I don't object to focusing on fewer points, since the discussion was getting a bit sprawling, but I would consider my question about private protection agencies

I don't object to focusing on fewer points, since the discussion was getting a bit sprawling, but I would consider my question about private protection agencies to be one of the most important, so I'd like to continue that. To condense my question: Doesn't the existence of stable governments demonstrate that monopolies on violence are a sustainable business model? (Indeed, by your own argument, one could conclude that there must be market demand for the existence of current governments, otherwise they would be out-competed?) >I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies. With no real basis for either conclusion. You just assert that a free market where 70% of people hate redheads would be totally fine, because they can still trade with the remaining 30%. Which says nothing about the far far more important factor of wealth distribution. >This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route! (I'm assuming you meant latter?) If people are apparently so gullible in their political decisions, what makes you think they won't be equally gullible in their financial ones? If it's possible to convince people to vote for genocide, then surely it's equally possible to create market demand for genocide? >"without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions". To be honest, this kind of statement just highlights the naivety I see in anarcho-capitalist arguments: "If only there were no tyrants, everything would be better." But in a world with power imbalances, there will always be more tyrants. Democracy is the only system we have seen which attempts to solve this fundamental problem of power imbalance.