The natural laws which exist without the rule of man are fundamental, determined by nature, and are therefore universal in their application. The core of natural law in relation to human social order is that a man has the right to his own being, that is: to own himself, he is his own property. If you do not agree to that stop here and reflect or ignore the lot as you wish.
'The state' is a violation of this fundamental precept from the get-go! The justification for the legitimacy of 'the state' is dependent on the paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or on the 'divine right of kings'. Both are false. The will of the people cannot truthfully exist because there is no such thing, in nature, as 'the people'. This is an invented collective, a rule of man and not a natural law. Where a group of people decide to co-operate in some way, that is their privilege, but they have no more right to co-opt the individual who does not agree with their choice than he has to co-opt them all to act as he dictates.
'Human society' generally understands better today that the 'divine right of kings' is false than they understand that the 'consent of the governed' is false too. The 'consent of ALL the governed' would not be false but that is not what is currently on offer in any land across the world.
When advocating that a man does not rape a woman it is not a legitimate argument to question: 'how will he sire a child if he does not rape' or 'does that child not have a right to be conceived'. When something is identified as wrong it is not the duty of those identifying the problem to know with certainty what the outcomes will be if the crime is prevented. It was not the duty of the abolitionist to explain precisely how sugar cane and cotton would be harvested in the future without slave labour. And if the abolitionist described the modern farming market, methods and equipment that has been developed since he would be thought insane.
One thing is certain. If enough individual people work towards finding better ways to do things, better ways will be found, shared, developed and widely exploited. That is evident throughout the history of humanity. It is also evident that this approach is better than a top-down dictation as, for example, the disaster of Soviet farming was found to be.
If people have property in themselves, their own body, it follows that they too have property in the physical product of their endeavours. The work they do they own, that which they exchange their work for becomes their own, that which they own and then work on, develop and add value to, is theirs too. The land they buy with the product of their labour or unencumbered homestead, they own. A man can dictate what happens to property he owns, so long as it does not harm the property of others, but a man cannot dictate what happens to property he does not own except where it is causing harm to his property.
All resources are either the property of somebody or nobody. If property is not utilised, the property of nobody, and it is understood there is no such thing as the false paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or the 'rule of kings' people can come and make use of that property as they wish. But would they?
It is improbable people would come to live in a place where they were not suited, welcomed or where the resources, economic or physical, were valuable but not already well utilised. When people do come is when they see beneficial advantage over what they have in the place they come from. Sometimes that is because they see they can serve a need that is not being well served and that is only to the general advantage otherwise that need would already be well served.
Often people come because they are drawn into take advantage of the social benefits provided to them by 'the state' in control of the region, benefits that are taken from the local population, via the coercive threat of the use of force in taxation, and paid to the incoming people. Welfare holds the poor in the grip of poverty, encourages immigration at the expense of the middle income earners but to the utter benefit of a small wealthy elite oligarchy who both own the 'means of wealth production' and influence the perpetuation and actions of 'the state' endlessly to their absolute benefit.
Joe Soap has the right to shun whosoever he wishes and along with his band of pals they can get together and shun all they like within the collective boarders of their properties. Shut away they may shun away. But Joe Soap does not have the right to impinge his view on a 'wider human society' because, like 'the people', 'human society' does not actually exist. It is a collective term for human individuals gathered together but it does not allow a majority of those individuals any more right than they possess individually to impinge their view onto other individuals with whom they may not agree (but who are not harming their right to their property).
If 'who rules who' is the issue from which history has a catalogue of people struggling to defend values, lands and societies from those who want to supplant, enslave or exterminate them; is it not time we looked for the issue behind this age old curse? Since it is invalid for any individual or group of individuals to rule over any other individual or group of individuals (who are not harming your property) the solution, by default, must simply be that 'nobody should rule anybody' and to therefore end the cult belief in the false paradigm of 'the state'.