Kemp,
Fair enough. I think Acolyte subscribes to Nozicks's idea of protection agencies assuming the role of defense. Personally, I do not believe Acolyte has actually read Anarchy, State and Utopia, and instead learned about Nozick's idea of protection agencies from a misinformed source. I have studied that book in class, and I received a very different perspective. The perspective I received from Nozick was that he intended to explore what a moral government would look like, not argue for a protection agency. Rather, he used the idea of a competitive market of protection agencies to illustrate how a moral government might evolve.
But throughout the course of describing the time line of his moral government, he concluded that one protection agency would eventually form a regional monopoly. Then he argued that the protection agency that formed a monopoly would have to force its services and payment for those services on non-customers within its region of control in order to continue providing those services effectively, and therefore become a government. His moral government, of course, is very minimal, and he argued why imposing other services, largely as a criticism to Rawls, would make it immoral.
So for me, I think Acolyte has taken Nozick out of context, and for that reason is misguided in his sentiments for Anarchy. If Nozick was defending anything, my opinion is that he was defending Libertarianism. I think Acolyte should actually read the book. Although, I could very well be wrong about that, and I would be interested in hearing his different perspective if he has read it.
>