In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land
No, no ,no. In anarchism there is no geographic area with a certain law...there are contracts (or social contracts if you prefer). You can have one law, and your neighbors on either side can have second law and a third law. In fact, you can sign up for any extreme or the other based on whatever contract you prefer. Polycentric law isn't limited by area...except where they run into states at the edges of a free territory. But in that free territory, there is no land area that have specific laws for all those that enter it. Look up panarchism.
And the word "nation" is dangerous. It implies nationalism...a form of collectivism that always preceeds a state. I'm against nationalism and statism. So the idea an anarchist "nation" will occur bothers me. A free territory will exist, not a nation. But I agree, a shared philosophy must be shared initially (to abolish the state)...but not uniformly, obviously. Only 1/3 of Americans were for secession from England, and they seceded. We need but a large and loud minority to achieve abolition of the state. But once it's abolished, people will naturally take to anarchism (or panarchism) and Voluntaryism. Not many will choose to pay taxes if they don't have to...plus it'd be donation at that point, not tax anyways. After that happens, and the state is understood to be illegal, not many will accept their new entitlement to economic and social liberty being revoked to re-instate the state. It's kind of a self perpetuating social norm. In that way, we'll have our necessary philosophical understanding in society...but with no uniformity in law (social contract for most).
I say "for most" because I'll choose no social contract (private law) beyond harm and fraud. Some will choose much more or much less. Some will choose that they and all their voluntary participant contract-mates will be penalized for using drugs, for instance. Some will choose to make income redistribution a legal requirement under their voluntary social contract. I'll stick to harm and fraud only. Some will choose to have democratic functions, or worse, in their social contracts...I'll have none of that. Some will have leaders, I won't. But, in the end, none of these contracts have anything to do with geography.
So it's as easy to get out of law (social contract) as it is a religious institution or switch cable companies. It's got nothing to do with locality.
Watch the videos here, bottom of the page...at least the last 3, and read about panarchism and panarchist synthesis:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369158-Deconstructing-the-state&p=4316866#post4316866
What happens if you don't like it? If they are assholes about it, you lose your land, because they say it belongs to them. You're forced to either stay there, or leave and be homeless. For a lot of people this would not be a reasonable choice.
Well here we have a property rights issue, but not like you assert. If you decide to hand over ownership to anyone, you no longer have ownership. When you join a commune and decide "property is theft", you no longer own your home, you "possess" it. You can't reneg on that contract because you no longer like the deal. The collective now owns the property. You can leave anytime you want, with an expensive lesson learned. If you did the same but retained property rights (like a market anarchist community), then you can sell your property or not, whatever, as it is still yours. But you're suggesting this person break their agreement after they have already essentially given away their property to the collective commune...that's not possible. That's like saying you sell me your property, and live there as a renter. But you don't like my rules, and after you spend all the money I gave you to buy the property, now all of a sudden you want to claim it's yours again.
I don't think so.
This doesn't create a state....the land area claim of social contract monopoly (law monopoly in an area) does. The state is defined by monopolies, not reneg ability on deals you've made. If you donate your property to any collective (church, commune, union, etc.) you can't get it back. I'd suggest if you think you need a way out you don't hand over ownership rights. Otherwise we'll have people reclaiming used cars 6 months after the sale is completed.
Monopolies in certain geographic areas, starting with social contract and it's laws, is how a state is initially formed. From there it's police to enforce the laws, fire, money, etc.
Nothing more is needed to prevent a state than abolition and outlawing of such coerced monopolies.
