Coercive protection is justified only as a deterrent

The free rider problem argues that unless people are coerced into paying for public goods such as National Defence or public television, then those services would not exist. But do they really need to exist? Surely they, generally solve a problem that doesn't exist?

It is clear that we do not need a public television service and that we would survive without it...

What would happen without taxes to fund National Defence? Would people protect themselves anyway? Would they be attacked? Surely that is a problem for the population to resolve, not by force. Do people need to be forced to look after themselves? Are we obligated to help? We have a personal obligation to look after ourselves, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we must join together to accomplish the goal that has been set. Why would giving money to the Government help? Just because we don't give money to the Government doesn't mean nothing will be done...

We are more efficient on our own. We don't need to be forced to contribute. We are helping, and defending the country already... The Country would be better defended under an anarchist system. Anarchy would provide a better defence. The more anarchistic and Libertarian the Army, the more potent the Army. Free people are more fearsome. An anarchist country is a dangerous country to attack. Coercion threatens safety. Coercion (even to pay for an Army) is dangerous and weakens a country and its people. Forcing people to pay for the Army makes them poor and unable to defend themselves.

Coercion (high taxes) makes a country weak. People are better able to defend themselves if they are free of coercion. Coercion makes people vulnerable. People have a natural inclination to protect themselves. Do they need to be forced to protect themselves?

Must we be forced to protect ourselves? Without the Government would we be vulnerable to attack? People don't need to be coerced in order to collaborate, Armies will form spontaneously, without coercion. We do not need to be coerced to join together and fight, if there is a threat. An Army formed under coercion is a threat to others. Who do we need to fear? Which country would attack us, if not for our Army? Do they want to retaliate? To decommission takes bravery in this respect...

Coercion in providing Armies is justified only if there is a reason to fear attack, which in their eyes would be retaliation. If no one wants to retaliate against the country, decommissioning is possible. So then, it acts as a deterrent. For as long as a deterrent is necessary, then coercion is justified...

The only justification for a coercive Army is as a deterrent.