the State", argues that the State's existence is often taken for granted as an evil but inescapable force of nature, but by considering the theoretical "state of nature," we can see the absurdity of the argument for the State. Limited government is seen as "unrealistic and inconsistent", as there is no reason to assume that a monopoly of violence will remain "limited." The ruling caste will try to expand their power and wealth by stretching State power beyond limits and encountering only weak opposition. There are no institutional mechanisms to keep the State limited, and any power once acquired will be used and abused. Additionally, "there is a grave inner contradiction inherent in the very ideal of a neutral or impartial State", as "the very existence of taxation negates any possibility of such neutrality", creating two antagonistic social classes. Rothbard argues that the State is not necessary for the creation and development of law, as most law, particularly the libertarian parts, emerged from non-State institutions. These non-State institutions, such as tribal customs and common-law judges, "were not engaged in making law, but in finding the law in existing and generally accepted principles, and then applying that law to specific cases or to new technological or institutional conditions." Rothbard also examines the concept of limited government and notes its inconsistencies, particularly its failure to recognize that "the State, by its very nature, cannot obey its own legal rules." Randy Barnett suggests that the State-made law is sui generis, and not true reciprocity because the State violates its own laws by using its power to tax and its monopoly on defense. If the lawmaking body cannot follow all of its rules, procedural and substantive, it is not a legal system, and its acts are outside the law. Chapter 24, "The Moral Status of Relations to the State", argues that the State is a criminal organization that institutionalizes crime and aggression, and therefore it cannot possess any just property. This means that it is morally permissible to refuse to obey the State, appropriate its property, or break contracts with it. However, he acknowledges that these actions may not always be prudent given the State's prevailing power. Rothbard discusses the problem of default or repudiation of government debt, arguing that government debt cannot be considered a legitimate contract as it coerces taxpayers into paying bondholders. He suggests that the bondholder, in fact, appears in