Abstract

Those who deny that the provision of protection services could be supplied through either the market or some other nonmonopolistic device must therefore endorse some sort of state. And those within that group who maintain that the provision of such services to everyone within a given territory is the only proper function of government must therefore advocate a minimal, or laissez-faire, state. However, an examination of the arguments of three of the better-known contemporary minarchists discloses problems of internal inconsistency which render them unsound, even on their own..