Comment: If

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: First (see in situ)

If

we take your principle that nothing in prehistory can ever be stated with confidence, just because there's no written records, would leave us in a position of total ignorance about any period before there was reliable historical records. We may not have the certainty about prehistory that we have about the year 2013, but we can still state confidently that when people were mobile hunter gatherers, the State as we define it today didn't exist.

If a sgate can be eliminated by popular belief, why couldn't it be limited by popular belief. If popular belief is the only force needed to control power, then it could create whatever level of state it wants. You need some argument other than popular belief.

You ignored the point that those who reaped the windfall of the free 19th century free market are the ones who created the interventionist state and colluded to form cartels and expanded the government from a small, limited government into the modern state. The private owners of wealth created the state, because they had the wealth and power to do so, not because the state made them.

If the state didn't exist, there's every reason to think that the economic powers would work to form a state to provide the highest possible security for their economic activity. If the wealthy did not want a state, they have the power now to eliminate it. It isn't the poor who empower the state, it is the rich.

The Rich created the state and sustain it. Force and economic power feed into each other. Your argument treats the word State like a magic incantation, something that is outside of regular human social intercourse and is imposed from the outside. In reality, it develops out of the power of human beings, and is just the organized use of force to impose rules for the benefit of those who have the power.

In anarchy, some individuals will have power; they will use it to provide order and rules that benefit them. Simple.