300 Chapter 12
Age’s feudalismas providinggreaterlibertythanthe U.S.republichas anytimepost-
1789.
ThecrucialdemarcationbetweenfeudalismandRothbardiananarchyis that,under
the latter,you are supposedlyallowedto unsubscribefromone fief and thentakerefuge
withanother,whereaspeasantsunderfeudalismcouldnot vacatetheirfief.A system
similarto Rothbard’s proposalactuallyexistedamongthe hunter-horticulturalistculture
of ancientHawaii—youcouldleavethe jurisdictionof onechiefandswearloyaltyto
another.^2 Thatdid not encouragefreedom;therewasstill uniformityin the existenceof
repressive,theocraticlaws.^3 Universityof HawaiihistoriansRalphS. Kuykendalland A.
GroveDayprovidea descriptionof the ancientsocialstructurethatanarcho-pluralism
wouldmirrorin its bestpossibleform—“The commonpeoplewerestill completelysub-
jectedto the nobles,withoutany rights” beingrespected,“exceptthatof movingto the
landof another... chief.”^4 Underanarcho-pluralism,though,the systemallegedlywould
not be confinedto geography.Youcan dwellin the samehousefor threedecadesand go
throughtwelvedifferentprotectionservicesin thatduration.In thatsameperiod,your
next-doorneighbormighthavebeensignedup withsix defenseagenciesyou nevertried.
Youcan ask the anarchistwhyhe wouldnot be satisfiedwitha nightwatchmanstate.
Theseare his two mainobjectionsto it.
(1) The TaxationArgument—The anarchistand I agreethatthe institutionof compulsory
taxationis barbaricandwouldnot existin the bestplausiblyfunctionalsociety.But a
significantdisagreementdividesus. The anarchistassertsthatthe institutionof compul-
sorytaxationis inherentto the veryexistenceof anygovernment,including a night
watchmanstate.He insiststhatthe oneavenuefor eliminatingcompulsorytaxation
wouldbe to establishRothbardiananarchy.I refutedthatpresumptionin BookOne.The
purposeof this chapteris to addressthe anarchist’s otherfavoriteargumentagainstthe
nightwatchmanstate,comingup next.
(2) The “MonopolisticHegemony” Argument—The anarchistshoutsthatit is disgusting
for a nightwatchmanstateto maintaina monopoly,overa specificgeographicregion,on
the use of retaliatoryforce.Recall,fromBookOne,thata free societypunishesthe initia-
tionof the use of physicalforce,but not the exerciseof retaliatoryforce.Supposean
entrepreneurstartedRevenge,Inc. Youpledgea subscriptionfee to Revenge,Inc. Imagine
somecrook—we will call himMorty—beatsyou up. Then,insteadof goingto the police,
you go to Revenge,Inc.,and hirethe businessto roughup Mortyin return.Accordingto
the Rothbardian,this businessdealwithRevenge,Inc.,is morallyacceptable.Moreover,if
the nightwatchmanstatetriesto prosecuteRevenge,Inc.,for thisvigilanteaction,the
anarchistconsidersthe nightwatchmanstateto be actingabhorrently,initiatingthe exer-
cise of forceagainstRevenge,Inc. Thus,proclaimsthe anarchist,the nightwatchmanstate
has not trulybannedthe initiationof the use of force.It, in fact,initiatesthe use of force
against“competing” retribution-servicebusinessesin orderto maintainits monopolyon
the industrythatis retaliatoryviolence-dispensation.The nightwatchmanstatetherefore
actsas a monopolistichegemonyor empire.Thisis the argumentI challengein this
chapter.
DavidD. Friedmanstressesan additionalsellingpointin his attemptto marketthe ideol-
ogy of anarchy.Whenbusinessescompeteagainsteachotherfor consumerdollars,one of
theirmainmethodsof competitionis productdifferentiation.In the beveragemarket,it is
not as if everybeverageis cola.BothCokeand Pepsiare cola-flavoredsoft drinks.Should
youdislikethe tasteof cola,youcan purchaseorangejuiceinstead.Friedmansaysthat
suchdifferentiationalsoappliesto the differentflavorsof protectionservice.Flavoris my