Comment: So then it seems the non

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: . (see in situ)

So then it seems the non

So then it seems the non unanimous founding population does indeed come into play, despite our prior disposal of it.

Because, as you see, the only thing that makes our government different from the one in the scenario is that its laws were formed by majority rather than unanimous consent.

The government in the scenario indeed does force people to sign on reaching majority or leave. The real government could do the same today by law, until at last everyone was a signer. The only hiccup would be that in enforcing the removal of non signers, it would be acting only on law rather than contract.

But after a generation, it could have achieved the state of affairs in which everyone voluntarily signed rather than being removed. You might call this unjust in retrospect, because not everyone agreed. But in actual fact, it was only unjust to the non signers who were not allowed to harbor refusers. It was not actually anymore unjust to those reaching majority than it would be in the voluntarist scenario; they're facing the exact same choice, sign or leave.

So in this manner, the present government could transform itself into a voluntarist society simply by imposing a law that everyone has to agree to the law or leave when reaching majority, enforcing this unjust law on the earlier non signers for a generation or two, and then at the end of the period, everyone voluntarily signed.

Think about it. The kid refuses to sign, the government tells him to leave, he says no, government forces him to leave. He's gone! Unjust, yes, but all the remaining people chose to sign.

You can't object "under duress," because that's the same as in the scenario. The only duress was that they would have to leave.

Think about it like this. Suppose that just one out of the hundred original founders was coerced and didn't really sign; he would have harbored all the non signers if he could, but couldn't. Everyone else signs, and the original man dies. According to the view you seem to hold, this single act of coercion would forever taint the entire future of the private law society, since every single signer only signed because that one original member was unable to offer them harbor.

If this is your view, then you believe that it is the absence of unanimity in the founding group.

So far I only see two differences:
1) Absence of signing (signifying agreement)
2) Absence of unanimous founding group in reality

We disposed of 2 earlier.

We agreed that it's legitimate to make people choose between signing and leaving in the original scenario, so the simple forcing of a choice isn't the issue. The issue seems to be that there was an earlier time when majority, rather than unanimous consent, was used to impose the law about signing. But since that's water under the bridge, and everyone living signed with agreement, it would in fact become all voluntary. The injustice would just be in the past, to those who didn't sign and were not allowed to provide their property to someone who wished to refuse rather than leave.