Why Anarcho-Capitalism Supports a Privately Owned Military: A Vision for Freedom and Security.. By @greywarden100, May 1, 2025

Imagine a world where defense and security are not dictated by a coercive state monopoly but provided by entrepreneurs competing to serve you best. This is the vision of anarcho-capitalism—a philosophy that champions individual liberty, voluntary cooperation, and market-driven solutions. One of its boldest proposals is privatizing the military, replacing state-controlled armies with private defense agencies owned and operated by entrepreneurs. Far from a utopian fantasy, this idea is rooted in logic, ethics, and practical reasoning. In this blog, we’ll explore why anarcho-capitalists believe a privately owned military is superior to state-run forces and why anarcho-capitalism offers a compelling path to a freer, more secure society.

The Problem with State Militaries
Let’s start with the status quo. State-run militaries, funded by taxation and often bolstered by conscription, are inherently coercive. They extract resources from citizens without consent, compelling individuals to fund wars or interventions they may oppose. As anarcho-capitalist pioneer Murray Rothbard argues in For a New Liberty, taxation is theft, and conscription is slavery—both violate the fundamental principle of self-ownership.

Beyond ethics, state militaries are inefficient and unaccountable. Bureaucratic bloat leads to wasteful spending—think billion-dollar fighter jets that don’t work or outdated systems languishing in government arsenals. Worse, state militaries often serve elite interests, waging wars for geopolitical gain rather than public safety. The Iraq War, driven by questionable motives, cost trillions and countless lives, yet who held the decision-makers accountable? In a state system, no one does. Anarcho-capitalism offers a better way.

The Case for a Privately Owned Military
Anarcho-capitalists propose that defense, like any service, should be provided by entrepreneurs in a free market. Private defense agencies, competing for customers, would offer protection tailored to individuals, businesses, or communities. Here’s why this system makes sense:

1. Voluntary Cooperation, Not Coercion
   In an anarcho-capitalist society, no one is forced to fund a military they don’t support. Instead, you choose a defense agency and pay for its services, just as you hire a plumber or buy insurance. Rothbard envisions a network of firms offering everything from personal security to regional defense, with customers free to switch providers if dissatisfied. This voluntary system respects your autonomy and ensures services align with your values.

2. Market Efficiency and Innovation
   Competition breeds excellence. David Friedman, in The Machinery of Freedom, explains that private defense firms, unlike state monopolies, must innovate to survive. They’d develop cost-effective technologies—drones, cybersecurity, or advanced surveillance—while keeping prices low to attract clients. Compare this to state militaries, where budgets balloon without scrutiny. In a market, inefficiency means bankruptcy; in a state, it means higher taxes.

3. Accountability Through Choice
   State militaries answer to politicians, not citizens. Private firms, reliant on your subscription, face real consequences for failure. If a defense agency acts unethically—say, starting unnecessary conflicts—clients can fire it and hire a competitor. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in Democracy: The God That Failed, argues that this market discipline prevents the abuses common in state systems, where wars drag on for political gain.

4. Decentralized, Flexible Defense
   Why should one centralized military dictate everyone’s security? Anarcho-capitalism favors decentralized networks, where individuals or communities hire firms suited to their needs. A rural town might need basic protection, while a tech hub prioritizes cyber-defense. This flexibility avoids the rigid, one-size-fits-all approach of state militaries. As Robert Nozick hints in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, competing agencies can coordinate without a central authority, driven by mutual benefit.

How Would It Work?
Anarcho-capitalists offer practical models for private defense:

• Contract-Based Services: You hire a firm for personal or property protection, with clear terms outlining their responsibilities. Think modern security companies like Constellis, but without state contracts distorting their incentives.
• Insurance Models: Rothbard suggests defense could be bundled with insurance. You pay premiums, and your insurer contracts with defense agencies to protect you, minimizing costs by preventing conflicts.
• Mutual Defense Networks: Communities pool resources to hire firms, forming alliances for larger threats. These networks negotiate rules to ensure peace among agencies, much like historical merchant guilds.

Addressing the Critics
Skeptics raise valid concerns about privatizing the military, but anarcho-capitalists have answers grounded in market logic.

• “Won’t private firms become warlords?” Competition prevents this. A rogue firm risks losing clients and facing rival agencies hired to stop it. Friedman notes that war is costly, so firms have every incentive to resolve disputes through arbitration, not violence. Unlike states, which thrive on perpetual conflict, private firms profit by keeping the peace.
• “What about free-riders who don’t pay?” Firms can exclude non-payers from protection or charge indirectly, like through community fees. Hoppe argues that most people value security enough to contribute voluntarily, just as they buy food or housing.
• “How do you stop a foreign invasion?” Private firms can form federations to tackle large threats, driven by profit and mutual survival. Modern technology—cyber-defense, decentralized networks—reduces the need for massive armies. Historical examples, like medieval Iceland’s private defense systems, show decentralized security can work.
• “Won’t firms start wars for profit?” Clients demand transparency and contracts that penalize unnecessary conflicts. A firm that prolongs wars loses customers to competitors offering faster resolutions. Compare this to the state’s military-industrial complex, where endless wars are the norm.

Why Anarcho-Capitalism?
The case for a privately owned military reflects the broader strengths of anarcho-capitalism. By rejecting the state’s monopoly on force, we unleash the power of markets to solve problems. Anarcho-capitalism isn’t about chaos—it’s about order emerging from voluntary cooperation. As Rothbard, Friedman, and Hoppe show, private systems can provide justice, security, and prosperity without coercion.

Consider modern analogs: private security firms already protect businesses and homes, often outperforming state police. Historical examples, like Iceland’s stateless society, demonstrate that decentralized systems can maintain order. While no fully anarcho-capitalist society exists, these glimpses prove the concept isn’t just theoretical—it’s practical.

References

• Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. 1973.
• Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order. 2001.
• Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. 1974.
• Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. 1973.
• Tannehill, Morris and Linda. The Market for Liberty. 1970.
• Stringham, Edward P. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice. 2007 (for historical examples like medieval Iceland).
• Molinari, Gustave de. The Production of Security. 1849 (early inspiration for private defense ideas).

A Call to Action
Anarcho-capitalism challenges us to rethink security and society. A privately owned military, run by entrepreneurs, isn’t a pipe dream—it’s a logical extension of freedom. By embracing markets over monopolies, we can build a world where defense serves individuals, not elites. Start exploring anarcho-capitalist ideas today. Read Rothbard’s For a New Liberty, and Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom. Join discussions on platforms like Hive and X to connect with others who see the state for what it is: a barrier to human potential.