I received an interesting question from Paul Bonneau, Free State Wyoming.
You’ve addressed funding pretty well, but I was wondering about behavioral differences in the cantons. Two cantons in one town, one of which is a gun hating canton, the other an open carry canton. How are the differences resolved?
Paul, your question demonstrates how most people today do suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with our captors. We are so used to being told what to do in the most minute detail that we seem incapable sometimes of really imagining what it would be like to be free.
I think of government at all levels as a provider of services. In a municipality, insurance companies that insure homes there would probably demand that the municipality have some sort of police department. With cantons, the difference is that, instead of being run by a monopoly government, it is run jointly by several cantons. This situation alone would make the police dept much more responsive to the people of those cantons. Because of this divided funding, the police would enforce laws that the cantons agreed upon. Each canton would need to enforce any other rules it might have (more restrictive gun control in your example) at its own expense, and only on its own members. The other side of freedom is responsibility. An open carry canton must self-regulate its members to be sure that a person too immature to act responsibly with a firearm is never allowed to carry.
Owners make rules about how others may use their property. When government no longer owns us, we begin to live by our own rules, and use interpersonal skills to deal with those with whom we may disagree on certain issues. This is government by cooperation, not coercion. The only exception is the rightful use of force against an initiator of force, spelled out clearly in the non-aggression principle.