Maybe Stefan should be more consistent

[RestoringGuy]

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.")

Although EA is talking crazy, your response about "entered voluntarily" is not that accurate.  Some people seem to be bound by the contract without signing, children and guests for example can be regulated to some extent.  The contract is limited by laws, entangles with other contracts, and there is fine print Microsoft EULA-style.  When a contract says just one side can change it without notice, I think the extent of you having "entered" can similarly change without notice.  Some of these condo places do crooked stuff nobody can predict by reading the contract, and the contract is worthless (in the current scheme of things) without judicial force as a tool to enforce it.  The contract seems a lot like an election promise.  To me, it's not proof things are entered voluntarily, but only makes some opportunity for a voluntary condition to happen.  Contract is just a necessary feather, it doesn't guarantee the bird will fly.

[Existing Alternatives]

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.

 

My challenge is to determine at which level you live “politically.” As far as I can tell, there is not much difference between a condo and a small city. Why one is considered “political” residence and the other isn’t?

 

If you chose to live privately in the woods, you are leaving both condo/apartment and the city behind. And neither one of them will come after you, in other words, you can leave. I realize that this argument does not apply to countries, but, once again, I am searching for that threshold at which “political” residence becomes “voluntary” residence.

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.

 

No, I mean physically leaving. If you don’t like the condo – you leave, if you don’t like the city – you leave. It is probably even easier to leave a city than a condo.

 

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.

 

Agree, there is certainly a hierarchical structure going on there, with the city being more “governmental” than a community. But then the question is, is it a black-and-white distinction (rape-love, if you will) or simply incremental. Even within a voluntary community you have to abide by certain rules, which may change if the majority votes on it. On the other hand when you move into a new city you are accepting existing set of rules and regs, but they may change, if the majority (or politicians/managers elected by majority) decides so. Once again, if you disagree with the changes, you can leave and move to another community and or city.

Although EA is talking crazy...

 

Now, since when it is crazy to ask questions? Or is it one of those "conform or you are crazy" things Stefan was talking about recently?

[Kevin Beal]

Am I wrong, or is this conversation going in circles?

[cynicist]

As far as I can tell, there is not much difference between a condo and a small city.

 

Wow.

 

Am I wrong, or is this conversation going in circles?

 

I'm getting off the carousel now.

[ribuck]

Here is the difference:

 

The condo owners can vote to operate without a condo manager. The electors of a city cannot vote to operate without a mayor.

[Existing Alternatives]

Here is the difference:

 

The condo owners can vote to operate without a condo manager. The electors of a city cannot vote to operate without a mayor.

 

Very valid point. However, that brings us back to the whole "majority rule" situation. It seems to further support the hypothesis that the difference is more incremental as opposed to binary. In other words, one organisation is slightly more voluntary / less statist than the other.

[Existing Alternatives]

Seeing how my question is barely related to the original post, and how it seems to generate a lot of emotional responses (as opposed to rational), I withdraw from the discussion. But I do invite you all to think about the boundaries of the state, whether it seizes to be at some point. Maybe one day we find the answer (and, hopefully, abstain from calling the asker names).