> The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. You're talking to someone who has studied the issue in

> The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. You're talking to someone who has studied the issue in depth. I'm not just going from an uneducated assumption. I honestly think that a "market for force" would quickly result in something akin to feudalism at best. Can you explain the mechanism whereby different groups weilding force would just agree to disagree and co-exist? What would happen in practice would be that some groups are defeated, and the others pledge fealty in a kind of feudalistic system which just ends in a dictatorship. Of course, it would be likely that some particular group (which might even win) would represent some specific ideology, and just turn back into a regular government (such as a constitutional republic). I'd definitely be supporting the "competing government" in favor of establishing a constitutional republic.