State

A state is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. Proponents of the state defend it with the social contract. The validity of the social contract has been questioned by many libertarians, for example Stefan Molyneux.

Definition

Ludwig von Mises defines the state as "the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society". Murray Rothbard defines the state as "that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as 'taxation'; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area." The Market for Liberty defines government as "a coercive monopoly which has assumed power over and certain responsibilities for every human being within the geographical area which it claims as its own." Hans-Hermann Hoppe defines the state as "a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent."

Distinction from private entities

There are some features unique to states. No other organization but a state incarcerates people for years. A private organization, such as a retailer, may briefly detain a person suspected of shoplifting, pending the arrival of the police. Or it may expel a disruptive person from its property. But it does not imprison such people for great lengths of time.

On the other hand, a person expelled from private property usually ends up on public property (such as a road). If he can find no private property where he is welcome, he can find a place to live on public or quasi-public property, such as public housing or homeless shelters funded by state agencies. It is not clear where a person who is perceived as thoroughly noxious and who has been expelled from private property would go if public property did not exist. Perhaps he would have to be transported to a place set aside for undesirables, such as a private prison or an unused wasteland. The latter might be equivalent to condemnation to death, if it were, for instance, an ocean or an antarctic region with such harsh weather conditions as to be uninhabitable.

Also, banishment from private property is presently enforced by the government's threat of arrest and imprisonment for trespassing. The government also imposes significant jail time on those who, having been expelled from the country, return. It is not clear what private property owners could do to prevent squatters and other unwelcome people from continually sneaking back onto their property if the only sanction available were expulsion.

It could be, however, that in the absence of government as we know it, such property owners would develop technology to help identify such intruders as they cross checkpoints, much as some casinos currently use facial recognition to compare their customers' visages against blacklists of known cheaters. It could also be that such intruders simply would not be a big deal; Wal-Mart sometimes impose lifetime bans on customers who have been caught shoplifting, but it is likely that some of them still shop there without being noticed. Wal-Mart remains profitable, however. Likewise, illegal reentrants to the U.S. do not seem to be fatally disruptive to American commerce and standards of living.

A landlord is, in some respects, similar to a state. A landlord requires payment from tenants and creates rules that the tenant must agree to and abide by if he wishes to continue living there. The penalty for failure to pay or to otherwise adhere to the terms of the agreement is expulsion from the property and, in some cases, forfeiture of a rental deposit or chattels (for example, if the tenant abandons his belongings). In the case of both the state and private landlords, the response to the complaints about unfair treatment is often the same: "There are other places you can live; if you don't like it here, then move out!" Of course, some states, such as the U.S., impose an expatriation tax. This could be considered similar, in some ways, to an early termination fee on a mobile phone account.

On private property, as on public property, reasonable force is allowed to be used to prevent a disruptive person from causing harm. Private lawndowners are allowed to lay hands on an intruder and expel him. If he pulls out a weapon to resist, they are allowed to kill him. The government likewise will kill those who attempt to use weapons to resist its agents.

Libertarians often point to the existence of an explicit, voluntary contract as the crucial difference between a state and a voluntary association. Sometimes, however, a contract is inferred even in the private sector by the participants' behavior. A vending machine may have a notice posted stating "No refunds" or a swimming pool may have a sign that states "No lifeguard; swim at your own risk." No contract is signed, but the consumer agrees to the risks involved by using the property. The rules that ordinarily apply to transactions, e.g. that a consumer who does not receive the product he ordered is entitled to a refund, are waived in such situations.

Likewise, a private parking lot may have a notice posted stating that towing is enforced at the violator's expense. A person is assumed to agree to this penalty by entering the parking lot. His car is not merely expelled to the nearest public property; it may be towed a long distance away, at great expense. In light of this, it is unclear why the government could not reasonably construe remaining on its territory as implied consent to its laws, unless the obligation of contracts is limited. Murray Rothbard suggested in The Ethics of Liberty that certain contracts should indeed not be considered enforceable; but the examples he gives are those involving promises of labor or uncompensated gifts.

Of course, the government's claim to have any right to make contracts concerning its territory depends on its having legitimate title to that territory. Rothbard viewed natural law as the only means by which one could determine legitimate control over a territory, arguing that "only those libertarians who have a theory of justice in property titles that does not depend on government decree, could be in a position to scoff at the new rulers' claims to have private property in the territory of the country, and to rebuff these claims as invalid." Rothbard argues that "as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property."

Further, Mises' writings seem to rebut the theory that because the government stole the territory that it owns, it has no valid claim to it. If, as Rothbard states, private private property owners can have legitimate title to stolen property if the true owners and their descendants are lost to antiquity, then why not the government also? Mises writes, "That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified."

The State essentially regards itself as a super-landlord, and those property owners who rent out their land to others as sublettors. States have asserted a number of bases for their claims to rightful ownership and control over their territory. Conquest has historically been a major justification, although this appeal to the legitimacy of raw force has largely given way to justifications based on the expediency of having a government provide public goods.

History

States arose around 3700 B.C. in Mesopotamia and around 300 B.C. in Mesoamerica, over 2000 years ago in the Andes, China, and Southeast Asia, and over 1000 years ago in West Africa.

As recently as A.D. 1500, less than 20 percent of the world's land area was marked off by boundaries into states run by bureaucrats and governed by laws. Today, all land except Antarctica is so divided.