[seraphim37]

Yes, my main point was that the US Constitution was used deceptively as a force to nationalize the several states (as described in Tom’s latest podcast on Hamilton – http://tomwoods.com/1003).

The techniques for accomplishing this were sometimes planted in the Constitution deliberately, and sometimes read into the Constitution after the fact.

It seems obvious to me that these techniques could also be used (and frequently are used) (whether in good faith or not) to interpret contractual agreements.

The unavoidable outcome is that a society based on contracts will be dominated by whoever is most adept at interpreting contracts in such a way as to achieve their own objectives, and adept at persuading arbitrators to agree to such interpretations, regardless of the original intent of the signatories to the contract.

This would not seem to be the intended outcome of those who advocate for an anarcho-capitalist society.

Regarding restrictive covenants – in the podcast (http://tomwoods.com/932) they go into quite some detail on
– the real needs motivating people to create zoning laws
– that these needs are legitimate
– that there are many similar needs; and
– the advantage of the restrictive covenant is a private means of achieving these ends without the need of a State.

A simple example of other similar needs is an apartment building where apartments under private ownership but other things (such as roofs, outside grounds, and so on) are held in common and must be regulated by some kind of corporate agreement.

In the podcast, they also discuss the various practical means of modifying and adjusting these restrictive covenants without necessarily requiring 100% consensus — such as the establishment of a “majority vote”, or the formation of a Governing Board for a Homeowner’s Association, with CC&Rs that govern how decisions are to be made.

My point is that an ostensibly Stateless society comprising a network of such property arrangements would seem to have many characteristics of a State. In fact I am having a hard time identifying what makes it qualitatively different from a State.

So I’m hoping someone can either (1) show me the mistake in my reasoning, or (2) show me any other arrangements based on the NAP that would achieve the desired ends without causing the undesirable State-like side effects.

Thanks very much!

Seraphim