2. The proprietor could establish rules that would make the nation less likely to be invaded by other nations. For example, the proprietor could forbid the use and possession of drugs that are outlawed by the USA, and, thereby, make it less likely that the USA would invade.

3. The proprietor could establish rules for settling disputes, punishing criminals, and compensating victims of crimes or torts. By including these rules in the leases that all residents agree to, the proprietor could establish a uniform system of law for the nation. This would solve the vexatious problems caused by the fact that there is no objective way to determine what punishment is exactly appropriate for any particular crime and the fact that there is no objective way to prove that one form of compensation is more fair than all others for any particular tort or crime.

4. The proprietor could achieve the benefits of zoning and the esthetic symmetry of a planned community without violating anyone's rights.

5. So-called market failures due to what economists refer to as externalities could be solved by adding appropriate clauses to the leases. For example, the proprietor could solve the problems of water and air pollution by stipulating appropriate rules for the use of water and air or by specifying a method, such as mediation or binding arbitration, to solve disputes involving pollution and other nuisances.

6. Because the administrators of a single-owner proprietary nation could have the ability to address all social problems, residents would have less incentive to demand the creation of a coercive, centralized State. Since a proprietary nation could conceivably have as many rules and regulations as a State, it is easier for people who believe in central planning to believe that a proprietary nation could work.

7. Double-entry bookkeeping would enable the proprietorship to track its income and expenses and its profits or losses, which would give it an objective way to measure the success of the administrators at satisfying the needs of the tenants.

8. As long as the proprietorship is a profitable enterprise it can be self-perpetuating.

2. Unless safeguards are included in its design, a single-owner proprietary nation runs the danger of stifling competition in various industries. This would prevent a market from being developed in those industries and, as a consequence, it would prevent experimentation with alternative solutions to social problems and prevent information from being derived about which rules and methods work best.

3. The moral legitimacy of a single-owner proprietary nation rests on the legitimacy of its property title to all the land in the nation. It seems unlikely that one person, partnership, or firm could legitimately obtain title to enough land to create a nation. Typical free-nation plans involve negotiating with an existing State to purchase or lease land from them. Since States have no legitimate title to the land in the first place, the would-be proprietors of a free nation cannot obtain legitimate title to land in this way.

2. The proprietor could handle the problem of competition within the nation by refusing to grant monopolies in any industry. The proprietor could divide the nation into multiple, semi-autonomous communities, each of which could have its own rules established by its own subleases. This would allow competition between communities, which would yield information about which social rules work better. The overall proprietorship might limit its own role to establishing the minimum conditions necessary to preserve the safety of the nation.

3. The problem of obtaining legitimate title to all the land in the free nation seems to me to be the most difficult of the problems facing a single-owner proprietary nation. The proprietorship could establish legitimate ownership of some land by homesteading or through market transactions with legitimate owners. In this way, perhaps a very small nation could be established and recognized by the rest of the world. The proprietorship could gradually expand its territory by purchasing contiguous, or non-contiguous, land through legitimate market transactions or by accepting donations of land from sympathetic property owners seeking to join the free nation.