Yes my main problem is I don't see how a free market system on protection would not devolve into a mafia-esque extortion scheme. I cover a bit more what powers

Yes my main problem is I don't see how a free market system on protection would not devolve into a mafia-esque extortion scheme. I cover a bit more what powers I'd assume they effectively have in the other thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong on those assumptions (but please point out how they've been stopped from acquiring those powers). So to sum up why you'd keep paying a protection monopoly even if it was abusive to you is because unless you have an effective alternative protection arrangement they have the power to do what they like to you and if you rock the boat you give them a reason to. I'll have a look at that book and the premise that in free market competition these monopolies wouldn't form or would behave fairly to competitors if they did (Though normally I'd argue that you wouldn't have seen AT&T and Standard Oil stopping their practices without the oncoming threat of government intervention.) I will instead point out the question of “A rich merchant with a bag of gold, the king, the pope, and a man with a gun are alone in a room. Who is the most powerful?”. The answer is it depends on the man with the gun. The point being that while there are several different forms of power the ability to inflict violence is one of them and it's master is not necessarily market forces especially since it can shape the market. So how do you ensure a free market system? There are several countries where you could visit and pay the local warlord money to ensure you're not harassed inside their territory. Whether they stick to the deal is somewhat questionable but several do, this does not mean I'd feel secure in their justice if one of their men decided to beat me, and I would be more than a fool to expect a refund if they did. Why would I pay the warlord instead of putting all my money toward bodyguards? Because the cost for the warlord if everyone does this is higher for him than losing men the first few times and then having a steady income. Why haven't all those who believe they will visit these countries to hire a large mercenary force to stabilize the region? Is it just more efficient to keep the local warlord? Similar abuses occurred with the mafia before an outside supplier of greater protection stepped in, unfortunately in the free market that outside supplier could just as easily be the more efficient yakuza. I'd also like to point out that the demand to not be shot in the head is inelastic and a local provider of the service can manipulate the supply of not being shot in the head to reach a price to his liking. Now if I grant you democracy is a more corrupt system would you still suggest to me that it is worse than what I conclude a system with a free market on protection would devolve into?