Are We Already Living in Anarchy

David at Cantillon's Paradise http://cantillonparadise.blogspot.com/2005/06/anarchy-now.html remarks that we may already be living in an anarchy since there is anarchy between governments and most people simply prefer government provision to private provision. Could it be the case that the Kingdom of Heaven is all around us and we just don't see it? David's argument rests in part on the assumption that there is no barrier to entry in state formation or the formation of private alternatives. Accordingly, the state is not a monopoly in the Austrian sense.

I don't agree. I doubt that the subjects of government manifest a preference for government versus a private alternative. In my own case, I acquiesce in the government's actions, albeit grudgingly, because the state may imprison or kill me if I do not. I do not prefer the state; I simply have no practical alternative except to minimize my contact with the state and to forego its "blessings" whenever I can. If I start a private alternative to the provision of services supposedly provided by the state, my potential customers will still be taxed to pay for my state-provided competition, and the state may well be indifferent to whether anyone uses its services or not as long as it gets its money. This is definitely a barrier to entry in my book. I can start a private security company, but it won't be able to compete with the police for the same security dollars. I can hire a private security company to guard my property, but I can't get my money back from the Town of East Fishkill that goes to fund the EFPD. I can use an arbitrator, but I still have to pay for the state's court system. I can send my kids (if I had any) to private school, but I will still be taxed mercilessly to support the public school. Accordingly, anyone who wants to compete with the state is at a significant disadvantage. I have no education in economics beyond freshman level college courses, so I concede that I may be misinterpreting the concept of "barrier to entry".

Moreover, if I try to start a state within the state, the existing state will probably not permit this. In some cases, this already happens in that enterprising individuals and groups try to operate protection rackets and control territory, but the state will use violence to shut down this competition whenever it can. There is no way to opt out of subjection to the state except to move to some other state, and this is highly controlled. And if starting up a state is barrier free, why doesn't this happen more often? It seems like a sweet deal to have a state and a flock of subjects to fleece. Maybe it's just cheaper to buy an existing state than to start up a new one. Again, "barrier to entry" may have a much different meaning than I am giving it.

UPDATE: David has pointed out that he is referring to a "market in coercion" and that there cannot be barriers to entry in such a market.