nock, oppenheimer and (of course) Rothbard have all written about the various characteristics of the early state in Our Enemy the State, The State and Anatomy of the State respectively. Are there any other authors - whether they subscribe to the accurate view of the state’s genesis via conquest and exploitation or not - who have written about the conditions post formation of the state?
You want to read On Power by Bertrand de Jouvenel and Rise and Decline of the State by Martin van Creveld.
Thank you! I encountered a quote by Jouvenel - “Many writers on theories of sovereignty have worked out one . . . of these restrictive devices. But in the end every single such theory has, sooner or later, lost its original purpose, and come to act merely as a springboard to Power, by providing it with the powerful aid of an invisible sovereign with whom it could in time successfully identify itself.” This work does not appear to be available online, but it is sold at the mises store. Does anyone have any experience ordering from the mises store? My concern since I live in Canada is shipping. Would I save a lot of money by ordering a bunch of things at once?
It appears the other is not available online either, although there this http://mises.org/daily/527
You might try Politica by Johannes Althusius.
This, and Hoppe has some essays, especially in Democracy: The God that Failed he draws heavily on de Jouvenel. Also look at The State by Anthony de Jasay.
de Jasay is solid bro, and econlib has the full text of that work available online. I think I found an error in his work though.
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Jasay/jsyStt8.html#2.1 Repression, Legitimacy and Consent
Any state obtains obedience in one of three ways. The most straight-forward and historically often the first way is the threat of outright punishment which is implicit in the state’s superior command over means of repression. The least straightforward and transparent way is the establishment of its legitimacy. For the present purpose, legitimacy will be taken to mean the propensity of its subjects to obey its commands in the absence of either punishments or rewards for doing so.
What is the third way? And no jokes about the Labour Party, if you please! 