1. You didn’t answer my question. But you brought up another point regarding incentives. The system we currently live in, incentivizes the government to be violent. This is apparent given the nature of its actions: 9/11, psyop shootings, MK ultra.
In addition, you’re arguing that violence disincentivizes violence. You’re looking at things in black and white. People are individuals who will always have the power to choose what they want to do regardless of incentives. They can choose to be violent in the current system or peaceful in a different system. They could also choose the opposite, respectively. Since the current system isn’t eliminating violence, then arguing that libertarianism won’t work because it also can’t eliminate violence is not a strong argument. The goal isn’t to eliminate violence because that’s not possible. Some people will act violently regardless of the system. The goal is to not legitimize the violence by saying you have to pay taxes for x y z service that you don’t want.
2. And you can outsource that task once the government is out of the way. But right now you can’t and that service is less affordable due to the nature of the tax system. Remember that the government offers a service. A shitty service sure, but it is a service. And any service that the government offers can be done more efficiently and more cheaply on the free market. So if someone wrongs me, I can pay for a service to enact justice. Rothbard argued that these types of services would be best completed by insurance companies. They have the resources to make you whole. And there’s no compulsion or violence needed. People pick and choose what services they want. And if they don’t want it, they don’t have to get it. It’s peaceful and the solutions are solved. Everything would be better if all property was privatized. The incentives align better that way. No one cares for public property because they’re not incentivized to.