Why I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist

Anarcho-capitalism is an intriguing political ideology involving the elimination of all government and the use of businesses to provide things like law, police, and national defense. For someone like me who typically despises governmental coercion, it's a pretty tempting idea. But I really don't think it's a very feasible idea.

First of all, the strongest form of anarcho-capitalism uses the existence of a natural law which all people agree upon in order to justify any use of force by private individuals. This law includes the right to life, liberty, and property. Under this law, it is unjust for anyone to take any of these things from you without your consent--even, say, democratically elected officials. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the existence of, say, governments, not everyone believes in this extreme natural law. If they did, or even a majority did, the government would be much smaller than it is now. So this doesn't bode well for an anarcho-capitalist society actually working or coming into existence.

But some anarcho-capitalists argue that even if we don't all agree on morality, if the costs of a law implemented by some group of people exceed its benefits, the company enforcing that law will go out of business. This is all well and good, but what actually happens to measure these costs and benefits? That's right, people get killed. Equilibrium would be found, but not without considerable bloodshed. Furthermore, who's to say that, for example, radical anti-oatmeal activists would hire someone to enforce a law against growing oatmeal and are willing to spend far more in defense of this goal than pro-oatmeal groups are willing to spend to defend the grain? Divorcing the use of force from any restrictions regarding its morality leads to a lack of regard for others' rights and liberties. That doesn't sound like a libertarian utopia to me.

A somewhat weaker, but still valid opposition to anarcho-capitalism comes from an efficiency standpoint. It is probably more efficient to have a single monopoly on the use of force than it is to have a multitude of different companies, each enforcing a different set of laws over a different area for different subscribers. But there are a number of technological and economic solutions to this problem--we could have somewhat standardized competing law systems, like those for credit cards today. And with more advanced technology, the provision of protection for only a subset of subscribers becomes easier. Still, I think it's more likely that a monopoly on force is most efficient.

So, in summary:
blah blah blah everyone has to agree on morality
blah blah blah no one agrees on morality
blah blah blah equilibrium found in human lives
blah blah blah efficiency