I propose a thought experiment on considering a state. For the sake of argument, let us consider the state known as "The United States of America".

Preface

It is my understanding that in an Anarcho-Capitalist view, there exists an objectively true law with the following two clauses:

1. There can be ownership any material object, excluding human beings. Legitimate ownership is a true, inalienable property of the object which can be changed only with the consent of the owning person.

2. Violence against persons is only permissible in defense of one's life or one's property.

If I am incorrect in my summary of Anarcho-Capitalism, please correct me as that would invalidate this thought experiment entirely.

Experiment

Consider the following propositions:

1. The land, including air above and waters near, which is commonly understood to be sovereign territory of the "United States of America" is instead defined as property of the corporation, "United States of America".
2. This corporation is an association with membership rules as defined by the fourteenth amendment; any person born on its land is entitled to all privileges of membership.
3. Any person who does not consent to the rules of membership in the corporation cannot be a member of the corporation, as that would be a violation of their freedom of contract. Therefore if they are on the corporation's property, they are trespassing on the corporation's land, and violence against them cannot be initiation of force.
4. A person who is a member of the corporation but is not on the corporation's property may voluntarily depart from the corporation, if they have no outstanding debts to the corporation.
5. "Ownership" by corporation members of land owned by the corporation is in fact subletting: rental under certain conditions, established in a contract specified by the text of the deed and including by reference the contract to abide by the rules of the corporation.

Discuss.

Disclaimer: I do not currently agree with Anarcho-Capitalism, and while I have at times considered myself to be a libertarian I came to realize that I did not fully agree with libertarianism.