It could and would be happening right now. If the optimal model for rights-defense was in selling services to paying customers, and self-restraining force only in use of rights defense, than it would be these rights defense agencies that would be more powerful than tax-extracting governments.
In reality, when there is no stable legal order, the optimal model is creating zones of political monopoly to remove the uncertainty that prevents commerce and contacts.
In the absence of the force monopolist, competition is not restricted to economic competition, but also involves competition of force, i.e., fighting. The winner/stronger party has no market incentive to self-limit and sell services at cheapest price, but can just extract taxes/rents from the dependents.
That's what actually happens in reality and history, as a result of how humans act in situations of uncertainty and panic. They don't want anarchy, they will never want anarchy, and anarchy will never be a stable condition because the incentive under anarchy is to prevent mass uncertainty and mass unpredictability by the imposition of legal monopoly.
Areas with legal monopoly are naturally selected by their greater productive capacity and commercial output, further strengthening the legal monopoly and its ability to extract more wealth even with a lower tax rate. That's why feudal peasants paid much more for their security from relatively weak landlords, compared to the percentage Americans pay to a massive state, despite it being relatively much more powerful.
When you're mired in uncertain ideological claptrap and dialectic crankery, its always good to refer back to empirical history for guidance.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent th