> So, if Libertarians were in charge, all taxation practices were cancelled, where would the money come for the police forces and army?

That, as one might expect, depends entirely on which person you ask. The political group is varied. The majority of the members just want significantly less central control than in the current situation. Market anarchists are definitely out in the fringe, even among Libertarians. Rights theory is very useful as a moral argument and as a rhetorical tool, but any close look shows that it is far from perfect.

But here's the argument, as best I know it, of pure libertarianism toward the military. Considered as a service, not being raped, pillaged, or murdered is highly desirable. Police forces and the military would both be supported by those who considered it a good buy, sort of like insurance. The obvious question is whether the protection agencies would be strong enough. Police have never been meant, under any system, to be numerous or powerful enough to put down the whole population; they rely on the people being mostly peaceful already. There are many communities in the US which have private security firms now. Militaries are a tougher puzzle, and from what I've read, the answers seem optimistic. Given a non-interventionist foreign policy, (which is not the same as isolationist) they assert correctly that we would be less of a target. It isn't simple to discern how much less of a target we would be, and whether the trade-off would be effective. Here's the key, though: they'd rather take the chance of being weak abroad than allow any tyranny at home.

The Ayn Rand-ians are a subset with an unconventional idea of rights, which lets them posit a strong government to nuke the rest of the world on a matter of principle. But at least it would be voluntary.

Ga"Their Party, amusingly, is slowly coming around to a decidedly hawkish non-interventionism."be