I notice that a lot of ancap arguments are based around how <i>immoral</i> it is that the government does X or Y without the consent of the individual, rather than whether it's efficient or leads to better outcomes.<p>In a society with no cops and only private security you're going to see much worse outcomes - anywhere that is too poor to afford the neighbourhood security is going to be absolutely riddled with crime, and this crime isn't going to stay confined to the poor area either.<p>Also, a private security company has just as much, if not more, incentive to let crime increase overall as the government does. More crime means they can bill more because they're doing extra work, and they're getting paid directly for more work, not just benefitting indirectly from better equipment etc. The ideal environment for a private police force isn't a peaceful village, it's a lawless hellscape where you pay up or you die.<p>And without a government who decides what laws the private arbitrators enforce? It would be an absolute nightmare with 10 different arbitration companies that work based on 10 different arbitration codes. What if you disagree with the result of the arbitrator? There's no sole body higher up that decides who's in the right.