Anarchists who identify themselves as agreeing with Objectivism's fundamentals but not its politics mistakenly think that they have a rock-solid argument for why the state must necessarily aggress, even if the monopoly government is constitutionally limited to upholding rights and is freely elected. The core of these Anarchists' argument is that the very threat of government acting to protect its monopoly against competing "agencies" is itself an aggressive act.
I have compiled this 7 question Yes/No quiz below for "objective-minded" Anarchists which aims to demonstrate why a constitutionally limited monopoly government is not only necessary for rights to be upheld effectually, but why it needn't commit aggression in the act of upholding them:
1) Do you agree that rights are objective (i.e., may be identified factually)?
2) Do you agree that everyone has a right to justice (where justice is defined as "action that stops aggressive or coercive action without itself being unnecessarily aggressive or coercive")?;
3) Do you agree that in order for the right to justice to be upheld there needs to be equal and fair treatment under the law for all?
4) If you have answered yes to all of the above, in the context of constitutionally limited laissez-faire capitalism (where there is neither compulsory taxation nor interfering regulations), do you agree that any would-be "competing agency" would necessarily pose a threat to, i.e. would be aggressing against, the rights of those persons who freely elected and instituted their government *iff* the would-be competing agency advocated a different set of rights (including terms of justice) that in any way conflicted with the set of rights being upheld by the incumbent government and the conflicting set was backed by the threat of the use of force ?
5) If you agree with 4), do you agree that the incumbent government may rightfully outlaw and dismantle the 'aggressing' agency?
6) If you agree with all of the above, do you agree that the only agencies that may legitimately 'compete' with an incumbent non-aggressing freely elected government are those that mirror it's set of rights and terms of justice?
7) If you agree with 6), given the mammoth cost and *risk* of setting up such an agency from scratch, and given that free and fair elections are a low cost and low risk way to obtain support for and implement any sensible points of difference would-be competing agencies might advocate for, and with geographic secession a viable low cost option for smaller groups of disgruntled voters who want an alternative, do you think that there is a viable business case to be made for such agencies in the given hypothetical context?
Any takers?