That article paints a very unfair portrayal of Somalia. Pre war Somalia was involved in the collapse of a communist government, not exactly a stable before and after comparison (which I would think the author would acknowledge given their own Apples and Oranges comparison?). If we go back before that things were pretty damn stable, white pearl and all.

I guess maybe I'm just a bit put off because of the blurb towards the opening about "society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy" (conveniently not naming any specific society, but hint hint, it reads a lot like the author implies either Somalia or Colombia). I thought we were past the whole racist Noble Savage thing.

> If, by hypothesis, the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies.

This is pretty much even sillier hypothesis than "if people agree to work together towards common good, through the forces of cooperation, they would achieve prosperity greater than it's possible in any competitive capitalist system" and that one was tried and proven false.

People agreeing that the violence is not the right way to resolve disputes? Author must somehow missed all of history right untill yesterday and have no friends or at least only friends without neighbours.

The core argument of that essay seems to be "Well yes, but maybe the warlords would be better than the government we have today. We don't have proof they wouldn't be."

... which seems rather weak to me.