Well, in a coalition of states, the contract is fairly voluntary as well. If one doesn't like the rules, one may simply leave. Unless, of course, all other nations have similar policies(have a State).
Likewise, the renters in question have 'voluntarily' enter the rent contract only for a certain definition of 'voluntary'. If all the housing near to where the jobs are are owned by land-lords, and they all use the relatively procedure of hiring a police force to enforce their own idea of law and maintain their property rights, and passing the costs along to their tenants, then I see no real difference between each individual housing group and a 'State', and a functionally monarchic one at that. The only notable difference being in size, and that only maintaining itself until they grow. As many will.
There is a key difference between renting and living in a state. The assumption is that the owner of my building came to own it legitimately. He paid for the building, purchasing it from its previous owner, or paid to have it built. That gives him legitimacy to set rules in the building, to which I must comply or leave.
No state can be similarly shown to legitimately own its land. Without exception, states achieve their sovereignty by conquest or force. Even democratic states never enjoy a consensus support. Even if the majority of my countrymen decided to voluntarily transfer title of their land to the state, their decision cannot legitimately bind me.
Consequently, there is no legitimacy to the state's setting of rules in its territory that is comparable to that of a landlord.
Who enforces the contract, if I decide to renege? More, who enforces the contracts of those who cannot afford to pay for police protection?
Contract enforcement is a service, like any other service. It costs money to produce. People will contract with private agencies for the purpose. The most likely solution (based on people's speculation) is that such enforcement will take the form of an insurance.
Essentially, you will pay a small fee to an insurance company, in exchange for which they will compensate you for any losses due to contract violations. Insurance companies will contract with each other and agree on dispute resolution mechanisms, typically involving arbitration by third parties. There are historic examples (Lex Mercatoria) of completely voluntary mechanisms for contract enforcement.
Poor people have a lot of problems. They need food, shelter, medical care, education and clothing. They also need protection. Protection is likely to be very inexpensive, especially since, by definition, they don't have much by way of property.
Having said that, some people will have to rely on charity for protection, as for their other needs.
No, but they resorted to force. Force that they had a near monopoly on. I do not see how a few private groups sharing a monopoly on the use of force is morally superior to a State holding the monopoly.
Lex Mercatoria operated over a long period of time. For much of it there was no use of force for enforcement - boycott of non-cooperating merchants was enough.
Regardless, in an Anarchy, no group or collection of groups will have monopoly over the use of force. There will be free entry to the market in contract enforcement.
These bodies have authority because the society gives them authority, yes. Other bodies that people would agree have a monopoly on the use of force would also be States.
Yes, but why assume that people would give any body or collection of bodies monopoly? I assert that the principle of free entry will be as cherished as the notion that any citizen can run for office in our society. As long as you don't violate other people's property rights, there is no legitimacy to stop or block you in an Anarchic society. If somebody wants to set up a new private security agency, and as long as he complies with society's expectations for use of force, nobody could legitimately stop him.
I already asked, but this is a good time to reiterate, who decides what cases? If two individuals(or groups) follow separate societal codes, and have separate competitive judicial organizations, who is to be the final arbiter? Is there some kind of over-arching body that determines judicial procedure? In this case, would that body not be the State? Where does the requirement that they cooperate(procedurally) come from?
There is no single body like that. There are likely to be a small number of highly-respected and authoritative bodies specializing in resolving difficult disputes, and effectively acting as courts of appeal.
There is no "requirement" that they cooperate, but it is in their best interests to do so.
To turn the question back to you, consider disputes between citizens of different countries (or even between different countries directly). In a world without a world-government, we still manage to resolve the vast majority of those disputes without resorting to war.
An instance: You have a piece of paper that says that a car is yours. You rent it to me, we sign a contract. I take the car to the competitor of your judiciary group(which could be anyone, since it's a free market for such services) and buy a piece of paper that says the car is mine. How do you go about getting the car back? What makes your claim on the car any more valid than mine? Your judiciary group has no more claim to absolute authority on the matter than mine(who's just my cousin Eddy, with an online licensure in contract claims).
A piece of paper is meaningless. The question is who issued that piece of paper. If it was issued by a reputable title-registration organization, it will be respected by reputable dispute resolution organizations. No group has absolute authority, but society can still differentiate between bodies with less or more authority. In your scenario, I will approach my insurance company and invoke my policy. They will approach you and gently ask you to return the car. If you refuse, they will inquire as to your insurance company. If you have one, the two companies will negotiate. If they cannot reach an agreement, my insurance company will approach a reputable and impartial arbitrator (a mutually agreed one between companies, their choice of one if you refuse to cooperate). The arbitrator will assess the probative value of each of our claims to the car. If my piece of paper comes from a reputable title-registration agency and yours comes from your cousin Eddy, the arbitrator is likely to decide in my favour. At this point, your insurance company will tell you to return the car, and charge you for cost. If you didn't cooperate, my insurance company will send a "repo man" to repossess the car.
In real life, of course, you know in advance that this would be the likely course of events, and you wouldn't even try.
Unless there is a body that judges the authority of the judges, who is generally agreed upon by society. But that, again, is functionally a State.
Society develops recognition of authoritative judges. Banks, insurance companies, enforcement agencies and local arbitrators will all accept some judgements and not others. Compare that to the general acceptance of Visa and Mastercard, and the partial acceptance of other credit cards. No monopoly, no government regulation, and yet worldwide some names are accepted as reliable, and others are not.
Just because Visa has no monopoly does not mean that I can expect to be able to buy items by printing my own plastic card, right?
In the past, I have contemplated the smallest possible state. I came up with the following scenario. Imagine the state is reduced to a Supreme Court. Nine people, and nothing else. No legislative and no executive branches, no lower courts, police or army. Just the Supreme Court.
Any disputes between lower (private) courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has (just like in today's society) the ultimate societal authority, with no enforcement power of its own. I tried to argue that such an arrangement can ensure ultimate legal standardization with the absolute minimal amount of coercion.
From a libertarian perspective, since that Court will have no enforcement power of its own, its role will depend on societal acceptance. If a competing court arose, there would be no mechanism to stop it. However, it is conceivable that no such alternative court will arise, and society, voluntarily, adopt a single ultimate deciding body.
I don't think such a body constitutes a State. What do other people think?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.