-12 votes

History of a Voluntary State + A New Problem For NAP

This submission should help anyone still on the fence to see why state governments can form out of voluntarily organized areas of common defense, through unanimous common consent, with defensive perimeters and areas designated public.

This will be my final contribution to the present round of the anarchy discussion. Here I establish all the main points I wish to carry, and take silence to be assent to their correctness.

1. Ten founding families unanimously agree to rules and a common defensive perimeter to their property. Anyone born in this perimeter can buy property and adhere to the rules when reaching maturity, or can go outside that common perimeter to seek their fortunes.

No rights violated, check.

The rules include provisions for changing the rules and other contingencies, and anyone breaking the rules is punished according to originally agreed upon rules. Everyone agrees, and everyone is free to leave the area at maturity. There are publicly provisioned roadways and out of the territory for that purpose.

No rights violated, check.

2. As generations pass, those who enter the territory or purchase property at maturity consent to the rules, by doing so, and change the rules, as they desire over time.

Those who don't agree to the rules leave. Moving to the area or purchasing property at maturity is defined in the constitution of the area agreeing to the rules - the property itself attaches rules and conditions, and everyone inside is either a property owner or dependent, and so subject to the rules.

No signature required by any "new" entry, whether moving in from the outside or coming to majority age and buying property. This new citizen is bound by the constitution upon becoming a citizen, which is the same as acquiring property -- the rules attach to the property.

No rights violated, check.

3. Other similar areas grow with the same characteristics, until their defensive perimeters meet the defensive perimeters (borders) of their neighbors.

Eventually all dissenting individuals must adhere to rules, even if just along the way out, as they use the public roadways to exit further and further, unhindered, until they find unclaimed land areas without any rules and with unclaimed property.

No rights violated, check.

4. As these bodies of property owners expand by natural growth, their defensive perimeters conjoin with similarly organized neighbors, and they consent among each other to a larger, common defensive border and Constitution of more limited common rules.

No rights violated, check.

Joining the common defensive union and constitution takes place according to the rules set out by the original property owners for their own political bodies; if the original founders agreed to a system of majority vote or super majority vote for making such decisions, that is sufficient to join the larger defensive perimeter.

No rights violated, check.

It all follows from the fact that the original group of property owners in each defensive perimeter area consented to a common defense perimeter and set of rules, and each person born or moving into that area consented, by entering, to the rules.

5. Eventually, these bodies bodies come to form a large common area together, sharing a defensive perimeter called a nation-state, formed consensually and sharing a constitution of rules.

Any instances of injustice or violation of rules, or violent acts against individuals, have to be dealt with in the courts and don't nullify the rules of the property owners. The provisions in the original rules stipulate how to handle rule violations.

No rights violated, check.

The only way to exit the area where rules and dues apply is by exiting to a place where property owners have not created rules within a common property defensive perimeter, to somewhere where there is unclaimed property.

6. At no point in the preceding steps was anyone forced into doing anything or agreeing to anything.

The only rules any individual is beholden to are the rules of the property area they entered into, whether by moving or buying property at majority age. Outside of that, they are free to do as they want, unless they attack others, in which case they are attacked/arrested in self defense.

Any rules that exist are those that all founding parties agreed to for their area, inside their common defensive perimeter; they never ranged out to conquer any individual landholders. Landholders who didn't ever agree to any common rules retain full freedom except to harm others, and have no claim on external defense/courts.

No rights violated, check.

Whatever areas were designated for common use like public roadways are to be understood in the same way as corporately owned areas with corporately defined rules, as agreed by the original founding property owners. Anyone who didn't agree upon reaching majority age could leave the territory of those property owners freely.

7. Eventually, by natural growth, all land will either become owned or designated corporately/commonly owned, subject to specific rules for common or public areas, and there is nowhere that rules don't apply. Yet, no one was ever forced to abide by rules they didn't agree to, or to turn over property that wasn't theirs.


This, if understood, should sufficiently prove the point that laws and taxes in given territories, extending all the way to the nation-state, don't violate anyone's freedom. Claims that force was used centuries ago against dissenters also holds no sway, any more than claims to stolen land from Neanderthals do. If you can't prove any direct victim-hood to any direct perpetrator, there can't be any restitution. These claims can't be used to nullify all social order, otherwise aggression that occurred in the Pleistocene will count.

Water under the bridge.


But! This creates a huge problem.

Since the rules, as such, have not been delimited or restricted in any way, they are completely arbitrary and also entirely voluntary.

This means that any manner of insane customs and rules created by property owners are valid, as long as entrants to the property area are not forced to enter.

So, a puritanical founding community would justly be able to impose puritanical law on all members reaching majority. Laws crazier than puritanical laws are also valid, because they aren't ever forced onto anyone. Everyone gives consent upon acquiring property.

As in Rothbard, the child born is never anyone's responsibility, never owed a piece of property or stream of income. If that child, reaching majority, wants to acquire property, they are beholden to the rules of the land area they are voluntarily entering.

Some other standard of justice is clearly, clearly needed to distinguish just from unjust laws, other than voluntary-arity.

Otherwise, if someone is born in a community with crazy laws, and surrounded in every direction by similarly ordered communities, he could never escape the crazy, unjust laws. If the entire globe was covered in such crazy laws, he could never escape.

Justice would become entirely arbitrary consequence of what property owners decide, and have no objective meaning, once all land was owned and people couldn't escape.

NAP is a clock winding down; once all land is owned and all areas subject to rules, there is no longer any escape. If NAP is the only standard of justice, at this point it loses all function, as whatever laws exist are final, except for changes following the procedures set according to those laws.

Absent some other standard of rightness, NAP fails the moment someone can't exit laws they disagree with, despite no one ever forcing them to do anything.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I did not get past Number 1.

Allowing a steady stream of criminals to exist an area and then run amok in another area is a serious problem known to people for ages. So the lesson learned was to take care of criminals for your own safety and for the safety of others who may be injured by your failure to take care of local criminals.

"No rights violated, check."

Failure to take care of business at home causes blowback.

So no check there.


I like you Josf

But I think I speak for most people of every viewpoint here when I say "As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about."

I don't know you.

I don't speak for most people.

I know that my words are written in plain English, those who can read can.

Those who have any trouble reading can find out what the intended meaning is, those who prefer not to know can figure out ways not to know.

When I write too much my words are too much for some people.

When I write too little my words leave the reader with no ideas.

An example (not offered to anyone who has "no idea"):

"Allowing a steady stream of criminals to exist an area and then run amok in another area is a serious problem known to people for ages. So the lesson learned was to take care of criminals for your own safety and for the safety of others who may be injured by your failure to take care of local criminals."

Those who do nothing to stop crime in an area results in crime being in that area.

"Allowing a steady stream of criminals to exist [in] an area and then run amok in another area is a serious problem known to people for ages."

No idea?

Those who do nothing to stop crime in an area results in those in that area being victims of crime or those victims become criminals themselves.

No idea?

When peaceful people who do something about crime exist somewhere close to the place were crime is allowed to multiply will notice where their increase in crime trouble originates.

Perhaps the word "originates" is not easy to understand in that sentence?

Place B is where criminals run amok.

Place A is were criminals are taken care of in an effective manner.

Criminals originate in Place B.

Criminals travel to Place A.

People in Place A then find out where criminals originate.

Place A assembles a method by which Place B no longer generates so many criminals.

Stupid people blame what happens on the people in Place A, and stupid people refuse to understand what actually happens to cause the people in Place A to solve the crime problem in Place B?

No idea?

Of course not.


We will be steamrolled and

We will be steamrolled and gathered like cattle or we will unite under some sort of Golden Rule scenario. There must be sharing of skill, resources, and knowledge. Some sort of hybrid low tech meets high tech existence could spring forth from the ashes, but it won't be some cookie cutter Sims game.

This seems to me to be the same type of scenario you proposed

before. The way I understand it, are you saying that all property within the territory is assigned some kind of restrictive covenant to obey the rules of the territory? That's certainly an interesting idea. Does a landowner have the right of secession?

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

In the context of the scenario

what you call secession would be the violation of contract. I know you don't believe that promissory contracts are valid, for some reason, but do you also believe that property cooperatives with common rules and fees are not just?

I am cool with property co-ops

If it's understood and accepted by all that the property is commonly owned. As I said before, I have no problem with communism if participation is by unanimous consent.

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

For example: a monastery.

Monks have a strict system of rules and authority but their property is owned commonly. Monks also willingly take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They live in tune with another realm. If we were willing to do these things, then a common ownership might work.


and so on your idiosyncratic vocab, communism doesn't mean communism, it just means any agreement to contracts that bind people to rules, whether through private contracts or through a publicly vested body. It's all communism, even though it has nothing to do w actual communism. Got it.

You're writing bad SF and calling it an argument

Yes everything in your (bloated as usual) scenario goes the way you wrote the scenario. That doesn't prove (or disprove) anything.

Historically your SF scenario never happened. What happened is gangs set up schedules for looting the people, because scheduled looting made it easier for the victims to plan around the looting and thus didn't die so much and in turn provided more loot. Free range tax cattle produce more. They started calling themselves Kings and Khans and Caesars and claiming various justifications for their looting so that fewer livestock had to be killed.

Economically it's pretty simple. Socialized provision of services is inefficient. Which is just another way to say monopoly is inefficient. There is no exception to this, not defense and not health care.

Logically and economically your scenario fails because it won't be the case that ten families in multiple communities set up socialized defense strategies.

They will buy primary 'catastrophic' defense coverage from a defense firm, who specializes in such things. Some community may try to set up DIY socialized large scale defense, but it will be much more costly and less effective. They will see their neighbors protected by TargetSafe or Wal-Defense and think.. we're paying too much, and consider ditching the socialized defense force.

True, it may be that the socialized defense force resists being privatized. If so they community will suffer for their own stupidity by being 'serviced' by a brand new state, ie gang.

If that community then thinks to invade a community protected by Wal-Defense, they will have a rude awakening. Wal-Defense will outgun any community, and even more importantly they will not have the 'honor among thieves' compunction about assassinating heads of state. In fact, because it's so damned cheap and effective, the very first thing they will do is start from the top and decapitate leadership till the state fails. They will almost never have to dust off their tanks.

It may also be that Wal-Defense will do market research to see if there is enough market interest to free the community that came down with a bad case of government. Or the community may just have to suffer for a while until they can free themselves from their disease.

These states will not have the advantage that their victims will believe they are supposed to be victims, so the number of guards to slaves will get higher and higher. So it will certainly be necessarily increasingly repressive. Eventually it will likely collapse as people get free.

The only reason slavery works the world over, is there is no where for slaves to run to, except another master.

The reason pure socialism failed is because there were fascist states to flee too, which are more free.

Fascism can only continue so long as there are no capitalist communities to flee to.


I tend to disagree. I think most early American communities lived by very egalitarian rules that were unanimous among adults, and they set up common defensive perimeters, and those who moved in consented to the rules and laws by the act of moving into that community. I know you guys want to deny implied consent when its convenient, pretending a wet ink signature is always needed. But that's just silly, lots of understandings are verbal or even unspoken promises. If you invite me into your house, we don't need to sign a contract for there to be an understanding I won't violate your rules or not leave.

Not much coercion was needed during the period between settlement and the founding and constitution. Much of what would be called coercion like taxes an drafts were decisions made according to constitutional rules of voting that were laid down and unanimously agreed to at an early point. Anyone after that who was born in or moved in was free to leave, but they stayed and consented to the rules. You guys are basically dependent on the idea that without an ink signature, there is no consent, which is just puerile.

This, if understood, should

This, if understood, should sufficiently prove the point that laws and taxes in given territories, extending all the way to the nation-state, don't violate anyone's freedom.

Wow. Do you really think that? For reals? I think you need a refresher on what "freedom" is. The whole time I was reading, I thought you were trying to establish that the state is a natural consequence of anarchy, which I would agree with. But at the end you're trying to assert this as a proof for freedom? Are you serious right now?

Here I establish all the main points I wish to carry, and take silence to be assent to their correctness.

Rofl. I wish the world was that easy for you, huh? You know damn well that's not legitimate.

I should have said

This, if understood, should sufficiently prove the point that laws and taxes in given territories, extending all the way to the nation-state, don't necessarily violate anyone's freedom.

They certainly can and do now and in most states. But the voluntary principle can easily produce a constitutional state with democratic based procedures for changing rules. There is nothing involuntary about the state above, and any injustices would be the province of the courts set up for such things.

It's a state, it has rules that are enforced on everyone, and no one was forced into it, and no one can escape it at a certain point. Yet, it never violates NAP. And, while in accord with NAP, it also promises injustice in a deeper, non NAP sense, for those who can't escape unjust laws, because every land area is owned or subject to the laws of the owners.

Liar, you explicitly included

Liar, you explicitly included involuntary action and it's the only thing that makes your example carry the way it does.



What example? Your entire OP

What example? Your entire OP hinges on your false definition of the non aggression principle. You are pretending for the sake of your argument that initiating aggression does not violate NAP. You keep saying "no rights violated" at the end of your points but it's a full on lie.

An example

anyone's rights being violated in the scenario. Can you find one. Don't say "a bunch of them" or "so many" just choose one for analysis.

"Some other standard of justice,,,"

"Some other standard of justice is clearly, clearly needed to distinguish just from unjust laws, other than voluntary-arity."

This has already been discovered and enumerated in law but is not being followed because of people ignoring the law.

Just (lawful) powers are derived from the consent of the governed. This is a general strict construction of common law right to face your accuser. The accuser is one governed by law who presents all required elements of a valid cause of action for remedy from actual injury before a court of law/agreed to arbitration body, and the accused is one governed by law who answers to the claims of injury. The court of law being an impartial body only provides the non-violent forum for the jury to determine facts and law of that case. If the accuser requests assistance of a peace officer then the peace officer would be acting within lawful (just) agency to the accuser who requested assistance. The officer cannot be the initiator of such claims AND claim lawful agency at the same time because the lawful agency (power) requires a liable principal the agent is acting on behalf of AND that principal must be from the consent of someone governed by law.

Consent by the accused must also be realized for the court or jury to have a lawful process of a court also because force would mean someone would commit a crime in the processes of upholding the law thus giving the accused a valid cause of action against the aggressor then becoming an accuser against an aggressor. If a jury was seated and an impartial court offered for non-violent dispute resolution and the accused did not voluntarily appear to defend against any allegations then the accused would be determined by the jury to be an outlaw, someone who has chosen to live outside the law, someone who has voluntarily given up access to non-violent dispute resolution. This deeper understanding in common law is where consent of the governed comes from. This is why ALL lawful (just) power is in the hands of those governed by law.

This is how we can expose the 'courts' and 'law enforcement' for the corrupt, criminally insane meat heads they are. If they don't have lawful agency to a liable principal who has requested their agency then their (law enforcement) actions that disturb our peace in any way are simply NOT lawful. It's not complicated. It's really simple.

This is fact that has already been discovered in law and the entire reason we have tyranny right now is because people are ignoring this fact and thus stand ignorant of law and have absolutely no way to defend their liberties with upholding these simple protections of law.

Having the cops just handle everything for you without any identifiable and enumerated chain of liability back to the initiating source principal accuser is exactly what has destroyed America. This same concept of agency carries over into 'representatives' but almost no-one knows how that fits together either within law. If the people actually knew what a lawful representative is then we would not have secret black box voting because the very act of making voting secret means the liable principal of their agency cannot be identified, enumerated, or even proven according to rules of evidence.

So it seems again you have failed to understand that these issues are inherently answered within natural common law. Violating natural common law through ignorance of law is not a defense and automatically defaults to tyranny as the divine law result of intellectual laziness and self enslavement to criminals.

Another issue I have with your work here is
"Those who don't agree to the rules leave."

If this were applied to America then every bureaucrat/'government' personnel in America would have to leave America. Seeing the American mind devolve into chaos directly from extreme ignorance of law should clearly show how these 'rules' would apply without proper competing deterrence. At what point does one own property AND the entire contract become null and void? The answer is when people have organized themselves into a configuration to defend themselves from any threats to them. Laws of Nature.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...


is consent.

What we have now is not consent

but the system interprets the current situation very similar to what you describe. Problem with your situation is that warfare is required to remove the consent which means integrating chaos into the model all while it was never necessary to maintain proper lawful application of law.

Given the fact that all governments become tyrannical your proposal has no other way in/out other than through the criminal racket unlawfully claiming that you must contract with them for property. Also there is no other way to acquire property under your scenario other than to 'consent' to their terms and conditions. If you force people into a position where warfare is the only way out then warfare is what you will get. There is a way through law where warfare is not required for exit when true voluntary consent is maintained with the understanding that withdrawal is always accessible (just like cancelling cable TV). Of course there are also ways that the scenario you suggest could be lawful acquisition of property through voluntary serfdom that will be the inevitable result for those who ignore the protections of law but for an entity to claim a monopoly over half a continent or the whole world will inevitably end up in total chaos of warfare because there is no way out peacefully.

This is why a government cannot lawfully maintain a monopoly over geographic jurisdiction and be a more perfect union. Under true voluntary consent people can choose one or more types jurisdictional understanding(s) through all common law elements of a valid contract they negotiate and agree upon with others with natural common law outlawness being the backstop where you must answer to some agreed to jurisdiction when accused of actual injury otherwise you will give up the protections of law. The beauty and inherent congruency in law of free market of jurisdictions means that if one becomes tyrannical they will destroy their reputation and people can fluidly move from one to another they way people do with insurance policies. Bad business means no business.

The ability for people to simply move from one jurisdictional understanding to another (or even have multiple parallel jurisdictions for more security) means that instead of warfare to get out of a tyrannical system people simply put them out of business by cancelling their subscription and moving their agreements to another jurisdictional entity.

With the real time communication and the virality of exposed tyranny, free market jurisdictions will have a strong need to maintain proper lawful agency at all times and fire or bring to justice any bad apples immediately due to the devastating effects of exposure of unaccountability and tyranny will have on a business.

Voluntariness in your description is extortion disguised as consent because a monopoly of consent reduces the options for consent to 1 or 0 which is just a colorable claim of being real consent.

So your prime failure is to make something eternal (this doesn't address inherited property either; where's consent of someone born there and given the property- elements of a valid contract are not present unless the beneficiary agrees to the terms) tied to geographic location when real law applies to individual man or the contractual capacity he claims to be tied to for the given dispute.

You have helped justify anarchy with your proposal and you have failed to address the duress and breach of peace that will enter when attempting to force posterity into a contract they did not wish to be a part of. Once the peace is breached by the one attempting to force the consent or leave scenario then a valid cause of action is present for the posterity who simply wants to be left alone. Will the posterity have justice? Will remedy and relief be provided through upholding the law or will people violate the law just a little bit to keep the fraudulent 'consent'.

See if you can find your logical way through the application law where no law violate any other law and no one can violate the law to uphold the law. When you find the path through non-conflicting application of law you will have found REAL LAW.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

No idea what you're talking about.

Please quote whatever you disagree with and then respond where it's wrong in a sentence or two so people can follow along. You just went on an adderall blitz and no one knows what the heck happened.

"Anyone born in this

"Anyone born in this perimeter can buy property and adhere to the rules when reaching maturity, or can go outside that common perimeter to seek their fortunes."

Its not about a "perimeter". It is about the understanding in fact by men party to agreement. You have described the failed interpretation most have now accepted in the US. This, however, does not standup up to logical scrutiny as valid law in all cases because the fiction of arbitrary rules established by some body that has no enumerated consenting relationship to another party cannot place any applicable rules upon any one who has not consented to those rules. Your interpretation results in a muddied understanding of the scope of "property" because you only mention 'buying' property and do not acknowledge the property of time one inherently possesses regardless of where they might happen to be within nature.

Without acknowledging the difference one can misconstrue that voluntary agreement can be associated with physical location regardless of disclosure and acceptance of terms. Another issue that is not addressed is the false applicability to posterity. Your only option is force someone to leave which without a valid cause would mean that no lawful court could have jurisdiction in any subject matter to even hear such matters because there would be no case without just cause. This is exactly why all elements of a valid cause of action are required for application of any 'rules' beyond natural laws. If someone is not breaching any one's peace then there is no cause for any court of law to take any action. The second that allegations of actual injury appear is the second that an agreed to court of law must perform its defined function.

Thinking in terms of defined spatial perimeters is the failure here because it ignores the innate property of a man existing in nature.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

If you think physical location and perimiter are not relevant...

...then you disagree with the most learned Anarchist theorists.


Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State

"With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortion, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area."


“In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” [Democracy: the God that Failed, p. 218]

Ventura 2012

The perimeters are relevant

but so are natural rights. If those in the perimeter violate someone's natural inalienable rights (injure them) who is not party to the contract then those injured would have valid cause for remedy from the aggressors who injured them. If those in the perimeter denied lawful justice then they would violate the golden rule and therefore be just as bad as any other tyrant. Also, if someone owned land in the perimeter and passed it on to posterity without posterity explicitly meeting all elements of a valid contract for application then those rules would have no application to the posterity. You may say that the covenants cover that and the posterity would have to leave. If they have to leave property that was passed on to them then the covenants supersede property ownership and thus the property is not really owned.

Another concept America never fully tapped within law is the right of passage. Sweden recognizes the common law right of passage as a natural right and in Sweden one doesn't have the problems of stupid violent rednecks who use violence to remove anyone from their property. Right of passage acknowledges a man's ability to get to where he is going regardless of property lines but is limited to the requirement that harm cannot be done to one's property by the passer by. This right of passage is a natural common law that ensures that people can move about the earth as needed so long as they do not injure anyone in the process. The swedes recognize the difference between someone passing by on their way to another destination. American's (especially stupid mean redneck farmers) always come out with the shotgun and many times shoot 'trespassers' with rock salt if someone is just on their property regardless of the passerby's intent.

I see this ignorance of natural law and natural rights as a major fail by grumpy old men who want to be a community of men not of laws.

So you can point to others to justify an 'anything we say goes' model but that is a fail if the natural rights and intent of others are ignored. This understanding of covenants applying to perimeters forever regardless of posterity or passerby's means men want take control of portions of earth as their own forever. The only way out of such a covenant and to maintain rightful claims of land would be warfare.

If people just ignore natural common law and make and enforce contracts that violate others rights resulting in free unobligated posterity being forced into a contract or face initiation of force for removal then this 'community' would have built extortion and corruption of blood into the foundation of their 'law'. That is insane. What happens if these communities form all along the banks of the Mississippi river? Does that mean they have monopoly over right privilege of passage on the river?

Laws have to come first then non-conflicting agreements based in law. Otherwise such a community is just lawlessness.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I agree with you 100%, I just

I agree with you 100%, I just don't think anarchism has any safeguards whatsoever to protect natural rights.

Ventura 2012

What we have now is anarchy

Anarchy simply means without rulers and when one examines North American published laws there are no defined rulers anywhere in law. So it is my understanding that we have a legally and lawfully recognized anarchy right now. The very foundations of our Organic Laws acknowledge that governments are instituted amongst men deriving their just powers from consent of governed. Men can institute governments as they see fit and even the current
'government' publishes this fact as law. There is absolutely no lawful requirement for us to make the current Constitutional government our government. We are totally free within nature to contract whatever governance we choose and we can even have more than one at the same time. This is even common practice in business where arbitration jurisdiction is strictly defined as private arbitration. There is no limit to this. We can simply create whatever governance we wish and even explicitly carve out jurisdiction of the crime machine that is eating everything good.

Also, the application of law in a no ruler scenario means each is equally sovereign where that sovereignty is maintained through full liability. Full liability because the consent of the one governed by law is issued through their accusation with just cause for action. It is self evident lawful fact in nature that each is liable for their OWN actions.

Application of law then becomes a completely impartial process because each holds the power to accuse or be accused with identifiable traceable liability maintained for both sides of any dispute where the court is only a forum for non-violent dispute resolution determining facts and law for that case that was granted jurisdiction by the disputing parties. So there are no rulers because we are each liable for our own actions. In legalese, action = court action. Action means court action because otherwise people are operating freely as equally liable parties with no disputes until a valid cause of action is presented. Actions are the only real interface to individuals that have a threat to liberty.

This is the way real law operates but what we have now is a criminal racket because the 'government' is the 'accuser', the judge, and receives payment if they find you 'guilty'. It is completely insane prima facie in its very structure to think any of this is actual justice or any lawful process whatsoever. Courts are only suppose to be initiated through consent of the governed. So we must not confuse criminal activity with lawful court operations because lawful court operation is simple to identify because self-governing individuals with valid cause is the source of power and is required by someone for that forum to have any function to serve.

Whether the current 'government' reforms to operate lawfully or we simply organize new jurisdictional structures to carry out lawful functions of justice that choice is ours individually regardless of any opinions because if it is real law then it will form nature through inspirations and resulting action and become what is. So lawfully what is strictly constructed and in operation right now is already anarchy and has been the whole time.

I think most people are so ignorant of law that they do not know the difference between criminal activity and lawful justice which is the root of the confusion in all of this. The 'government' is a fiction that has logical weighted stimuli driven constructs of the neural nets of experience as a dominant ruler over our lives. Without any weighted experience of just law that is never conflicting in its application then there is no weighted stimuli within the experiential neural nets to identify and enumerate criminal injury from the 'government' because the logical weight of the experience of tyranny means one psychologically submits that they have rulers and thus thinks that what we have lawfully and legally is not anarchy. The law has been anarchy the whole time the rest is crime.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Interesting points!

Interesting points!

Ventura 2012

I could see...

...that transition happening, if such communities allowed it or set it up that way.

Basically in such case, though, don't you have one generation attempting to bind subsequent generations to these rules, running up against objections like Jefferson's, that the earth belongs to the living, not the dead? This seems only semi-voluntary.

What if instead, a community recognizes that every landowner has the right to affirm common principles with each neighbor as they see fit, and also has the right not to? Then it truly is an honor system, with each landowner (or steward, as I prefer) left to be driven by their own conscience, their own desire to serve their neighbors in Love, their own desire to not be treated as a pariah who shirks natural law and common decency?

Even in such an honor system, there is still a natural law that rules over all, which when violated in an egregious, aggressive manner will invite invasion of one's land from without, or an insurgency from within by those who are renters/guests on the land.

The greater degree of Love fostered in this society, the greater chance of success. If that is eroded, neither an anarchist society nor a minarchist society will likely endure.

Given that men are not 'angels', the question of which society has the better safeguards rests on whether it is wiser to trust a distributed power among free individuals in a free market, or an imbalance of power with trust placed in a coercive person or minority of persons to rule over everyone else.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the NAP is not enough -- there is that higher natural law, transcendent Love, I would point to as the primary key to it all.

Yes, but they're voluntary on NAP

and bind people to potentially absurd rules once there's no space to escape to, showing the principle to be essentially incapable of distinguishing what's just and unjust; once all the land is owned and part of an area of rules, anyone who enters or is born into land is bound by the rules if he wishes to acquire property. No independent standard is given for what rules are just, as long as they're voluntary, if NAP is the principle. And NAP does not avoid the ultimate inevitable point where all property is owned and under such rules, and super-structures of members, which are identical with constitutional/democratic states.

And on your model anyone can abandon the rules at will, so no common area of rule enforcement and defensive perimeter could be formed, making individuals easy prey to neighbors with customs that allow organized cooperation around rules. It just doesn't happen because it is not practically defensible in basic ways.

I'm sorry, but do you

I'm sorry, but do you honestly think that enforcing arbitrary rules that someone was born into by throwing them in a cage doesn't violate NAP?

Your ideas of freedom are so messed up. You fundamentally have no understanding of the non aggression principle.