Kenneth R Gregg - 8/13/2004

Actually Rod,
Your laugh pleasantly reminds me of Murray's cackle. You could probably do a good imitation if you haven't already tried. Been listening lately to some of the Mises Media audio files and just finished yours.
Good discussion. I'm on a list (or two) that constantly go back and forth on the anarchy-minarchy stuff and am often surprised that the financing of protection/defense aren't better analyzed.
There is a rather huge grab-bag of goods and services that comprise this field and if you look at the marketplace, pricing and purchases depends a lot on the given type of property to be protected. Some are site-specific and require ongoing protection/insurance (e.g., land, buildings, fixed apurtenances) which may mean a monthly fee dependent upon the risk and evaluation. Others are point-of-sale purchases which may just require the momentary protection until the merchandise is consumed or transformed--those may require a one-time only service. Still others may be ongoing but not site-specific, like life insurance (term, disability, employment, etc.) and protection of intellectual property (I would maintain that a private property-based social system would not "communize" such a valuable resource) are entirely different and need different fee structures.
Why in the world would such widely varying forms of property ever be protected by the same agency or in the same way? It makes no sense to me.
It's like law. I've heard of Objective Law (in large caps, of course), but this is largely a fiction. Business law is different from criminal law, which is different from domestic law. Each has origins in different fields and maintain a unique place in law. In some ways, these compete with each other today, and court cases can be addressed in a wide range of areas, not always interrelated. Not quite anarchocapitalism, but closer than many objectionable objectivists are cognizant about.
I work in an odd area, mediation in domestic relations, often educating individual parties about how to cooperate with each other, helping to facilitate a satisfactory path (or least unsatisfactory one) in their personal lives without their former significant other. Sometimes issues have to be addressed in more than just Domestic Court--Bankruptcy Court, even the criminal courts may be involved. They are each different with their own rules and procedures, just as mine are.
Personally, I feel (probably why I'm a mediator) that if the parties can come to an agreement prior to going to a binding arbitrator (which is what a judge actually is, if he/she isn't too much of a politician!), the likelihood of ongoing cooperation is much better than if they go up in front of a judge and he/she tells them what they are going to live by. Hmm, probably why I'm a libertarian, too.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/