-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.

Colorful language aside

I, and lots of self professed NAP people, have acknowledged that property owners, forming an area of common rules, can agree not to sell property to new entrants that does not contractually bind the rules.

If you believe in a normal rule of property where rules can be contractually bound to purchase, then it follows that new entrants, whether moving in voluntarily, or coming to majority age and purchasing property, would be bound by those rules, voluntarily. They also had the option not to agree to the rules and not to acquire property, which they were free to do.

On your view, it seems there can't be any laws. Anyone can disregard contracts, do whatever they want, including in a private law community. It is you who have the problem on NAP, not me.

Explain how someone, coming to majority age in a community where all property is owned, and contractually binds any new owners to the cooperative rules, can own property without following the rules. If he can't own property, then it is not aggression to eject him from the common property area. If all property attaches rules which prevent harboring non rule adherents, then the new entrant must follow the rules.

All voluntary. If you can point out the area where something involuntary happened, you could refute my whole point, and establish that no rules can ever be enforced on people born into a social order. But on standard ancap principles, they can.

In order for something to be

In order for something to be voluntary, you have to agree to it willingly, not under duress. You know damn well that you are twisting the word voluntary into something it isn't to make your point. Why? Why are you so very, very intellectually dishonest? You always do this. You make ridiculous points that are entirely dependent on redefining a word that already has a well known meaning that you blatantly defy.

Something can be involuntary

like your bowel movement when you face me in argument, but not coercive. You can't equivocate the sense of the word voluntary. Your heartbeat is involuntary but no one is forcing you to have a heartbeat. Just because your heart beats doesn't mean the social organization you live under is involuntary.

So then, in my example, no one ever was forced to do something they hadn't agreed to. As long as they didn't violate anyone else's property rights, they encountered no force. So when someone turns 18, and has no property, they can either be ejected from others' property or acquire property under contractual obligations to the rules.

If you dispute this, that means you support this 18 year old's right to live on the property of others' while violating the contractual rules of the property. So you're supporting that anyone can invade others' property and break the rules they've set up on that property.

It may be duress to have to leave others' property, it may be 'hardship,' but it's not aggressive coercion on NAP.

Let's be clear, we're discussing aggressive or unjust coercion or force, not force in defense of legitimate property rights.

This is was your angle

"If you dispute this, that means you support this 18 year old's right to live on the property of others' while violating the contractual rules of the property. So you're supporting that anyone can invade others' property and break the rules they've set up on that property."

If the 18 y/o has the consent of others to be on their property and no one has injured you then your little code enforcement ninniness can buzz off.

If you breach the peace of others then you would be the aggressor and they would have valid cause for remedy from you.

You really seem to have the ninny of the neighborhood feel pouring from your words here. Gotta obey the rules. rules, rules, rules. Are you the creepy nosey neighbor guy who is always bitching when the neighbor's lawn is 1 cm too high?

The whole point of your interpretation that you are missing here is that you are talking about a contractual serfdom community where people can occupy the community's property so long as they obey the rules. If the community can force people to leave property they occupy then the occupant does not own the property they are merely occupants. This is your prime fail here.

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...


The property law stipulates that harboring violators itself violates the contract. It's part of the law/constitution unanimously agreed to by the founding property owners and was consented to subsequently by all new property owners and all minors coming to majority age. Back up shits creek, you are.

Its a contract of serfdom

Yes people can contract themselves into serfdom if they want to and they will have the problems associated with their own ignorance of law and the problems that will inevitably arise from that ignorance. Intelligent people would not have such stipulations because they are too aware to be fooled by such binding agreements.

Your 'contracts' here also do not address property passed onto someone younger than 18 years old. What if a 16 y/o who has no agreement and inherited the property? If he has to leave because of covenants of property itself then the tenants never actually owned the property or theft of the property would have to be exercised to force a contract upon someone who does not have all elements of a valid contract.

It is useless to debate you because you are operating from a position of needing rules instead of 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...

I'm glad you agree. As for

I'm glad you agree.

As for the 16 year old, I'm sure smart guys like you could figure it out.

I hope you comprehend

that what you describe in your post is nearly identical to what the US is now interpreting as 'law'. The only difference is that the 'contract' is 'applicable' from the time one is born and the 'government' has to permit one to exit the 'contract'.

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'm still waiting for you to point out anyhwere that anyone's

rights were violated in the post. It should be easy if you read it, but you are unable to do so in your voluminous responses. That is sad.

Rights are violated the second that rules of a contractual

capacity are applied to someone not under that contractual capacity.

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...

Rules of a contractual capacity

never were applied to anyone who wasn't in the contract in the OP.

The person who turns 18 has no property, so he can either obtain some with its contractual baggage or else be ejected from the property, as the property's rules contain the clause there can be no harboring of adult non-contract signers who violate contract-signer's provisions.

He is where you are wrong

"...or else be ejected from the property, as the property's rules contain the clause there can be no harboring of adult non-contract signers who violate contract-signer's provisions."

The one who will have force initiated against him to make him leave is having contractual agreements applied to him of which he has no obligations to. No breach of duty by the one who as no duty would mean there would have to be a breach of this man's peace through the initiation of force to apply contractual rules to this man thus giving this man valid cause for action against the aggressors.

This man has no duty to this fictional contractual law, so applicable law peels back to common law where a valid cause of action for some form of breach of peace is required for there to be any case against this man who cannot possibly breach the contractual duty of others. Any action against this man would require accusers to face him in due process for the facts to be ascertained as to whether he did breach anyone's peace and the man could be a counter plaintiff if he believes there was no valid cause for such action.

This is why the elements of a valid cause of action are so important to maintain in any way of life. Ignoring the requirements of a valid cause of action will result in lost of the protections of law for everyone in the perimeter.

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...

The one being ejected from the property

has no right to be there, he is trespassing, unless the owner is permitting him to stay. If the owner is in fact harboring him against the terms of his own contractual obligations, it is the owner who is violating the rules he agreed to and so forfeits himself to whatever penalty he agreed to, something as simple as property forfeiture. Once his violating his contract is punished, the new property owner or caretaker of the property can then abide by the clause that disallows the harboring of a non property owner in violation of whatever stipulations property owners must adhere to in their contracts.

1. All property is owned
2. All property owners are contractually bound to certain clauses
3. One is that they are not allowed to permit non property owners to remain on their property if they do not also agree to the clauses
4. The contractually agreed penalty is property forfeiture, even if only for the duration necessary to eject the trespasser
5. The non property owner is a trespasser
6. Therefore, his rights are not violated when he is ejected
7. The property owner's rights are not violated since he agreed to the terms when acquiring the property.

You have accepted the more modern definition of trespass

Trespass, traditionally within common law, did not mean just to be on someone's property but was more accurately defined as doing some harm against another or to pass across a line of acceptable versus unacceptable disturbance of peace.

If we only operate within the current muddied babble of definitions after a couple of centuries of definition manipulation by the BAR then we are not going to know what real law actually is.

I can see a scenario where such a community would welcome genius level individuals who gave benefit to the community but refused to obligate themselves to such a contract. If the individual were a benefit and everyone agreed then there would be no one make an accusation against such an individual for any harm thus the individual would not be trespassing but still be inside the perimeter.

If you accept the definition of trespass as simply being inside the perimeter regardless of any intent or actual facts then we have no more to discuss because I reject such a definition on its face.

Your scenario identifies the only initiation of force (aggression) as "ejecting" someone on the grounds that being there is a 'trespassing' violation according to a contract the man is not a party to. Your understanding violates an actual principal of non-aggression.

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...

Yeah I was going by the

definition of trespass where you can't be on my property if I don't want you there.. I guess on your definition where people can live on your property whenever they want, you'd have a point. Good thing for me that definition, which you've offered no citation for, is irrelevant.

I guess fantasy is your path

"I guess on your definition where people can live on your property whenever they want.."

I guess in your world I define the color green as a steel I beam.

Unbelievable. We're done. I will see you on the other side of the revolution.

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...

In your example, almost

In your example, almost everyone was forced to do something that they hadn't agreed to do. Stating the opposite over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Your points are wrong, and rights were violated.

I'm not going to address the words you're attempting to put in my mouth. It's your twisted logic, not mine.

You are saying that because ones' parents agreed to something, they are bound to it since there is no land available for them to leave to. Suffice to say, the argument that you are making is juvenile and absurd. You are trying to find a loophole, but the discussion doesn't involve law. Just life. There is no loophole to the NAP. If you make a law that violates NAP, it doesn't matter whose parents agree to it or how many people agree to it. It is immoral. You can only make agreements for yourself. No one else. Period.

Where was anyone forced to do anything.

against their rights under NAP. Point it out, then I'll show that it was something they contracted to or else justified by someone else's property rights. You can't give an actual example because there is none, so you are forced to resort to your pained rhetoric of emotion and confusion.

Here's an example

The group "consents" to a law that allows parents to kill their children. According to you the kids are born into it and "consent" automatically.

Fuck off with the insults. You are the one who is being intellectually dishonest and avoiding my points.

You are mistaken.

The kids didn't 'consent' to be killed, because in my whole OP, consent only occurs at the age of majority. If a parent kills their kid, it will either be legal or illegal according to the rules of the community, as with any community.It won't have anything to do with consent, because the authority of parents over their children is something delimited or not delimited by the law all have agreed to. Groups don't consent to anything, individuals do. Probably no one would ever join a community where the kids were just killed by law, and if they did, thankfully it would only last one generation.

It is certainly possible on NAP to imagine a community where the members all agreed that if a property owner kills a dependent minor, they would take no enforcement action, because they consider the kid to be property. Call it 'extended warranty abortion,' if you will. This is a slightly different example: there is no law that the kids get killed, only that no enforcement action will be taken if a kid is killed. Since parents typically don't want to kill their children, this would be a rarity. It still may happen, though, as it does in America today.

In the world of my NAP ordered State, if a neighboring autonomous community was sufficiently horrified at this custom that they wanted to invade and destroy the community, they easily could, since this community wouldn't have any communal defense, since it doesn't adhere to the laws binding the larger community of communities.

Nothing you said matters.You

Nothing you said matters.

You think it is okay to kill kids if the parents agree to it. I will never agree with you on this issue, ever. And it does violate NAP. You can argue to the contrary all day long, and I can see you are willing to, but it doesn't make the claim any less absurd or ridiculous. It would truly be less absurd to claim that the sky is green. You would wholly and legitimately have a better chance of convincing a rational person of that.

Quiet, fool.

Anyone able to read can see you lie through your teeth, so give it up. Just makes you look stupid, angry and pathetic. You don't want people to see you that way, so you should pretend not to be.

I simply restated the opinion

I simply restated the opinion you JUST confirmed, and added my thoughts on the matter. There's no room for any untruths in my post.

The way you argue is appalling and revealing. The further we go, the more obvious that is. Not the brevity and succinctness of my posts, while you feel the need to expound on every point and introduce dozens of straw men and red herrings over the course of the conversation because you have no real point.

You're a little too low on

the mental totem pole to warrant further attention.

So just to be clear, Once it is generally accepted that you land

That land becomes yours forever and ever until the end of time?

Unless of course you contractually give it up?


Depends on the particular

rules on what happens to ownerless land. I'm sure anarchists would have their suggestions on that, but any rules would be valid, since the rules in the above outline are all adopted voluntarily. It could go to next of kin with the rules attached if they wanted to inherit, or it could revert to the other owners if no one inherited and be sold to a new member with attached rules.

Have you studied Proudhon?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Property is theft"?



its cited as a classic example of a self-defeating statement, since theft is not a valid concept without property. Defenders of the statement dispute that it is self defeating, because a specific sense of the term property is meant that is different from property qua property. But I haven't read Proudhon to the point of knowing what he defines as property, or theft for that matter.

Sounds like a quick google search to me

The essence of his argument is that if the nature of land property.

The institution of land property demands that natural resources that occur naturally in the world are not accessible to any human being.

From a perspective of property rights, ownership of land cannot be legitimate because of the nature of land is not something that can be mixed with labor to be permanently transformed into property.

If you build a house, well than you own the house, and if you grow crops then you own the crops. But to say that that one owns a surface area of the globe is a fundamental flaw in our modern notion of land property.

If it were legitimate, than all of the land property could end up in the hands of One capitalist, who could then restrict the access to all of the natural resources of the world by which people use to make their way through life. It would essentially enslave the whole world.

If I were the only person I knew, and I was a caveman, and I was walking though the woods discovered a tree branch I could fashion into a spear.

Suppose I did fashion it into a spear and subsequently hunted a large dear with it.

In this scenario, what is the nature of my acquiring property? What property have I acquired?


Noo, no google search

I read about it when reading the self-defeating argument wiki months ago. Like I said I'm familiar with the statement, but haven't read Proudhon to know what he means by property or theft.

Anyway from your comment, it doesn't make sense to me. You can improve the surface of land in just the same way you can transform a tree or rock. Everything in the world is a naturally occurring material.

I agree though it's silly to think one person could own all the property. There simply is no objective definition of property besides one's own force and what the consensus is for that body which a person depends on to have their claims enforced.

These points of Proudhon might constitute a kind of argument to persuade the social body what principle to use to enforce the rules, but the rules themselves are not objective truths. No one owns anything by nature besides what they can forcefully control.

Anything else is owned at the pleasure and with an obligation to a group-enforcement body, and in different sets of circumstances, that group can apply different principles to respond to practical demands of life. For example, in extreme duress property can be appropriated if deemed essential to group survival. Since the individual is at the mercy of the group to have property defined and enforced to begin with, it is valid for this same group to change the rules if it decides it is necessary for its own interests.

If the group interest didn't have any claim, then the group wouldn't have any interesting in enforcing the individual's property claim, in which case he's back to whatever he can hold by his own personal force, and no more.