It seems like a perfectly useful concept to me: if there are indeed goods that, by their nature, only some social arrangement like a government or a de facto government can provide, and if I think that at least some of these goods are things that ought to be provided, it follows that there are are reasons to favor having governments. I don't personally care much what phrase we use to describe them. I have in mind things that even relative state-minimalists like F.A. Hayek had in mind as legitimate roles for governments, like provision of basic health care, defense against invasion, police and fire services, and a social safety net.

(One counterargument would be to claim that there are no goods that, by their nature, can only be provided by a government, but I don't read that as what you're arguing. Of course, another counterargument would be to claim that no such goods are desirable, or at least not desirable enough to justify government existing.)

A government by definition is a monopoly on violence, which leads to the next question - why would any goods or service require a monopoly on violence?

I would argue a coercive monopoly on any market is counter-productive and unnecessary (they even claim to protect us from such monopolies, thanks SEC). Even if we're talking about delivering mail, UPS, FedEx and DHL are evidence that an involuntary service CAN be provided voluntarily. Voluntary is always better than involuntary.

Does laying tar on the ground need a monopoly on violence? What about delivering packages? Collecting taxes actually DOES require such monopoly. Markets work because humans have preference. Even a democratic government cannot account for the preference of it's territory without disenfranchising a large population! If you don't like blockbuster, you can use netflix. Don't like UPS? Use fedex. Don't like Homeland Security? Well that's too damn bad.

Well, I gave some examples, like providing a basic safety net, and policing. Hayek makes a good argument for why these can't, or at least are unlikely to, be provided voluntarily, which is one reason he's a free-market advocate but not an anarcho-capitalist.

> Well, I gave some examples, like providing a basic safety net, and policing.

Policing isn't provided by the market because there isn't a market for it, and this is not a shortcoming of the markets either - it's human preference. Policing an imposed "service" that free people would not solicit.

If we take an empirical analysis of what provides safety in our life's I would argue that mitigating the risk of harm is provided almost exclusively through voluntary means, such as markets, friends and family.

Security cameras, seat-belts/airbags, cell phones, firearms, door locks, fences, pepper spray and tazers all provide FAR more cost-effective security than a policeman driving around making a quick buck on speeding tickets.

These technologies are sufficient for most people, but you can always buy more security, which malls frequently do. Police don't keep us safe and prevent theft, which is why malls have to buy mall security.

How do you deal with things which have no effective market? e.g.ChloroFlouroCarbons, where the cost is borne by people distant from the obvious transaction.

Exactly, you also need something like a government to make people internalize externalities.

There are no goods which by their nature require the initiation of force against other people to produce them.