Maybe Stefan should be more consistent

[DaProle]

Specifically, in regards to Rob Ford's issue: I've seen a couple of podcasts where Stefan, like our liberal friends, is going nuts about Rob Ford's personal life. I'm yet to hear anything specific from Stefan about actual Ford's work as Mayor of Toronto. All the critisicm has this flavour of Toronto's Now! magazine(a heavily progressively communist one). 

So, why not to compare apples to apples? In the first podcast Ford's personal issues were listed together with Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal(personal in nature too) and with Obamacare. Why, why would you take apples(personal life) and compare it with oranges(work of Obama). I mean Bill Clinton's personality is paling comparing to his actions as President. 

It could be the case of Stefan, who admitted that he likes to watch television, is actually being influenced by heavily left propaganda. As anarchist, Stefan should by paying more attention to the professional realm of politicians and not their personal lives. 

I'm not saying Rob Ford is perfect as a mayor; however, he is a blessing, so to speak, for Toronto where any other candidate is openly communist. He's, at least, keeping tabs on uncontrollable spending (read: stealing) by the city full of commies.

 

Just try to remember who he was running against Ford: George Smitherman, an addmitted heroin addict, who “mismanaged” $1 Billion(yes, with B) of funds while being a Health Minister of Ontario. Just something to think about.

[Ruben Zandstra]

I think this is kind of self-defeating?

 

I mean, you are suggesting that Stef should compare Rob Ford to even worse candidates for the mobster position of mayor instead of doing what he does, which is "comparing apples to oranges" as you say, and then you compare Stef to .... Toronto's Now! magazine?

 

That's not even in the same department I'd say.

[CrazyCanuck]

How are you sure he's making sure the spending isn't getting out of control?  It could be his staff doing the actual work and he's just giving them instructions/directions.  I don't know many people who can think clearly when they are drunk frequently and high on drugs.  He gets drunk in public events.  He even called the police because a woman spilled a drink on him?   I'm sorry but he needs to get his addiction under control.   Quite a few members of his staff has quit, the city council wants to reduce his powers.  This is all for a reason.  This is a man we should be able to trust but he has lied and blamed others for his own doing.  

[DaProle]

Ruben,

 

Re-read what I wrote. I wrote that Stef's critique was of a style of Now! magazine. "Fat","scumbag","ha-ha" type of criticism. That's the way our liberal "friends" are attacking Ford. Not a good thing to follow.

CrazyCanuck,

 

Again, any specifics about his actual decisions/performance as a Mayor? All that you said is taken from a liberal media brainwashing machine.

[Ruben Zandstra]

Ruben,

 

Re-read what I wrote. I wrote that Stef's critique was of a style of Now! magazine. "Fat","scumbag","ha-ha" type of criticism. That's the way our liberal "friends" are attacking Ford. Not a good thing to follow.

 

 

No, you are claiming that Stef should be more consistent in his comparisons.

While being much more inconsistent with your own comparison. No need for me to go into the actual content of your critique after that.

[Hugh Akston]

I have noted some of Stefan's inconsistencies, and I believe we all have those.  This critique is baseless however.  If you wish to judge Stefan's consistency, you should judge it against the beliefs and standards he supports and some evidence.

 

Stefan would be actually less consistent if as a voluntaryist he starts making exceptions for people in power based on whether they are leaning left or right.  You mention "personal issues" implying that these should have no relation to his public stances.  Would anyone believe Stefan's position on child abuse if it was discovered that he likes to slap his kid around ever so often?

 

What he is critizising is that no one is questioning the system that allows someone of glaringly defective moral character reserving the right to use force to extract money from others and tell others how to live their lives.  Stating that Rob Ford is the lesser of the evils that would have befallen your city does not mean he is no longer evil. 

 

What no one questions is that if those drugs are illegal and he purchased those drugs it would mean that he has engaged in some form of transaction with people the state (or the people who calls themselves the government) consider to be criminals.  Does this mean those criminals have an influence on this Mayor?  Does this mean that they have some influence in promulgated rules and laws that govern how you live?  Perhaps this video only surfaced because he did not want to "fall into line" as directed?

 

The proliferation of people with defective moral character in government is actually proof of his position that the worst of the worst are seeking political power.  Not inconsistent at all I say!  On the contrary, I believe you are the one calling for inconsistency on his part.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Personal character is quite revealing.

[Kevin Beal]

Stef has criticized people for focusing on Bill Clinton's blowjob at the expense of his wars, and then he focused on Bill Clinton's blowjob. The reason that focusing on Bill's BJ was an issue was because these same people were making it a bigger issue than mass murder. That doesn't mean you can't also focus on the exploitation of Monica Lewinski. To call it an inconsistency is to ignore the whole reason it was an issue in the first place.

 

If you asked Stef if he thought that drug abuse was worse than theft and violence, he would likely say "no". That doesn't mean he can't also focus on the drug use.

 

It seems to me that you are making it a bigger deal than it actually is.

 

531 - Logical Fallacies pt 1

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_531_Logical_Fallacies_Part_1.mp3

[Wuzzums]

I'm not saying Rob Ford is perfect as a mayor; however, he is a blessing, so to speak, for Toronto where any other candidate is openly communist. He's, at least, keeping tabs on uncontrollable spending (read: stealing) by the city full of commies.

 

Just try to remember who he was running against Ford: George Smitherman, an addmitted heroin addict, who “mismanaged” $1 Billion(yes, with B) of funds while being a Health Minister of Ontario. Just something to think about.

 

Compared to what? By your logic Hitler was a blessing because compared to Stalin he killed far less people (sorry for employing Godwin's law).  Jeffrey Dahmer was a blessing because he murdered less people than Ted Bundy. Cancer is a blessing compared to heart disease because it kills far less people.

 

As anarchist, Stefan should by paying more attention to the professional realm of politicians and not their personal lives.

 

The same way christians should pay more attention to Ted Haggard on the realm of hating homosexuals and not his personal life?

[DaProle]

I believe many of the repliers lack historical knowledge of the issue. Toronto is the most leftist city in leftist Canada (especially the city core). Before Rob Ford it was ruled by David Miller – an NDP(Communist) member – for 7 years. The next “Toronto elite’s” guy was George Smitherman – the Billion Dollar guy - an admitted heavy drug user and the former Minister of Health of Ontario. Rob Ford ran on the fiscal frugality platform and won by an landslide. Many people in his riding knew him personally because if you needed anything, he would’ve come to your home and sign whatever paper needed to be signed; also he was coaching school football team as a charity. Despite smear campaign by the establishment media, he was being supported by the minorities in the suburbs -  a shock commies couldn’t recover from since the very first shtick they pulled is to try to pain Ford as a racist. After he was elected, since day one basically, the smear campaign only got turbo charged even though he basically start delivering on his election promises. Many Torontonians actually got sick of all the nonsense that was brought up against Ford. Therefore is the reaction (increase in support) now – he’s considered and underdog because of constant attempts to get rid of him by the left. I’m more than sure that the crack smoking was a setup after all other attempts failed. I’m not saying Ford is a saint. However, his is a step towards some fiscal sanity in Toronto. Also, I’m yet to see someone’s criticism of Rob Ford in the areas where Stefan criticizes others (Obama etc.) – his professional performance.

[Kevin Beal]

I’m not saying Ford is a saint. However, his is a step towards some fiscal sanity in Toronto. Also, I’m yet to see someone’s criticism of Rob Ford in the areas where Stefan criticizes others (Obama etc.) – his professional performance.

Do you believe political action is the way to increase freedom?

[DaProle]

Do you believe political action is the way to increase freedom?

 

I believe any step towards sanity is a progress.

[PatrickC]

Insanity is political of course.

[DaProle]

Insanity is political of course.

 

Sure it is. But it's a crime to pass up an opportunity to spread the message during the only time people are listening.

[Rob_Ilir]

Illegal drug purchases and use with tax money on official duty is not a crime, but not supporting politics is? Nobody is passing on spreading freedom, that is why Ford had to be kicked to the curb with the other degenerates, not given an applause because he is a better degenerate than others.  

Why would you come to an anarchist place to hype up an abusive person, is still beyond me.

[lorr]

 

Again, any specifics about his actual decisions/performance as a Mayor? All that you said is taken from a liberal media brainwashing machine.

The purpose of Stefan's video about Rob Ford is not to measure his worth as a mayor, it's to show how totally disfunctional Rob Ford is and to show how voters cannot identify such a lousy and imbalanced person to prevent them from having the power.  Therefore, the point is that the system utterly fails at providing "good leaders" but provides crooks instead.  Never did Stefan say anything along the lines of "Rob Ford is bad, therefore Toronto needs a new mayor."  Instead it was more like "Rob Ford is just the latest example of powerful people who abuse that power and, once again, the people didn't catch it until it was too late.  The system is broken and needs to be scrapped before more Rob Fords and Bill Clintons can abuse their power."Is the media also clamoring that government be ended?  I didn't think so - you're the one comparing apples to oranges.

[DaProle]

A sane article about this issue: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/11/19/why-rob-ford-is-better-than-most-low-life-politicians/

[Existing Alternatives]

As a Torontonian, I too was a bit confused by the Rob Ford podcast. Maybe I missed something, but what I heard was “current political system produces leaders like that” – “that” being “fat, addicted, bad, bad, bad.”

 

If you are saying that all politicians are bad, then sure. But then again, is mayor a politician, or simply a manager of multi-billion dollar voluntary(!) congregation of people?

 

As far as mayor Ford is concerned, if you aren’t from Toronto, you should read up a bit on some of the policies and votes he held and tried to implement. For the last twenty years as a councilor he consistently voted NO on any expense related vote, oftentimes all by himself (yes, just like Ron Paul). This is the man who consistently returned to the city most if not all of his office budget allocations. For the last three years, my property taxes remain exactly the same, and our city budget finally got balanced. For preceding 10 years, my taxes were going up every year, sometimes by as much as 10%.

 

So, the guy is overweight, drinks and apparently smoked some crack. Guess what, I don’t see him as my moral role model, but he is pretty good at balancing them books, which is his job.

 

One thing outsiders seem to ignore, is that Rob Ford took on an impossible task challenging the city establishment, and got punished for this. Btw, over the last three years, it was not a month that the establishment would not try and smear him somehow, they tried everything from frivolous lawsuits to harassing him at this personal residence. This crack stuff is just one of their last hijinks.

 

Oh, and yes, I will vote for him again in 2014.

[cynicist]

Specifically, in regards to Rob Ford's issue: I've seen a couple of podcasts where Stefan, like our liberal friends, is going nuts about Rob Ford's personal life. I'm yet to hear anything specific from Stefan about actual Ford's work as Mayor of Toronto. All the critisicm has this flavour of Toronto's Now! magazine(a heavily progressively communist one).

 

Are you kidding me? This guy votes on mandatory drug testing while smoking crack. He's a hypocrite and from the video of him ranting he appears to be a violent lunatic as well. The fact that people support and vote for this irresponsible jackass to be a leader perfectly illustrates why goverments shouldn't exist.

 

 

But then again, is mayor a politician, or simply a manager of multi-billion dollar voluntary(!) congregation of people?

 

He's a politician. The fact that he didn't raise taxes on you doesn't change reality.

[Existing Alternatives]

The fact that people support and vote for this irresponsible jackass to be a leader perfectly illustrates why goverments shouldn't exist.

 

I think it is impossible to recognise that people (myself included) do not vote for him to be a leader, but rather to manage a city, which we chose to live in.

 

He's a politician. The fact that he didn't raise taxes on you doesn't change reality.

 

I am actually posing this as a question - is a mayor of a city a politician? Is a superintendent at an appartment complex a politician? What would be a difference?

[Wesley]

I think it is impossible to recognise that people (myself included) do not vote for him to be a leader, but rather to manage a city, which we chose to live in.

 

 

I am actually posing this as a question - is a mayor of a city a politician? Is a superintendent at an appartment complex a politician? What would be a difference?

This, to me, feels like one of those really uncomfortable situations where someone doesn't know the difference between rape and love-making and asks to have it explained.

 

The difference between a politician and a building manager is the same as the difference between a rapist and a lover.

[cynicist]

I think it is impossible to recognise that people (myself included) do not vote for him to be a leader, but rather to manage a city, which we chose to live in.

 

 

I am actually posing this as a question - is a mayor of a city a politician? Is a superintendent at an appartment complex a politician? What would be a difference?

 

He is in charge of managing the city though, right? That makes him a leader.

 

Your question is like asking if a rottweiler is a dog, it's a subset so yes. The difference between a superintendent and a politician is the violence required for one to have his position. The superintendent is managing the property owned by the person paying him, and if that owner doesn't like the job he is doing then that guy gets replaced. If you suddenly stopped liking Rob Ford you wouldn't be able to stop paying taxes or fire him. The people who voted against Rob Ford are forced to pay his salary regardless of what they want.

[Existing Alternatives]

He is in charge of managing the city though, right? That makes him a leader.

 

Managing resources does not make one a leader. Unless we have variance on what the word "leader" means.

 

Your question is like asking if a rottweiler is a dog, it's a subset so yes. The difference between a superintendent and a politician is the violence required for one to have his position. The superintendent is managing the property owned by the person paying him, and if that owner doesn't like the job he is doing then that guy gets replaced. If you suddenly stopped liking Rob Ford you wouldn't be able to stop paying taxes or fire him. The people who voted against Rob Ford are forced to pay his salary regardless of what they want.

 

Let's try this.

 

Example 1: I live in a condo, I am an owner, so I pay maintenance fees. I seriously disagree with the management company we currently employ. Majority of the owner disagree with me. I like the location, so I pay their salary and keep on living there. I can move out or stop paying my fees. If I stop paying fees, I will probably lose my property.

 

Example 2: I live in a city. I own property and pay taxes to the city. I really don’t like the mayor. Majority of the city residents disagree with me. I like the city where I live, so I pay the mayor's salary and keep on living there. I can move out or stop paying my taxes. If I stop paying taxes, I will probably lose my property.

 

 

 

Now, please be kind and point out the difference.

 

The difference between a politician and a building manager is the same as the difference between a rapist and a lover.

 

My question was to point out the difference between a city manager and a building manager. Is it still the same to you?

[PatrickC]

My question was to point out the difference between a city manager and a building manager. Is it still the same to you?

 

Wesley is quite right to point out the bad thinking here. The point is, if you voted for a manager and I didn't, why should I be managed by him? Politician, manager or whatever you call it, amounts to the same thing. The majority get to decide who services me.

[cynicist]

Managing resources does not make one a leader. Unless we have variance on what the word "leader" means.

 

Yeah we must have different definitions. For me a leader is someone who guides and directs things as part of a group or organization. Managing anything falls under that category for me, especially when you are chosen to do so by vote.

 

 

Let's try this.

 

Example 1: I live in a condo, I am an owner, so I pay maintenance fees. I seriously disagree with the management company we currently employ. Majority of the owner disagree with me. I like the location, so I pay their salary and keep on living there. I can move out or stop paying my fees. If I stop paying fees, I will probably lose my property.

 

Example 2: I live in a city. I own property and pay taxes to the city. I really don’t like the mayor. Majority of the city residents disagree with me. I like the city where I live, so I pay the mayor's salary and keep on living there. I can move out or stop paying my taxes. If I stop paying taxes, I will probably lose my property.

 

 

 

Now, please be kind and point out the difference.

 

Sure, the board that is setting fees in the first example actually owns the building, even if you own the unit that you live in. If I'm not mistaken you are signing a contract agreeing to follow the rules and voting procedures around the maintenance of the building when you purchase your condo. In the second example, cities aren't actual things that can be owned in reality, they are just a description of buildings and people. So when you pay taxes on property that you own, unlike in the first example, you are not paying maintenance fees to the owners of the city that your building is a part of, you are being extorted. The fundamental mistake here is believing that a city is some kind of property. (and that politicians have legitimate ownership of this imaginary thing so you owe them money for choosing to inhabit it)

[Existing Alternatives]

Wesley is quite right to point out the bad thinking here. The point is, if you voted for a manager and I didn't, why should I be managed by him? Politician, manager or whatever you call it, amounts to the same thing. The majority get to decide who services me.

 

Can you elaborate, what exactly is bad about my thinking. Provided, that the question was how is the difference between building manager and city manager is the same as between love making and rape.

 

Btw, it bothers me when people rather than attempt to answer a question, just say - "your thinking is bad".

[PatrickC]

Btw, it bothers me when people rather than attempt to answer a question, just say - "your thinking is bad".

 

Maybe you do, but I explained the poor thinking earlier, which btw, is kind of bothering for me.

[Existing Alternatives]

Yeah we must have different definitions. For me a leader is someone who guides and directs things as part of a group or organization. Managing anything falls under that category for me, especially when you are chosen to do so by vote.

 

Fair enough. To me a leader is someone different, someone who leads by example and inspires a group to achieve goals as a group. As such there will be quite a gap between a manager and a leader.

 

Sure, the board that is setting fees in the first example actually owns the building, even if you own the unit that you live in. If I'm not mistaken you are signing a contract agreeing to follow the rules and voting procedures around the maintenance of the building when you purchase your condo. In the second example, cities aren't actual things that can be owned in reality, they are just a description of buildings and people. So when you pay taxes on property that you own, unlike in the first example, you are not paying maintenance fees to the owners of the city that your building is a part of, you are being extorted. The fundamental mistake here is believing that a city is some kind of property. (and that politicians have legitimate ownership of this imaginary thing so you owe them money for choosing to inhabit it)

 

I see your confusion. Let me re-phrase...

Example 1: Condominium is not a thing, it may or may not include land, buildings, roads, etc. It is no more than agreement of individuals to own and manage something together. Further, the board as a group does not own anything, but rather represents the owner and is selected by vote. Yes, when you buy a condominium you sign a contract and agree to the rules and fees, but that contract and fees are subject to change, if majority feels so.

Example 2: City is not a thing, it may or may not include land, buildings, roads, etc. It is no more than agreement of individuals to live within a certain pencil line on the map together. Further, the mayor (or council or whatever as a group) does not own anything, but rather represents the residents and is selected by vote. When you buy a property in the city, you sign a contract with the city (along with the seller) and agree to the rules and taxes, but those rules and taxes are subject to change, if majority feels so.

 

So, where is this majic "rape vs. love" criteria? What am I missing? 

Maybe you do, but I explained the poor thinking earlier, which btw, is kind of bothering for me.

 

Sorry, what do i do?

Btw, scrolled up all the way to the top - no explanation and no answer.

Soooo ... thanks... sorry to bother you?....

[PatrickC]

Sorry, what do i do?

Btw, scrolled up all the way to the top - no explanation and no answer.

Soooo ... thanks... sorry to bother you?....

 

Probably read the argument before you act like a passive aggressive troll

[cynicist]

I see your confusion. Let me re-phrase...

Example 1: Condominium is not a thing, it may or may not include land, buildings, roads, etc. It is no more than agreement of individuals to own and manage something together. Further, the board as a group does not own anything, but rather represents the owner and is selected by vote. Yes, when you buy a condominium you sign a contract and agree to the rules and fees, but that contract and fees are subject to change, if majority feels so.

Example 2: City is not a thing, it may or may not include land, buildings, roads, etc. It is no more than agreement of individuals to live within a certain pencil line on the map together. Further, the mayor (or council or whatever as a group) does not own anything, but rather represents the residents and is selected by vote. When you buy a property in the city, you sign a contract with the city (along with the seller) and agree to the rules and taxes, but those rules and taxes are subject to change, if majority feels so.

 

So, where is this majic "rape vs. love" criteria? What am I missing? 

 

Why are you being disengenuous? You know that a condominium is a piece of property with an owner who chooses lease out parts of the property. Who owns a city? Where is the contract with the city that you sign? Or is this the fictitious "social contract" that I keep hearing about, the one that is assumed and implied rather than explicitly agreed upon?

 

The violence vs voluntary criteria is that taxes are taken without consent.

[Existing Alternatives]

Why are you being disengenuous? You know that a condominium is a piece of property with an owner who chooses lease out parts of the property. Who owns a city? Where is the contract with the city that you sign? Or is this the fictitious "social contract" that I keep hearing about, the one that is assumed and implied rather than explicitly agreed upon?

 

The violence vs voluntary criteria is that taxes are taken without consent.

 

I am not being disengenuous. I am having hard time determining the line where "property manager" ends and "evil government" begins. It seems pretty straightforward at extremes: a part-time super in the apartment buidling vs. ruller of the free world. When you close in it becomes blurry (at least for me). I feel that the case could be made for the local government (ie mayor) either way. Hence, the question.

 

To your response specifically... condo owners actually own their units, which usually are parts of a building. Therefore, they need to be managed collectively, for which purpose a management company  is hired. All decisions (including hiring) are done collectively, usually by vote. So yes, majority rules.

 

The same seems to apply when you decide to buy a house in a given city. And yes, you do sign a contract with the city, bc all the paperwork between you and the seller is vetted and kept by the city. You also pay property transfer taxes and so forth. You can further make an argument that the property tax you pay to the city is more akin to the management fee I pay to the condo, because it covers the streets, and water, and sewage and such.

 

Violence does not seem to be present in either of the scenarios.

[cynicist]

To your response specifically... condo owners actually own their units, which usually are parts of a building. Therefore, they need to be managed collectively, for which purpose a management company  is hired. All decisions (including hiring) are done collectively, usually by vote. So yes, majority rules.

 

The same seems to apply when you decide to buy a house in a given city. And yes, you do sign a contract with the city, bc all the paperwork between you and the seller is vetted and kept by the city. You also pay property transfer taxes and so forth. You can further make an argument that the property tax you pay to the city is more akin to the management fee I pay to the condo, because it covers the streets, and water, and sewage and such.

 

Violence does not seem to be present in either of the scenarios.

 

Yes I understand that condo owners have units which are parts of a building. Who is hiring the management company? The owner of that building. Who owns a city, or the common area between property within it? Nobody. That's where your analogy breaks down.

 

I know you want to respond by saying the residents of the city, collectively, have ownership because they all have a stake based on the property that they own, and are simply voting for a third party (the mayor) to manage it. The only problem with that is that you can't collectively own anything. You can form a group voluntarily and agree to make purchasing decisions together by vote, or voluntarily agree to split something into equal parts and own the parts individually, but that is the opposite of voting in government because you can't leave. You don't have a choice in participating in this group called government, you only get to choose the puppet that leads it.

[Existing Alternatives]

Yes I understand that condo owners have units which are parts of a building. Who is hiring the management company? The owner of that building. Who owns a city, or the common area between property within it? Nobody. That's where your analogy breaks down.

...

The only problem with that is that you can't collectively own anything.  

 

Perhaps it's a special case for condos, but who owns the hallway between me and my neighbour? what about the driveway that leads to the building? "WE" own it, collectively.

 

Have you heard of "mutual driveways", when two (or more) neighbouring properties share (ie collectively own) an access road?

 

How is that different from a street? So, analogy does stand.

 

... voting in government because you can't leave...

And this further makes me wonder... perhaps, you cant leave a country, but you sure can leave a city...

[Wesley]

Perhaps it's a special case for condos, but who owns the hallway between me and my neighbour? what about the driveway that leads to the building? "WE" own it, collectively.

 

Have you heard of "mutual driveways", when two (or more) neighbouring properties share (ie collectively own) an access road?

 

How is that different from a street? So, analogy does stand.

 

And this further makes me wonder... perhaps, you cant leave a country, but you sure can leave a city...

Any contract as to where you live (condo, apartment, etc) is entered into voluntarily. Any contract where you live politically has no contract and is forced on you by the arbitrary whims of the men with guns who claim legitimacy by some swath of voters (who the do not even have a contract with and proceed to break all "election promises.")

 

Also, For living privately I have the option to live in the woods or own my house or something. I do not have the option to not be a part of a political state. Choosing "none of the above" is illegal according the the UN. Thus, I never get the option to be free and be on my own, but only to move to another farm.

[cynicist]

Perhaps it's a special case for condos, but who owns the hallway between me and my neighbour? what about the driveway that leads to the building? "WE" own it, collectively.

 

Have you heard of "mutual driveways", when two (or more) neighbouring properties share (ie collectively own) an access road?

 

How is that different from a street? So, analogy does stand.

 

No it doesn't, because mutual driveways are handled through what are called easements, which are basically agreements between property owners for limited use of each other's property. There is still voluntary agreement and participation in this, and it's not ownership its just rights to limited use.

 

And this further makes me wonder... perhaps, you cant leave a country, but you sure can leave a city...

 

Umm no. You are talking about ownership of city property through government right? Except you can't choose whether to participate in that or not. That's what I mean by leaving. If I buy a condo I have to agree to abide by the rules of the board that manages the common areas, but I know that ahead of time and if I don't like it I am able to rent or buy a home. This is because the rules for a condo only extend to the property of the owner. The rules for a city extend to all the property within the imaginary boundaries of that city, and that city is not owned by an individual or group of individuals voluntarily. Politicians are not bound to a property owner like a management board is for a condo precisely because of that fact. So since no one owns a city, why are people forced to pay for the right to be in one? If a group of people get together and try to start their own community voluntarily, what happens when a city's borders expand to cover that community? Suddenly all of their rules and regs now apply to that community as well, regardless of whether the inhabitants like it or not. That is because of force.