One cannot coherently advocate justice without positing some means or mechanism toward that end. Only a creed of pacifism, requiring that victims sacrifice their lives and other values to aggressors, would deny the need for some such mechanism. Such a creed is obviously incompatible with the ethic of rational egoism developed in Section 3 and is in any case rejected by the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists. Logically, however, the only other alternative to the idea of a single justice provider, which we call "government," is a collection of multiple justice providers. The premise that at least one justice provider is needed has already been accepted by anarcho-capitalists (excepting pacifists) as well as advocates of limited government. The notion that additional such providers are required is a positive claim, which by the burden-of-proof principle requires some positive justification (pp. 1.3:72-3, 1.3:78-9). Since we have seen that the argument from the natural efficiency of the free market is inapplicable here, is there any other valid ground for supporting a system of multiple justice providers?