https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=privatization+of+security+site:mises.org&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=privatiza

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=privatization+of+security+site:mises.org&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=privatization+of+securi... https://cdn.mises.org/qjae2_4_7.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/qjae2_4_7.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/22_1_23.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/22_1_23.pdf There are various positions. Generally most disagree with the concept of intellectual property as it is now. There are some who would disagree that property as in land can be owned outside of the ability to utilize it. Many point to the first principle of ownership stemming from utilization and improvements upon the land. Generalizing about ancaps is a difficult proposition. "Herding cats", is an apt description. However your final statement seemed divorced from anything advocated by anarcho-capitalists. There are real pragmatic concerns about advancing anything outside of the current paradigm. Even within the narrow confines of what is possible with the current system, we see deadlock and endless bickering. At the end of the day reading political philosophies can be interesting, but not fruitful in the real sense of bringing about change. Just the same, misconstruing the arguments advanced within these philosophies isn't helpful.