I’ve been trying to write a survey of the literature on libertarian punishment theory. This body of work overlaps to a large degree with the anarchy v. state literature. Each typical justification for the state or some specific state-operated mechanism of justice (police, courts, production of law, prisons, etc.) shares a similar structure. They begin by making reference to the harsh conditions of the state of nature. Then they imlpy a superior social condition achieved by means of the institution in question, and conclude with a normative justification for the institution’s creation and maintenance. In other words, everyone benefits by living in a society protected by the institution of punishment, therefore a victim or an enforcer is legitimized to punish the guilty becasue even the guilty has the benefit of such protection.

I dislike this methodological approach. It seems imposed, wholistic, and top-down, rather than individualist and bottom-up. But I’m more puzzled by where this structrue came from, and why it permeates so much of the debate? Dissmissing it on methodological grounds seems less interesting than explaining the ideological context from which it grew.
Kirzner (1960, p. 26) writes, “[i]n a society whose economy was becoming more and more dependent on the division of labor, it was natural for the ethics of the individual to become increasingly involved with his relation to society as a whole.”
Historical accounts in colonial America offer additional explanations. Rothman (2002) (and my comments) for example references a moral fear of strangers and outsiders by Puritans, perhaps excessively influenced by availability bias or ignorance combined with low-relative costs of acting out on harsh impulses to punish. In response to these perhaps embellished fears, colonial puritans built jails and vehemently persecuted vagrants and strnagers.
Today I also thumbed through Thomas (1933) which seemed to place a critical emphasis on the contageous effects of the plague driving the tendency to be more socially rather than individually concerned.
I’m not sure if these references settle my puzzlement, but they seem relevant and helpful nonetheless.