Much of the criticism targeted towards states is based on legitimacy arguments. It is said the burden of proof lies on the state, not on those challenging this organization. Which is rather tricky as I'll try to explain...
Let us imagine a simple situation. Sam is a wealthy capitalist living in anarcho-capitalism on a small island. A new gold mine is opened on the mainland and so the people on this island are eager to relocate to get a better pay. Sam sees this as an opportunity to fulfill his life's dream: to have the whole island for himself. And he seizes it, buying each piece of land.
After a while, say a few years, it happens that the gold mine business dries up. Those who had previously left would like to move back on the island. Although it would make a good deal, Sam is reluctant to sell the land; instead he decides to rent it to those coming back. And in doing so, he likes to say he gave those people "property rights". They can sell it to other parties, re-rent it and whatever only as long as the owners pay Sam according to the contract.
Now, the contract will expire once in a while and Sam can readjust the rent whenever the contract renews. Moreover, he can have other demands specified in that contract.
However, as years keep passing, Sam and all the original inhabitants die and they are replaced by their heirs. Sam's heirs can demand almost anything (regulations etc.) they wish upon contract renewal. But people are reluctant to refuse the offer, since mainland is quite far away and they got used to this place. It's natural they'll see Sam's heirs as rulers, rather than business partners. They have their own version of mises.org and they start debating whether Sam's heirs are legitimate owners of that land.
That's where things get tricky. Among the arguments they bring against Sam's heirs' rulership is this one:
Are these rulers legitimate? Even if their ancestor Sam bought the land in a fair way, there is no telling about the legitimacy (property-wise) of those who actually sold the land to Sam and so on. What if some remote ancestor seized a piece of land through war?
Some of the individuals even break the rules. The current owner, Billy (one of Sam's heirs) feels he has to take action. He can't actually evict such people, since they don't own other properties and have nowhere to go. He can't just dump them on someone else's property on mainland, that would be trespassing and aggression against other owners. So he takes whatever action he can: fines, confiscation, prison. Billy even tells them he'd rather have them leave rather than break the rules, but unless they do it, he says they have to agree to a contract renewal.
As far as I can see, this isn't too far fetched. As for statists, they can easily turn Rothbard's argument for property that we're all free riders on the past against those opposing the state, just as I did. And the trouble is we could imagine such a legitimate state, but it won't be too much different from an actual, real state as seen today. And some would still oppose such a state (or landowner), demanding a proof his legitimacy.
Are we against the state or against regulation? Is there true statelessness?
I am surprised that nobody has replied to your post yet. Here are two things to consider:
First of all, Sam's heirs will own the island, providing that he transferred the title to them in accordance with whatever framework is in place to manage land titles - perhaps a mainland agency or something. I think this is quite an important point - if he died suddenly without a transfer of title, would the land automatically belong to his heirs?Secondly, assuming that the heirs of Sam now own the land, the heirs of the original inhabitants are not bound by the contract agreed by their parents. They would have to renegotiate the arrangement with Sam's heirs. If they are happy with that, then fine - they can't complain if they accept the contract. Consequentially this renegotiation would have to occur with each iteration of heir from either side.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Provided Sam and his heirs can be bought out these is no problem, Is the owner of land wishes to impose certain regulations and norms that's up to him, unless he does anything to limit competition he cannot be said to be any sort of a monopolist, only if he forcibly prevented people from leaving the land that he owned could he be said to be some sort of a government.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
FreedomIsYellow: First of all, Sam's heirs will own the island, providing that he transferred the title to them in accordance with whatever framework is in place to manage land titles - perhaps a mainland agency or something. I think this is quite an important point - if he died suddenly without a transfer of title, would the land automatically belong to his heirs?
First of all, Sam's heirs will own the island, providing that he transferred the title to them in accordance with whatever framework is in place to manage land titles - perhaps a mainland agency or something. I think this is quite an important point - if he died suddenly without a transfer of title, would the land automatically belong to his heirs?
Not by default, but in the majority of cases inheritance is likely to work as expected. All Sam needs to do is make his will known to courts and/or defense agencies.
FreedomIsYellow:Secondly, assuming that the heirs of Sam now own the land, the heirs of the original inhabitants are not bound by the contract agreed by their parents. They would have to renegotiate the arrangement with Sam's heirs. If they are happy with that, then fine - they can't complain if they accept the contract. Consequentially this renegotiation would have to occur with each iteration of heir from either side.
Sure, they're not automatically bound by the contract.
But my point was another one: natural monopoly conditions could theoretically create state-like situations. The island might have been small enough for Sam to buy piece by piece, but for the current inhabitants moving to another place might be a very expensive ordeal. So we have to consider what happens if they cannot refuse contract renewal (e.g. because of their financial situation).
If we paraphrase Rothbard on that, Sam's heirs have two options, equally correct:
Thanks for your answer.
Any ideas out of this paradox?
GilesStratton: Provided Sam and his heirs can be bought out these is no problem, Is the owner of land wishes to impose certain regulations and norms that's up to him, unless he does anything to limit competition he cannot be said to be any sort of a monopolist, only if he forcibly prevented people from leaving the land that he owned could he be said to be some sort of a government.
Sure, let's say he does not prevent them to leave. And for the sake of the argument let's say Sam's heirs keep true to their grandfather's wishes and do not wish to sell the land. And even if they do limit competition, that would still be fair, property is property.
By this rationale, opposition to state by breaking rules could be immoral in such cases.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:By this rationale, opposition to state by breaking rules could be immoral in such cases.
Why? The state has monopolized the areas of land, justice and security and appropriate money by non contractual means. There's a clear difference,
Now, I agree with you that the burden of proof is one the person wishing to break the rules, but not only is this very easy to fulfil in practise but it is an entirely different question from that of the burden of proof falling on the statist for providing a theoretical justification of the state.