Statists sometimes argue that, since one is always free to leave, he must agree and abide by the law if he wants to live within its borders. This is somewhat similar to property rights. Every piece of land one buys in a state comes with some attached obligation to observe the rules. So nobody can set a piece of land completely free by selling it to others without these attached obligations, as you can’t breach that contract. This is similar to arguing that one can’t claim property rights over bought stolen goods.
If one tries to refute these statist claims, he must make sure he doesn’t argue for positive rights in doing it. From a libertarian point of view, saying “But there is no free, stateless land!” is in contradiction with libertarian principles. If one wishes to buy or homestead land, he isn’t entitled to demand others to provide anything to him. Similarly, if one asks for stateless land, it means he asks for positive rights in this regard.
But there are correct ways of refuting this. One is to say a transaction cannot be undone even if the seller had no property rights over that good. If someone steals a car and then sells it, the buyer is now the rightful owner (even if he knew it was a stolen good and even if he planned this to happen). Nobody could seize it in order to return it to its “rightful” owner. Instead, the original owner must take action against the thief. Also, this isn’t susceptible to phony contracts (selling something you don’t possess) because passive defense amounts to ownership and property. Applying this to our situation, if somebody sold you a piece of land and he claims you don’t have to obey any laws, then all the state could do is turn against that guy. The state doesn’t own or possess the land at any rate, so it can’t claim it is passively protecting it.
Some may not agree to the previous argument. Here is another way of refuting statists’ claims. Suppose some random guy lives in a free society. A foreign state wages war and starts ruling over this previously free society. Any agreement that random guy reaches while under coercion isn’t valid, as with any decision taken while at gunpoint (of course, there must be a relationship between the decision and the coercive action).
Statists could also point out that states emerge from voluntarily-agreed hierarchies and rules. But rarely, if ever, there is consensus over rules. There’s also no explicit agreement to lawmaking structures. No person really agreed he will abide by the laws and accept any laws which are further decreed, no matter which they are. In fact, they were coerced into accepting them.
Another nice way of refuting statist claims is to hold the same position as Kinsella does, which is opposed to Block’s ideas. Some contracts and agreements aren’t truly and fully enforceable. Selling oneself into slavery is one such an example. Another one is being employed for a fixed period of time. Let’s discuss this last one. Nobody can truly say the employer can make the employee work if he doesn’t want to. But as soon as the contract is breached, parties can demand collateral. So in a sense, giving up observing a state’s rules doesn’t entitle that state to imprison you.
One can also point out the moral inconsistencies in the statist theory. If someone agrees to this rule, then oppressive regimes are justified. Picture such a regime where you’re free to leave the country, but speaking against the leaders is punished by the death penalty. Suddenly, being free to leave doesn’t make up for all the state’s wrongdoings anymore.
It’s also interesting to note that if the statist argument would really hold, then it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism: we have all vowed to abide by any laws, present or future. Since we voluntarily chose this, we are free.
What do you think about all these?