unrg asked: Rothbardian libertarian here.
"The state isn’t investing in anything in the nightwatchman scenario; the citizens are investing in the protection of their own property."
This is certainly a perspective built on semantics. How is this [property rights protection by the state] any different from those same citizens investing in the protection of their health through the state? Security is just another service that can be provided either on the market or through state monopoly, and if you are to support state-provision of security (presumably on practical grounds) how can you objectively draw the line that says the state should not also provide healthcare and education (for which similar arguments of practicality might be made)? It seems to me the only coherent perspective is to either reject state presence in every sector or to not reject it on principle at all.
I’m not sure how coherent this answer is because I’m quite tired, but I believe I already basically addressed this in a previous answer.
