Almost all of us hold two beliefs which contradict a third near-universal belief. The first is that a state, however else defined, is a geographic monopoly of security and justice. One cannot appeal a ruling beyond the state, and whatever private providers of security and justice may exist, they do so in pronounced subservience to and supervision by the state.
The second is that monopolies invariably cause high prices and low quality. Is it so absurd to unite these two self-evident ideas and suggest that states are poor providers of security and justice?
Imagine you and another person squaring off in a game of poker. Now pretend that your style of play is generally aggressive, whereas your opponent is generally defensive. When the action is upon your opponent he will only apply passive measures, such as checking and calling bets. You, however, choose the aggressive strategy of betting. Over the long hall the aggressive player is almost surely to be the victor by a large margin. The state, therefore, wisely values aggression as a long term stratagem.
