Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, laws, guns and police are much more excellent opportunities to abuse power and already attract all sorts of sadists and psychopaths. Second, there is no "giving power" anywhere in the voluntary agreements. Your water will be turned off only if your water supplier thinks it's more profitable to please some insured customers than not piss you off. If they turn your water off unreasonably, they risk losing client…
Isn't this just a protection racket? The water company will turn off your water supply if a richer group asks for it. That sounds like a nightmare.
E.g. if the "richer group" got rich not via favors from monopoly of violence, but from efficiently servicing "poorer group", why would they risk massive boycotts and end of well-running business for a short-term benefit? Imagine if Amazon suddenly decides to print books using blood of cute little kittens because it's slightly more profitable. Would they think twice whether customers would be eager to buy those books?
Or you'd prefer a mythically benevolent all-powerful organization with guns, nukes and tons of paperwork that will create an appearance of "protection of piece and order" which you will never be able to control or affect?