Private armies and private security exist today.
Private ambulances and private fire departments also exist today.
I think you're over exaggerating your point. Let's not be silly ;-)
No, I'm actually downplaying my point. They'll probably murder my family, attack and/or murder my friends, steal loads of property, etc.
But, by all means, start up a protection agency and, when some goon with a badge shows up to kidnap someone you've been hired to protect, you go ahead and tell him, "no," and see what happens...
They only have to buy the major road. Or, how about this, a major bridge if a city is split by a river. My point was not that they will have a complete monopoly on roads or bridges, just that it would be very inconvenient for people to have to avoid the particular road or bridge. If paying $50 a month for Company X will allow you to use the major road that gets you to work in 20 minutes or pay another company with better standards or protection service $40 but have to drive on another road it takes 40 minutes to get to work. A wealthy person may just subscribe to both agencies one they will use for the actual protection and the other just for road access. But a lot of people will chose Company X purely for the time savings of using their road.
Wait, now they won't have a monopoly, but they'll just have convenience to offer? How is that a problem? Folks pay for convenience, all the time.
But it's unlikely they could get the owners of a given road or bridge to sell. Why would they? What benefit would they possibly derive from selling something they use, to someone who is going to charge them to access it?
This is somewhat analogous to the smart phone industry. Look at how many people switch to AT&T which is arguably a much crappier cell service just because they wanted the iPhone. People make compromises all the time to reflect their desires.
Yeah, it's horrible when folks exercise their freedom to make their own choices...
A shady protection company could acquire some resources that everyone wants and then require people to subscribe to their protection service in order to use that resource.
Really? How? I mean, without government to steal it for them...
My point is that government isn't that much different from a protection service that manages to gain or maintain "sole service provider" status by using it's own tools of violence.
Your point fails. You have not established it with any sort of evidence, at all. Every argument you've raised has been refuted.
I didn't say it was just an "absolute worst-case scenario". I'm thinking that it could be a common scenario.
No, what you described is pretty much the worst case that can exist in a private system. It would require an extremely complex series of events in which nearly everyone failed to act in their own rational interest.
The purpose of my original post is to discuss these "million" reasons why a protection agency is better than a government.
Philosophically I agree that government doesn't compute, but practically speaking is the protection service idea that's currently understood a better alternative? I would like to discuss the practical implications of DROs vs States.
Your question was already addressed. The worst case you can come up with, is better than the best-case that your monopoly government offers.