I think that anyone with knowledge of the intellectual history of law is keenly aware of the church’s problem of breaking up the large family holdings, and the law’s problem of preventing retaliation.
What I think has proven difficult for most people in the conservative and certainly in the libertarian movements, is the recognition that property rights must extend to cover all those impositions that invoke retaliation.
—-“Frost and Harpending argue that Human nature has been domesticated through breeding out violent men by the state. HBD chick & Jayman are arguing that the state replaced clan violence and directed it toward its enemies. It‘s really a question of whether cooperation with strangers on a mass scale occurred before or after the rise of the state. They agree on most things, “Yes, I see the two processes as being complementary. The dissolution of clannishness was both a cause and an effect of the pacification of social relations.”—-Bret Lynn
While we consider the central problem the state, the state is the result of suppressing private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.
But the central problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.
First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.