True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
> So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases.
Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
I think you're missing my point, which has to do not with the desirability of entering into such an agreement, but rather with how to enforce such an agreement in the absence of any sort of state.
You wont be able to enforce every arbitrary agreement. The constitutional courts will only rule on limited matters such as physical aggressions.
And (for example) for Oracle to enforce non-compete, It will have to come in agreement with big corps such as Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. This will work for most cases. But former-employee of Oracle will be able to work at Joyent.
In conclusion, You have to get help from others to enforce an agreement not enforced by Govt.
Also note, constitution ~= what everyone consents on. That is, 1. It will be short & sweet. Everyone will be able to understand it. No suprises. 2. It will never have surveillance measures.
