Yes, he did. But special circumstances obtained to induce people to follow a set of "self-enforcing" laws in that scenario. The Authority (which is to say, the warden of the vast prison system that was the moon in that novel) didn't care how many of the inmates killed one another. ("They get so desperate [for sex] that they will kill for it. And from the stories the old-timers tell me, [there] was killing enough to chill your bones in those days.") Then it occurred to the inmates--why it should have thus occurred to them, no character fully explains--that they would do better to get along with one another, and make and enforce their own order, not wait for the Warden and his "Yellow Jackets" to enforce it for them, negligent as he was.

Let's look to a real-life example, shall we? Pitcairn's Island after the mutinous crew landed HMAV Bounty there, got off, and burnt and scuttled the ship. Within a generation, all but two men on that island, and maybe two or three of the women, were dead--the rest having killed one another. Those two survivors decided they would rather enjoy one another's company. So they decided on a set of laws to go by. But they did not leave it at that. They formed a government--a fully independent government, that had no horizon beyond the island until a Yankee whaler discovered them a few generations later, but a government just the same.

I have to reject any simplistic answer that assumes without warrant that men will naturally get to a point, before it gets down literally to two of them, that they would rather have one another's company or decide every man needs every other man to trade with. I follow Hobbes. "Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." That is life without something we truly call "police."

The best scenarist who described what happens when duly constituted authorities decide to take their own dishonest gain, and only private militias exist to keep order, was not Robert A. Heinlein. It was Mario Puzo.

All it takes is a few canings. ;^)

Winning? The Constitution is essentially nothing more than a museum fossil. Try going to any court, quote the archive and see how far you'll get... I've mentioned this before, but worth repeating - I think it may have been 2009, a study was done on lawsuits for that year in the Federal District of Maryland based on the Bill of Rights. There were some 1,000 cases, of which half were considered frivolous and rejected from the study. The remainder, deemed legitimate, were all thrown out of court. That was before the Terrorist-in-Chief made his appointments. But you're welcome to keep trying...

An excellent answer is provided in that video; I would only be amateurishly paraphrasing it - it is one hour long. BTW, Robert Heinlein, in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" also delved into this subject at some length.

That's why some of us are pressing lawsuits against the said States, citing Amendment XIV, Section 1. And: winning.

The Greek word archon is the present participle of the verb archein, which in the present tense active voice means "to rule," and in the middle voice, "to begin." You here confuse anarchy with anomia, which would be "lack of laws." You propose laws that would somehow self-enforce. But you do not reckon with the inherent conflicts between criminals and those they predate upon. Nor, thus far, have you any role for a judiciary.

It's all very well to cite the example of Galt's Gulch in AS. But membership in the Gulch was by invitation only. Membership in any other society is an accident of birth or of movement, at least in the United States and to a lesser extent in the European Union and its various member nation-states. Conflict will arise. Murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault--the Big Four--represent the worst instances of conflict between individuals. Now I ask you again, and I ask you to repeat it here, not give a reference or a command to run an engine search: how do you propose to resolve that conflict, when criminal and target have different police agencies "protecting" them?

States constantly engage in making laws that abridge and deny Constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens of other states. Just look at the Second Amendment issue.

First, I do not advocate anarchy. Second, anarchy is not a lack of ruler, but a lack of rules. Rules, or laws, are important for the society. The question is who enforces (or creates) the rules. I refer you to the YouTube link that Freedom provided. It's right on the subject.

Yes, this well covers it. Thanks.

And as to States and counties, each type of polity has an overarching government level which keeps the peace between them. Open warfare threatened to break out among the States under the old Articles of Confederation. Hence the Constitutional provision: "No State shall, without the consent of the Congress...engage in war, unless already invaded, or under circumstances which will not admit of delay." Among other things. And: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

And what happens when the interests of two customers, each hiring his own police force, conflict? Do you, or do you not, recognize an inherent conflict between a thief and one from whom the thief steals? Between a rapist and his victim? How do you propose to resolve such conflicts in your propose system of rational anarchy? For you do advocate anarchy--lack of a ruler--do you not?

Keep in mind that it is the same people, with all their faults, that constitute the government. I am suggesting that having people directly responsible to the customer may be a better choice than removing that connection. If privatization works better in every endeavor where it has been applied, why stop at arbitrary points? As to having armed conflict between various police forces, if such problems do not occur between states or between counties, why would the occur between corporations?

You might enjoy David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom. He thinks the free market can provide just about everything better than government. Here is an interesting presentation he gave a couple years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxGX...

As regards direct defense of life, liberty and property, I agree.

But as regards recovery of stolen goods, and pursuit and interception of perpetrators, here you're into retaliation. Where does retaliation end and improper initiation of force begin?

The government may not regulate force in clear cases of defense of life, liberty or property. But how do you regulate force in retaliation? Or do you count a good, once stolen, as lost forever and not subject to recovery, in order to avoid scenarios such as that which Rand feared?

Rand was not infallible. She too was subject to certain preconceived notions. Although believing in the free market, she also believed that some societal functions can only be performed by the government. Police is one of those functions. Yet, if one thinks through the scenarios carefully, there is no proof that privatized police forces cannot be better, more efficient and much more honest than the same people working not directly for the customer, but many layers removed.

Rand herself described this fear. "Suppose," she said, "Mr. Smith, citizen of Government A, alleges Mr. Jones, citizen of Government B, stole his wallet. He goes to Police A and asked them to arrest Jones. Jones calls Police B to meet Police A--with weapons drawn."

We can hope the competing police forces will standardize the law and agree to mutual enforcement and mutual conflict resolution. But we have no guarantee of that. That's why Rand said we needed a government.

I was not stating that fire departments do typically work that way, but if you go to a model where you pay individually (not imposing costs with an explicit contract on others but individually) then it has to also be provided individually.

What your talking about is largely how it works, most fire is private (and should be) where I live as well. Some cities however have public fire and you pay for it as part of your property taxes.

I think we can adopt at least somethings to this idea of voluntary financial support for services rendered; there are some that everyone does not.

For instance: education...I do not have any kids, I should not have to pay for yours. My parents did their part and paid for mine until of age to pay for my own.
I am sure there are other examples like this but not many.
It seems, the way Ayn stated the premise, it is true that we do share much and rightfully should share the cost.

There are areas of the country where exactly this kind of thing happens. "Pay to spray"

http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-depar...

Interesting thoughts and a few seemingly rational frameworks. As a counter-case, what about the economic "tragedy of the commons"? In short, some thing that is not owned by any one person, so there is little motivation for paying for its support. This fed the burning of the Cuyahoga River. I'm sure there are folks here who can explain much better than I.

The point being that this would be paid for via your insurance premiums.

Yes, quite likely they would do so AND have multiple competing providers to choose from. :)