The theory of the State, how it came to be, and what it actually is, has been neglected or at least taken for granted by laymen as well as most political philosophers. Of course this would be the case, as if the average person were to really understand it's very nature there wouldn't be much work for the so-called political philosophers.

Certainly there have been some alien-like spirits who took the time to discuss the theory; but for the most part in the realm of politics, economics and anthropology, the topic of State formation has been sidelined or abandoned for what is believed to be more important matters.

And what are some these?

Just turn on your TV or go to a big news media channel online. Politicking, campaigning, reforms, price-fixing, banking, and other general "practical" politics are seen as the primary concern.

Everything else is secondary or deemed irrelevant.

Anthropology would seem to be the least biased compared to the other two, although even here you find a lack of interest in the subject of the State with more of a focus on the relationships between peoples taking the State as a given. It's very similar to how Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke among others proclaimed the "state of nature."

What these thinkers assume about the nature of the State is really just based off their hunches or even worse their cultural indoctrination. To get at an accurate representation on the reality of the State we need to base it off of some empiricism.

Historical analysis is really the only way we can truly discern a sound theory when it comes to these issues.

The Conquest Theory of the State

Now mostly forgotten, Franz Oppenheimer, a German sociologist published his work Der Staat (The State) in 1908. Here someone finally develops a theory upon the State's formation, advancing previous ideas around inter-tribal conflicts from Ludwig Gumplowicz.

In writing his book, Oppenheimer rejects the more mainstream view at the time on the origin of the State. Up into until then, the State was viewed as a noble entity and a grand achievement of civilization from bringing an end to the dreadful "state of nature"; ironically the problem was in the diagnoses.

Looking back at history there has been no such State that has not been formed from conquest. Even the fabled American State, was nothing more than a merchant-state wherein the wealthy land speculators knew it was in their best interest to centralize power.

They say war is the story of civilization, when really it's the story of the State.

How the State is formed is no different than any other criminal organization. I won't go into the exact details and historical examples, as you can just go straight to the book; though I can offer a familiar situation.

If you know anything regarding mafia type scenarios you'll notice a pattern in that a certain group of people take over a particular area of previously market-driven activities say like alcohol, and then corner the market through violence. Bribes are made, intimidation gets used, people are paid off or recruited, and a cycle of conflict with opposing factions becomes the norm.

Sound familiar?

Fundamentally, the State anywhere and at any point in time arises out of a desire for exploitation achieved through conquest. The victors find it beneficial to have those they have conquered economically exploited.

It seems futile to try to "counter the State", by playing into their games and using political action as a way to diminish their power. In many ways you are giving more blood for the parasitic State to feed off of.

To this I say like Spencer, that man has every right to ignore the State; and that one should ignore them in proportion to not getting extorted or faced with physical threats. Only then will man find himself in a free society.