"The production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition.  …  o government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity."

“The moral authority of governors rests, in reality, on the self-interest of the governed.  The latter having a natural tendency to resist anything harmful to their self-interest, unacknowledged authority would continually require the help of physical force.”

“Everywhere, men resign themselves to the most extreme sacrifices rather than do without government and hence security, without realizing that in so doing, they misjudge their alternatives.”

“Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification.  Why would they make war?  To conquer consumers?  But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered.  They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals.  If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved.  Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty.”

“Whether communism is partial or complete, political economy is no more tolerant of it than it is of monopoly, of which it is merely an extension.”

“But why should there be an exception relative to security?  What special reason is there that the production of security cannot be relegated to free competition?  Why should it be subjected to a different principle and organized according to a different system?”

“The moral foundation of authority is neither as solid nor as wide, under a regime of monopoly or of communism, as it could be under a regime of liberty.”