Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism: Under Anarcho Capitalism judgment is separate from enforcement, and enforcement is based on fealty and association, not on place. Therefore the enforcement areas of enforcement organizations overlap vastly. If someone suffers an adverse judgment from a well respected court, and refuses to abide by that judgment, then the judgment will not automatically be enforced, but his reputation is damaged in a fashion that makes it comparatively safe to use violence against him. Courts are kept honest because they fear loss of respect. Enforcement organizations generally, but not always, adhere to what the courts commend because they fear loss of respect, leading to violence from other enforcement organizations and loss of customers and clients. Enforcement is largely based on fealty, rather than place. For reasons of convenience it is likely that most people in one neighborhood would give fealty to the same militia, or subscribe to the same renta-cop agency, but sometimes there would be conflicts. Perhaps there would be two competing militias. Militia A might claim that Militia B was soft on crime. Militia B might claim that Militia A was lawless and violent, as occurred in the famous dispute between the "Regulators" and the "Moderators". If Militia A (the "Regulators") was lawless and violent, this would probably eventually bring it into conflict with other enforcement organizations, a conflict that would normally be resolved by the courts. Militia A might reject the verdict of the courts, though this is unlikely. If it did it is likely that most of its clients would repudiate fealty, and the leadership of Militia A might very likely die. The "Regulators" quietly faded away when their excesses were publicly exposed in trials arranged by the "Moderators". The free rider problem: Because enforcement under anarcho capitalism is non territorial, defense and law enforcement are indistinguishable except for the size of the criminal gangs. Since one is defending people, not places, there is no free rider problem. An individual free rider runs a risk that he may have difficulty enforcing law and custom when a crime is committed against him. He is relying on kindness of strangers for the safety of his property, his liberty, and his life. Similarly for a group, for example a militia, which attempts to free ride. It is in danger from small scale threats. An association of such groups that attempts to free ride is in danger from large scale threats. Anarcho Capitalism can be criticized that its solution to the free rider problem (death) is excessively drastic, but you cannot criticize anarcho capitalism that it will be overrun by free riders. Anarcho Syndicalism will be overrun by free riders, forcing the syndicalists to use statist and eventually totalitarian measures, as happened in the end in Catalonia, but not anarcho capitalism. It is likely that an Anarcho Capitalist defense against a large scale threat would be inefficient, costly, destructive, and bloody, compared to the defense mounted by a more centrally organized form of social order. This is however a different issue to the free rider problem, though closely related. An anarcho capitalist defense against a large scale threat would very likely resemble the defense of America against the British during the revolutionary war. The British could go where they pleased and destroy whatever they wished, but were unable to obtain political control by so doing.