I don’t know how tax-funded police cause violence. I predicted it anyway. It’s the ancap null hypothesis.

But probably anarcho-tyranny? If the shopkeeper shoots a shoplifter or a spraypainting vandal, they’ll be charged with aggravated assault or murder, but the cops won’t ever arrive in time to stop the criminal, and generally won’t even chase them. (See also, bats etc.) The cops prevent citizens from defending themselves but don’t provide an alternative, because they get paid regardless.

In the case of pot, it’s the fact that criminals don’t cherry-pick. College tokers don’t think of themselves as criminals, but somewhere up the chain you have to. Either they don’t worry about anarcho-tyranny because they’re going to jail anyway if they’re caught or they don’t worry about it because fuck the police. Since they can’t get their trades insured by courts, they insure it themselves with guns. Their trade partners, also being criminals, tend to be bad at long-term thinking and impulse control, so they have to use the guns. Once legalized, the criminals are pushed out of the market by court-insured businesses.

So…this all makes sense as far as I can tell, but it’s not like I have any empirical backup. I just have the null hypothesis leading to substantiated predictions. I’ll repeat it: since cops don’t need to do any work to get paid, and bad money drives out good, their presence incentivizes crime instead of discouraging it.

Would such a landlord tolerate vigilantes on his land? Maybe a bit. Probably not.

If policing reduced so much that vigilantes weren’t prosecuted, crime would drop precipitously. It’s just that reducing policing less than that amount has disparate impact.

Since everything else government can be summarized (X law is not about X), it’s fairly plausible. (Social security is not social and harms security.)

Drug law is mainly about having an excuse to jail people. Cops in fact jail criminals more often than not. I don’t know how much impact just marijuana will have on this, but it will stop cops from jailing at least some criminals.

For example most of the ‘innocent’ weed convicts, in minimum security, are only innocent in the most technical sense of not having been convicted of anything else. Cops are not (usually) invading suburbs and dragging off fifteen year old NORPs. (Otherwise universities would see regular raids.)

This is one of those cases where both opponents are criticizing correctly. Yeah, explicit drug law is incredibly dumb. If you get rid of it entirely, it will only make anarcho-tyranny worse.