solid standing armies even their Jihad's involved taking cities and acquiring resources. Lebensraum was an economic issue. Hitler wanted more space for trade and economic growth.
any public good
You're going to have to define this one, because everybody seems to define it differently. Should people outside a concert be physically forced to pay if they happen to hear the music playing inside as they pass by? If a beekeeper's bees are causing gardens in a local neighborhood to grow much better should people be physically forced to pay the beekeeper? Where is the line drawn and on what basis do you draw that line?
No because this market can be supplied in other ways.
Well then the issue it seems we must face is your lack of imagination, not any specific principle.
Make them a privatised industry that is explicitly motivated by profit?
Yes. When people say "the police work for us" it should actually mean that. If they treat people like shit they stop getting a paycheck. If they step out of bounds they lose money as people find other, more reliable providers.
in all those states male homicide rates were way above the 20thC average. In every historical situation studies so far they have been, I have no reason to believe they wouldn't fit into the same trend. Stateless societies are violent.. Because people must defend themselves... So you get individual warfare, vendetta, raids for females, all the rest. No society enforcing nurse and rape laws ? Lots of murder and rape. That's a great job. Better than the 20-30-50 we see elsewhere in stateless societies.
Which stateless socities (I mean actually name some of these societies), and where are you getting these numbers?
The coat [sic] of murder in stateless societies is low
How do you know this? If you had a neighborhood where every single person was armed, would you say that in this neighborhood the cost of murder was low? It would be an extremely high risk endeavor. Your lack of imagination is not an argument.
Who said it was voluntary ? It isn't. Tell the taxman it's voluntary.
I will quote you directly here:
People agree on having and using a government
If you "agree" to something, you voluntarily want it. If a woman "agrees" to have sex with you, then it would make no sense to hold a gun to her head and tell her she has to have sex with you.
Everyone likes the benefits of the system, few like the system.
People like the benefits of ipads, nobody is forced to pay for one. Are you implying you are one of the "enlightened ones" who both enjoys the benefits of the system and also likes the system (with the understanding that there is nothing possibly better)?
I don't want it. I want a right to levy taxes to build a military, police force and other things. I don't have any difficulties persuading people to support that.
Why shouold you even have to get other people to support it? If people are as you say they are (they like the benefits of the system but not the system itself) why should you need their consent to use their money if you know they will be better off anyways? Would the optimal system not then be to make one person the emperor of all humanity?
Unless... of course... what is best for other people is not something you can actually know, fundamentally.
As you're so gung-ho for the child rape, you go for it.
I like the little ad-hominems you slip in here and there.
My right to throw a punch... Ends at the tip of your nose.
You write this directly after saying you can have the right to rape children. Does majority rule decide rights or something else? Pick one.
