This question is usually posed by anti-Objectivist persons in order to demonstrate that the Objectivist philosophy is incomplete, self-contradictory, or useless. It is related to the attempt to refute Objectivist ethics by posing numerous "lifeboat" emergency situations and demanding an answer to how the Objectivist spokesman (the victim of the conversation) would handle the situation. "Whom should we sacrifice to this emergency?"

Rand's own answer, if I remember correctly, was that life does not consist of emergencies.

Be prepared for emergencies, but do not allow them to get in the way of rational and productive behavior.

Criminals can already steal with impunity.
If two thugs came to my rural home and started wheeling my ATV, out of my garage, today's laws say that I'm helpless.
1. I can't stop them, physically.
2. I can't shoot them (unless they threaten me).
3. They would be gone, long before law enforcement arrived.
My only real option would be to stand in front of them (with my shotgun). If they tried to get past me, I could claim self defense.
I make these statements to show that, even with paid law enforcement, private (armed) protection is likely necessary, regardless of your social status. Then, it's up to government to back off and let law abiding citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

I wasn't thinking about the autocracy of African governments, but was drawing an analogy with the extreme social stratification between privileged white minority and the poverty stricken, mostly lawless, black majority.

If someone can steal with impunity, due to the victim failing to keep their policing premiums up-to-date, then the thief has no real incentive to obey law and respect property rights -- only to cope with possible direct retribution from the victim and those willing to support the victim. Such lawlessness is a powerful inhibitor to economic growth, and will further serve to keep the lower classes in poverty and violence.

David, I agree, the basics would be a small fraction of todays tax levels.
Police function is slightly more complex than border defense. Compare mall cops (privately funded, and exist solely to protect the public/customers) with regular state-funded police. The regular cops also protect the public, but they do spend a good deal of time in actions which view ALL PUBLIC (customers?) as potential criminals and try to catch some of them in the act (eg. speeding)
Not sure why your comparison with autocratic African governments is relevant.

The natural free market money would likely be some form of commodity based money. That is much easier to implement in todays electronic world, you don`t even need the physical commodity in your pocket, you can just have debit cards which transact in milligrams of gold/silver/whatever. "Free market money" implies no entity (bank or gov) has been granted sole responsibility for creating money. Bitcoin is not really viable in the very long term, but there is no reason is should not compete, if money was a free market. Personally, I think the only reason Bitcoin has been so successful today is because of the intrinsic worthlessness of fiat currencies.

Interesting idea, but it makes me worry that the level of protection one receives for one's property would be based on how much one has paid for that protection. Struggling on a small income and can't afford higher "police premiums?" Then don't expect police to attend when you ring them because someone is stealing your car.

The question is - do we wish to voluntarily embrace a society like apartheid-era South Africa, or Rhodesia? Where you and your family struggle out your lives in wretched poverty, or you are constantly having to carry firearms and maintain advanced security systems to protect your family and property?

I recall Ayn Rand arguing in Atlas Shrugged that police, military and the courts are the barest minimum of government. The taxes required to fund these basics would be a fraction of what people pay now, and are a small price for security of property rights, and prevention of massive problems.

"The police are not there for your protection." I seem to recall the SCOTUS has explicitly stated that, along with public schools not being there to actually educate.

term2, the insurance model is not appropriate because it implies there will be some people uninsured, which makes no sense for national defense. Those who do not have enough to be able to contribute towards military protection (do not own property to be protected), would be free riders. In the defense context, free riders would not be a problem as in other areas like healthcare.
Do not think of defending the more abstract concept "freedom", which is just a rallying cry for massively overfunding a military and a justification for aggressive action outside the nation's defense borders. Instead, think of defense as protection for the sum total of a nation's PROPERTY, allowing its citizens the freedom (right) to own that property.

Another idea just occured to me. In this crowd-funding-style military, any foreign owners of property would be equally motivated to contribute to funding, in their own interests. Kind of turns on its head the idea of wealthy people moving to tax havens while still owning property within the borders.

Have the federal government bill each state for its portion of the expenditures - apportioned by population. Then let the states figure out how to pay for it as they see fit.

Edit: Incidentally the states could arguably do this by county or whatever they call their equivalents.

Yes it was but honestly if we paid 10% to each for a total of 20% we would still have to pay quite a bit less than we do now.

It should be noted that the tithe actually included what was at the time "government".

There's your first mistake. The police are not there for your protection.

They are there to catch criminals. It's up to you, or someone you directly pay to prevent crime in the United States society.

Who would want to lose their freedom??

Have you looked at how many people support Democrats? Clearly they would.

Without being too specific, there are many ways to fund services depending upon the set-up of the state, and where and how it gets its funds. In a free society, the only obligations of the state is to protect its citizens, and to provide courts, In my not-so-humble opinion, there also should be an adherence to Herbie's Law which states: 1. You have the right to say No. 2. MYOB Mind your own business.

FEMA would not be involved! This morning on cable TV, a scrolling message said FEMA would test the system on Wed. at 1 a.m.! Then instead of the usual cities or counties listed, they listed endless STATES, like Ohio. Penna. W. Va., and on and on! When public services and telecommunications are intruded on by FEMA, only bad can come from it. Remember, even if you think O will not shut down the Inerenet Sept. 30, this is pretty weird and disturbing. Anyone heard anything on this messing with public services involving FEMA?

I completely agree with you. However I do not see a reasonable way for the military or the highway system to be adequately handled locally.

Dept of education is run by Nazis. The whole idea of forcing kids to go to government indoctrination centers is very scary. I hated public school myself. It took my time and they made me learn stuff that I never use.

Not a bad idea. Let the courts and police be funded by people who wanted their services.

I think that small local governments are most responsive to the local people. When you get to Obama's level, they just spend money on nonsense like air force one and state dinners and foreign aid to countries that hate us (Pakistan for example).

We already have private police that are paid for by the people who want to be protected. Public police are overpaid, overworked, and over regulated so they cant do what they are paid for. Too much bureaucracy.
Not much difference between what we have now and the mafia. Both take money from you and deal with you as THEY see fit for the most part.

I think when the threat is readily observable, there will be no lack of response. I wouldnt want to be a russian soldier walking up my street aiming to take over the neighborhood. THATS why we have the second amendment. Most of the people on my street would rise up and just kill the invaders.

Just look at the riots over the police killing an infinitesimal number of black people.

But, if the government wanted to invade Iraq- good luck. Not a lot of support for that, and there shouldnt be either.

Even in a purely objectivist society, I would not have worked for the Alabama Department of Corrections if I had not been paid enough to raise a family.
I'm absolutely certain I would not have stayed in that crappy work environment for 21 years if I wasn't enticed by a retirement package.
Someone gotta pay if you want well-trained mercenaries to protect you in various capacities.
Me dino now boasts doing his part in the public protection aspect.. Have two framed commendations (we called "attaboy letters") proving I stopped two escape attempts that added up to three inmates who did not threaten the public for being at large.
Me no businessman but me good dino.

Education should be funded by the people who had the kids, or by the adult person who wants education later in life

Why not simply private insurance to fund military? Even poor people would want to defend against a hitler even if they didnt have assets to protect. Who would want to lose their freedom??

I want to add a question to this thread. Who should be responsible for providing monetary currency? The government, private banks or something else. Even a system based on precious metals needs an exchange system. Is something like Bitcoin a viable option?