The question was about the necessity of taxation. A "state" is an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and/or the power to tax. This will take more than a paragraph. The first thing to understand is that there is no "plan" to explain. Solutions are arrived at in a natural economy, even with state interference, by disparate individuals trading with one another voluntarily. They are dividing labor among them when they trade, so that each actor provides one thing or one part of one thing. We can't predict who will try to offer which solutions to which problems or whether enough people will prefer a given solution over another solution, or over no "solution", to sustain its provision. What we can predict(there is actually nothing we can do to prevent it) is that, if there is a demand for something that can be provided, that demand will be met by a supply. I'm not sure you appreciate the scope of that question. You're not just asking about law enforcement. You're asking about law itself, which is a much harder question than law enforcement. But you're also asking about a transition (you said "But let's say we ended tax-supported law enforcement", which sounds to me like it was ended suddenly(which is a particular variable of a transition)), which is another question altogether. Transition from a state to a stateless order is such a different question from what an entrenched stateless order could look like that it doesn't make sense to try and discuss them together. We assume the laws of supply and demand, so, if there is a demand for a service, suppliers will compete to satisfy it. There is no demand for enforcement of laws against the state, so a stateless legal order would not look very much like like it does under a state. Since it can't be bought or sold, there is no demand, in an economic sense, for law itself. Law is inevitable. Legislation is not the only way for it to be brought about. Law evolves as disputes are resolved to form a body of law. English Common Law and Roman Civil Law are examples of emergent bodies of law that evolved that way. Most "Civil Law" in the US is such emergent law inherited from those traditions (mostly English Common Law), codified. There is a demand for dispute resolution. There is a demand for security. There is a demand for investigative services. There is a demand for risk mitigation. The way it works now is, if you're insured against burglary, you call the police first because your insurance company will want a police report to establish that your house has been burglarized, the police will take their copy of that report and "file it", and the insurance company would indemnify you, probably after you pay a policy deductible. In a stateless order you would probably call your insurance company first, probably after you pay a deductible, they would indemnify you for your loss and pay to have the scene investigated. Being on the hook for your loss, they have an interest in finding the thief and your stuff if they can. So, if they find the potential for recovery great enough to warrant further investigation, they would pay for it. If the thief is not found, the matter dies there, of course. If the thief is found, your insurance company would probably want to know if he has liability insurance(insuring others against damage caused by him). Such insurance would likely be required by employers and anyone else with whom one might contract. Many land owners would probably have standing policies against allowing the uninsured on their property. Your insurance company would then probably query other insurance companies for any such active policy held by him. If they find one, they would notify that company that they will be pursuing a judgment against him from an arbitration agency trusted by both insurance companies. He would be notified and invited to present a defense, and his insurance company would have a financial interest in helping with that defense. If the arbitration agency finds against him, his insurance company would then cover all expenses incurred by you(your deductible for instance) and your insurance company and notify him of his policy cancellation and offer him a new, more expensive policy. Since he's out breaking into houses, he probably doesn't have insurance, in which case your insurance company may pursue him, personally. Depending on the law recognized by arbitration agencies people and companies in the area go by, they might have him apprehended by something like a debtor's prison where he would do something productive until everyone affected by his crime, including the debtor's prison, is paid of. That debtor's prison would, of course, want a judgment from an arbitration agency recognized by any entity that may pursue them for damages on behalf of the thief before they use force against him. They may even insist on multiple judgments from different arbitration agencies, covering all their bases. Such (What should we call it when you pay them on a one-time basis, a la carte? sure) a la carte services would probably be available to the unprepared, but the most valuable service available to the victim of a hit-and-run is not police, but insurance. The biggest role police play in the process now is that of providing commonly accepted piece of evidence that a given insurance claim is valid. In a stateless legal order, such a function would be served by some other kind of agency, probably one specializing in investigative services. I don't know if what you read of Threat Management Center inspired this scenario, but the bulk of their receipts seem to come from contractual arrangements with clients who want constant monitoring. Those clients(and anyone they authorize to request service) could call and have guards(or investigators) at a scene in a matter of seconds without effecting additional fees. Not all poor people need police "service". Many(most?) police "service" wherein poor people are involved is not demanded by anyone other than a state. There would obviously be no such demand in a stateless legal order. A business dedicated to providing the few useful services provided by police (eg: put the occasional drunk in check or defuse a heated dispute between spouses) could be provided for about $20 per subscriber per month. It's unlikely, though, that the provision of such useful services would take the same form in a stateless legal order as the that which their socialized provision takes under a state. Where on Earth did you get that idea? People would pay to insure others against damage caused by them if the more established members of society require it as a prerequisite for doing business with them. People without such insurance could still operate in such a legal order, only with a limited range of options for interaction. The uninsured would not be seen as trustworthy, so they would have to pay their way as they go and avoid causing damage to others. To compare this list, , to necessary services as we can expect to see them in a stateless legal order is like comparing apples to oranges. Some of them presuppose a state, and the way they are arranged(these items on the same list) seems to confuse one service for which there is a demand with other services. The better approach would be to think of sustainable business models for the provision of each service for which there would be a demand in the absence of a state. When we do that, we come up with things that look more like the insurance based systems described by Bob Murphy in Chaos Theory or those described in David Friedman's work or the Brehon legal system of ancient Ireland, on all of which this list, - Patrol and deterrence [security eg: Threat Management Center] - Emergency response to in-progress crimes or threats to public safety [security] - Traffic crash response [ambulance, tow truck, pencil pusher to make report of crash] - Crime investigation, from minor crimes to major crimes to murder [investigative [insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]] - Forensics [investigative [insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]] - Evidence collection and storage [investigative [insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]] - 911, Communications [really? you think we can't communicate in the free market? we made Verizon, and the iPhone] - Records [everybody keeps records. criminal records would probably consist claim history, not just claims on policies held by a given individual but any claim caused by that individual.] - County jail [there is no county in a stateless society. if structures are necessary to hold criminals temporarily, they're not hard to build. they could be added by by those providing security services, or by another specialist. either way, insurance companies would probably be their main clientele] - Courtrooms [dispute resolution - again, structures are not hard to build] - Judges [dispute resolution], Prosecutors[a prosecutor is any attorney dedicated to arguing the case for the state. in a stateless society, you would just have attorneys for the plaintiff and attorneys for the accused], Defense attorneys[state-sponsored defense attorneys are a way in which monopolies by a single party on law, dispute resolution, and law enforcement can be made more palatable to one accused by that party. there is no such monopolist in a stateless legal order, and far fewer restrictions on who may act as an attorney.], clerks [do I really need to address "clerks"?] - Prisons [prisons can be sustained without a state if prisoners pay for their existence, either by work done for the institution or by paying rent from another income source [this last would be part of arrangements made voluntarily by the criminals themselves as an avenue by which to reenter civil society]] - Probation and Parole [I doubt these things would exist in a stateless legal order] - Appellate and Supreme Courts [there are myriad competing dispute resolution agencies in a stateless order offering plenty of opportunity for appeals] , is not a very useful or relevant way of compiling them. When I point out that you could think of successful business models by which some of these services could be provided, it's not to shift my burden of proof onto you, but to remind you that what we're doing here is not describing any overall plan. To provide services on a voluntary basis, we have to think as entrepreneurs, not as kings. Entrepreneurs see demand and make educated guesses as to how to satisfy it. Some of them get it right, but most of them don't. As you may have heard 80% of all startups fail within 18 months. Those who get something right do so insofar as what they provide is something that others are willing to voluntarily part with their own resources to obtain. IOW, they provide something useful to society. It's not likely that one person will imagine or pick all of the models that will be accepted by the various markets is a given society. I don't expect you to actually come up with any viable, or even apparently viable, models. I just hope I've made clear the point of what we're actually trying to do. Just to bring this back into perspective, the initial question was about the necessity of taxation. Taxation, as the forcible expropriation of all producers in a society, is not some kind of metaphorical "baby" to be saved from some metaphorical "bathwater". Pointing to services not essential to civil society can never show that taxation is necessary. At best, it shows a preference, on the part of the speaker, for such services or for them to be provided in such a manner. Everything on that list is currently available on voluntary basis, so there is no question about the possibility of their provision without taxation. The only interesting questions remaining are those of what their provision would look like in the absence of a provider that forcibly expropriates consumers as well as non-consumers to finance their provision. I have obliged for this post, but your request of "no links" is very inappropriate for a couple of reasons: Most people, justifiably, want sources for empirical claims, the truth of which is not obvious. On entering an academic field, one does not begin by trying to figure everything out for himself or by asking one person to divulge all that has been contributed to that line of inquiry, but by reading those known for having contributed to it, so you shouldn't be surprised, or resist, when we refer you to contributions that we have already read. I don't mind giving a synopsis of a contribution of which I am familiar, but reproducing it in a post is pointless. We haven't touched on defense against invasion, but there should be plenty of questions and objections to what has already been said. If we could leave defense for another thread, that would be great.