Giedrius inquires via email:

yesterday I argued with friends about statism and got from them such an argument: State is the same as corporation. All people of particular area own all land in this area, they elect board of directors (government) which makes rules by which this land can be used. If board of directors decide that you can live on the property of this company (state) only if you buy whole packet of services provided by this company (state), you have a choice to agree or to go to the other company (state) which meet your needs better. I have my arguments about this, but would be very interesting to hear yours.

The government-as-trustee/steward argument is closely related to the argument from Social Contract. If you’re interested in my opinions on that matter, I’d suggest the following posts:

The particular argument Giedrius relays is a pretty common Statist objection. It is 100% wrong, for the simple fact that, as Oppenheimer noted, no government was ever established in such a manner. There are other issues which one might ultimately raise, including but not limited to issues regarding the severability of jointly-held property, the impossibility of buying out one’s stake in “the corporation” in the same manner one might buy out a partner in business, etc. However, as long as the necessary precondition (i.e., a “state” formed by voluntary means as set forth in the argument above) does not hold, these further objections are not worth mentioning except in passing.

The people who disapprove of the State are always askedforced to leave, thus ensuring support among those who remain. (cf. If You Don’t Like It, Get the F**k Out!) At the very least, this argument subordinates whatever “ownership” rights they might’ve held in the State, which neatly invalidates the outmoded principles of “equality” or “justice”, sacrificing both in order to appease the false god of Democracy.

Suggesting that the would-be secessionist is obligated to move (to another State, mind you!) is tantamount to saying that he is not, nor was he ever in any meaningful sense, one of the alleged “owners” of the State; he will surely not be compensated for his “share” of the ownership. He cannot “sell” the share which he presumably owns, and he cannot “buy” his share from the others. He cannot even say, “It’s not worth the trouble: I’m going to peacefully resume my own life and privately secede in a non-violent, inoffensive manner.”

This is quite the paradox, indeed.

Interestingly enough, were he to mount a violent rebellion against the State, they would decry him as a criminal or a terrorist. This is interesting, because conquest is essentially the only claim to title recognized by the State, and it is in all likelihood the very foundation of the title it unilaterally claims.

A further, and significant difference between the State and the corporation (left-libertarian quibbles, aside) is the fact that the State claims absolute monopoly over a certain geographic area, which it defines for itself and which are enforced by violence in all cases. Additionally, the State claims (for itself, of course) the unique privilege of being the sole and final arbiter of all disputes arising within its borders, including those disputes to which the State itself is party (Hoppe).

As I argued in Why Can’t We Secede?

How embarrassingly nonsensical is it, for a group of men to say, “We want you to be a part of our group, our enlightened ‘Society’ so badly that we’re willing to kill you if you reject our offer?”

Of course, by “offer” what they really mean is, “You’re going to pay us for a bunch of things you don’t want, simply because we can’t (or don’t want to figure out how to) unbundle the “services” we allegedly provide for your benefit.” That X happens to be a “public” good (which is in most cases a “club” good), is not sufficient moral justification for the levying of taxes.

I concluded that post the same way I will conclude this one: