"The market will provide a solution".

Use that sentence a lot? I know I do. When faced with someone's suggestion that X cannot be provided by the market and therefore must be provided through some method of coercion, its the default answer. Even if we have no idea exactly how it will, market anarchists never waver in their faith that consensual (read: market) solutions exist.

But why should we believe this? Experience? Surely thats a part of it, people have shown considerable resilience in providing answers to the many problems of everyday life, and even the extraordinary unforeseen problems that occasionally arise. But I would say the most important reason is that the alternative, that sometimes the market can't provide an answer, and therefore coercion is neccesary, is so distasteful.

However, it seems that even amongst some market anarchists, the belief that the market will provide a solution to all is merely a pretense. Indeed, the moment criminal justice rears its ugly head, the vast majority get cold feet, and are fully prepared to start behaving in the same manner for which they so eagerly chastise the state.

Surely the need for some ports to have a lighthouse is a serious problem, but none of us seems to have any question that, if having a lighthouse is a net benefit, there will be a consensual solution, as opposed to just taxing the residents and using the stolen money derived to build it. Why then, when faced with the problem of thievery or murder, do so many balk, and start coming up with coercive solutions based around the most morally reprehensible actions imaginable?

In fact, the very notion that the market just might provide a solution in these situations is so upsetting to many that one might imagine they were more interested in defending coercion than in solving the problem. The sentence "I want to kill you" appears to be less contentious to them than the sentence "I don't want to kill anyone".

Its not too hard to show the problem here. The current criminal justice system is so far afield of a solution based on consent that it seems inconceivable to many that such an alternative might exist. Its rather akin to someone growing up in the Soviet Union being unable to conceive of a situation in which crops are grown, or buildings are built, or division of labor is even possible, without central planning.

So what is the alternative? How will the market solve these problems?

I don't know.

Does that change my belief that it will?

Not a bit.