By Carl Milsted, Jr.

I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. I once believed in the Zero Aggression Principle: the idea that one should never initiate force upon an innocent, even for his own good. Under this doctrine, all taxation is theft, even taxes collected for “essential” government services like national defense and law enforcement.

Over time, reality crept in. There are tremendous economies of scale for services such as national defense. The term “natural monopoly” comes to mind. If there is to be such a monopoly, I would prefer that control of such be dispersed, that a user-owned coop is preferable to other arrangements. Thus, I have drifted back to preferring some form of democratic government, despite all the flaws of such a system.

However, I still abhor aggression. My preference for some government vs. no government stems from knowledge of history – both of nations and of corporations. I do not believe that an anarchic system, as desired by the Rothbardians, is stable. I have come to the conclusion that an attempt to convert our nation to such a system would likely lead to more initiation of force -- more aggression – than our current welfare state.

In my previous article (and in a recent article in LP News) I attempted to amend the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) to one of minimum aggression, with in kind compensation for monetary losses due to taxes. I attempted to preserve most of the spirit of the Rothbardian ideal while making concession to political and economic reality.

As a result, I have been thoroughly attacked, vilified, and giggled at by assorted anarchists. Some of the arguments attacked what I didn’t say, others resorted to trivially disprovable scenarios, and yet others attacked me for my scientific outlook. Apparently, science is a step backward from Aristotle’s methods of inquiry in the minds of some.

The arguments given were utterly unconvincing to me. Let me state what would be convincing: If you can prove that private protection agencies can successfully provide law and order with less initiation of force than a semi-libertarian democratic government, and that such an arrangement is at least as stable as a limited government republic, then I will concede that the anarchist position is right. However, until I see such a proof, I will continue to contend that more liberty is preserved by a democratic government which has libertarian activists as part of the mix, than by attempts to completely abolish government.

In order to carry out such a proof, let us consider a thought experiment: How would one set up a private protection agency to replace government today? Why sit around complaining about government? Why not simply declare government to be criminal organizations and act accordingly? Why not do so right now?

Cannot get the funding? So how are such agencies to be funded in the future?

Cannot actually take on a real government? So how is an anarchic domain to provide territorial defense? Or do you require that anarchy be implemented worldwide in order for it to work?

And remember, when setting up your private protection service, it must be able to serve some members of a territory who are surrounded by people who are content with a dominant local protector -- the current local government today.

Let this be a thought experiment only! As irritated as I am by some of the uncivil arguments used by some of you anarchists, I do not want you killed or worse. And I don’t want to be marked as encouraging “terrorism.” Just do the job on paper. Write out the business plan.

Consider Cuba. There are many people unhappy with their government to solicit as clients. They have little money, but the same holds for the government you will be protecting them from. However, they are sitting on prime tropical real estate! If you offered freedom in protection in return for some of the real estate in order to later sell to developers, you have a source of revenue. Some of that real estate could become incredibly valuable as you set up your haven of zero taxes and zero victimless crime laws.

The same holds for many countries in Africa, where corruption is rampant and one tribe uses the government to abuse the others.

Now, when working out your business plan, you are free to assume that you have some safe base of operations for your meta-police. (Given the right administration, that base could be the U.S., but I don’t think the current administration qualifies.) This simulates conditions in a partially anarchic world. We can assume different organizations have different strongholds.

However, you are not allowed to fight war as we know it. If you hurt innocent people, then you are in violation of the Zero Aggression Principle. You have to defend you clients against an evil government while at the same time avoid hurting their neighbors. You cannot even cause property damage. Collateral property damage is a worse violation of the ZAP than my proposed low tax government. You have to do so without being able to set up a proper perimeter since some people will prefer the native local government to your agency. And, after all, it is the idea of overlapping protection services that we are out to test.

I don’t think there is a viable business plan for such an operation. But if you can truly generate such a plan, one that is actually realistic, then you have the makings of a bestselling political thriller.

Or, if we get a libertarian government in the future somewhere for a base of operations, you have the beginnings of a profitable and beneficial enterprise. But first, you need that libertarian government, and that requires “unprincipled” compromising libertarian politicians such as me…

Dr. Carl Milsted, Jr. is a Senior Editor of The Free Liberal. He is the author of holisticpolitics.org, organizer of the Libertarian Reform Caucus and chairman of the Libertarian Party of Buncombe County, NC. He also runs Quiz2d.com, an online version of the popular Nolan quiz.