In a world with an open market of PDA’s, where there is no monopoly, and there is competition amongst the various PDA’s, how is consensus reached on the market to make a coordinated attack? How do customers “vote” to attack and destabilize a nation, and is there reason to believe that an uncoordinated attack would always work? Say that a single PDA had a fraction of the US military’s might; how effective is this against an entire nation? 

I feel like the problem with these scenarios and questions is that’s it’s all theoretical. We could come up with examples of where PDAs might work, and can equally come up with examples of where they don’t and couldn’t work. But it feels like there is a degree of hubris required among ancaps to claim with any degree of certainty that they definitely would work as a viable alternative to a states monopoly of a military. 

 That also seems to go against the non aggression principle, no? Attacking a nation that didn’t attack you just to destabilize it? 

 Yeah, I think there’s some tension here. We tend to say we are against any form of physical violence. But then restricting access to resources can be interpreted as violence in the physical realm. “Threatening our way of life” is another gray area. So I can see a situation where a group feels threatened in a way that could prompt an attack from a PDA that claims to be nonviolent.