What is the difference between a voluntary community and a city-state?

[Paul]

To preface with my personal perspective, I'm somewhere between voluntaryist and minarchist.  I feel the only legitimate role of the State is to serve as a placeholder to prevent the rise of violent lords and whatnot.  Once there's millions of voluntaryists together it probably wouldn't be an issue and the notion of a state could be discarded.  In the mean time there needs to be something to fill the power vacuum, something in which the People are supposed to be represented.

Now, my question.  In voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist writing I read about the idea of voluntary communities where residents contractually agree to whatever rules the existing community members have already decided upon.  If true to principle this would indeed be a righteous alternative to any coercive system.  But to use the same voluntaryist argument I hear, what about people born in this community?  They didn't enter into any contracts.  If they don't sign are they forced to leave?  Are they ostracized for being born?  "Well if you don't like the contract you can ge'et out!"  How is this truly different from a city-state?  Be it a constitutional republic like Sparta or Rome or a more voluntary system of governance as found in Tai Muang or the Negeri, I struggle to see why a community founded on contract-law would be any different. 

My brain has been chewing on this for a bit so I welcome any assistance in finding a flaw in this logic.

[dalebert]

I don't really see it as being viable in a particular geographic region for the reasons you gave. Such things can include certain people and exclude others from benefits and services who have signed on but can't claim control over a region unless they own it all and people are leasing.

I understand the DESIRE for a place-holder, but statism isn't actually a solution. It's not actually a solution now. We've just been hood-winked into thinking it is. You're just keeping a super powerful criminal organization in power to prevent competing crime, and that's an authoritarian beastie worse than the problems its supposed to prevent. It's a real problem. Unfortunately, statism just isn't the answer. It's a cold hard reality that we have to face eventually if we're going to try to solve those kinds of problems.

[Paul]

In my opinion history shows that in the absence of a state sovereign, be it a colonial force, republic or commonwealth, and absent a supermajority of people willing and able to defend individual sovereignty, those who have no qualms with using violence and coercion quickly seek and fill the alpha position.

However, the minarchism vs. voluntaryism debate is for another discussion.  My opening statement was to convey my point of view for consideration of my inquiry.   There are many instances where a city-state sovereign consisted of little more than a figurehead or impotent royalty that only served as a representative entity for interaction with and defense from other temple-states and empires.  The Negeri are a prime example of this.  Royalties were often short lived as they failed to be recognized as centers of authority by households.  Interactions within and between households were primarily voluntary.

Is the difference purely semantic?

[KBCraig]

The main difference is that a city-state is defined by geographic territory, but a community is not.

A city-state applies its governance and supplies it services to all within its boundaries, no matter whether they agree to membership or not. A community only applies/supplies to its own voluntary members.

Membership in a city-state is exclusive: you are limited to one at a time. Communities are open: belong to as many as you wish.

Anyone may quit a community at any time, for any reason. No one can "quit" a city-state while remaining within it geographic boundaries.

[Paul]

I see the distinction, but would not the boundary of a community be described as the point at which one must agree to abide by the "community contract" in order to participate? For instance when one must agree not to murder or steal in order to be accepted into the community,  is that not a territorial boundary?  What if there's a wall?

If in fact a city-state, or any state, is defined simply by the existence of a sovereign, then individuals are states in themselves.  In a kingdom the monarch is the sovereign.  In a constitutional republic the constitution is the sovereign.  The constitution has the final say.  In a contractual community the contract is the sovereign.

Perhaps the reason I'm having problems seeing a distinction is I may be conflating pure voluntaryist and more anarcho-capitalist type communities.  In an absolute voluntaryist society a contract does in fact not have the final say as commitment is unenforceable.  There is no way to compel restitution for damages if ostracism is the strongest method of encouraging compliance (absent future technologies and/or massive centralized databases... in which case the contract would become sovereign).  Anarcho-capitalism however can allow for mandatory restitution, contractual servitude, and imprisonment of murderers by market agencies.  In such a system the community contract is unquestionably sovereign.

Maybe that's all there is to it?

[John Edward Mercier]

I think instead of the term 'community', you might understand his post better if you replace it with 'association'.

You might be a member of several associations (communities) that are not geographically based.
For example this forum.

[Paul]

I believe non-geographic association is not applicable to the question.  Humans are pack animals.  Populations naturally form communities, tribes, cities, not only for social reasons but because it is exceedingly inefficient to travel hours to trade, hunt, or secure resources when all parties benefit by living in close proximity to each other and a vital resource like fresh water.  What I am talking about is the nature of the interaction between those living in this community, not external associations.

[John Edward Mercier]

Most of my basics are secured from my own property, other things/services from choice... of course my options of assocation are limited in some arenas. But time my prove a solution to this.

[Giggan]

If property rights are fully upheld, you could quit whatever contracts a community would have and still be located within the community, so long as your property is yours and it will not be violated by the 'contract enforcers'. Violation the communities contracts would then only affect your public life but not your entire life, since your property remains yours.

[Paul]

Makes sense.  I suppose if one born on a property within a contractual community refused to agree to the contracts they would be forced into hermit status unable to use the roads, access water, food, or fuel, or any other provision of community relations that they are unable to produce on-site, assuming all community members endorsed the ostracism of this individual.  They might be royally screwed right out of the womb, but they do not have their life or property threatened.  Not directly at least.

Thanks for everyone's assistance in helping me work out these logical kinks I've been playing with.  My conclusion is with the exception of a pure voluntary society (essentially a utopia that is unlikely to come into existence without a dramatic reduction in population or paradigm shift), any contractual community is in fact a city-state.  However much like the words 'anarchy' and 'libertarian' the word 'state' has many negative connotations to it making it's avoidance preferable. 

Thanks again.  Hope my first contribution to the board was one of value.

[dalebert]

The way you described voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist, I definitely fit the voluntaryist viewpoint and not the anarcho-capitalist one which sounds a lot like authoritarian government. Ostracism is not black and white, btw. It has many shades. There is a degree of ostracism, for instance, that simply means that it's well documented by reputable agencies that you failed to fulfill important contracts and people won't trust you to engage in contracts. They might still do business with you, but very cautiously, like cash up front. It already happens now like with applications to lease an apartment or to get a job, a credit card, or a cell phone plan.

[bigmike]

I think instead of the term 'community', you might understand his post better if you replace it with 'association'.

You might be a member of several associations (communities) that are not geographically based.
For example this forum.

Not necessarily true, although you are right when you say associations could be oriented by other factors than region; profession is a great example. You may volunteer to purchase a residence in a community you like, but will be forced into having to agree to the rules set by the "homeowners" association.

While I understand there is a bit of contradiction there (by purchasing in that particular neighborhood you agree to their rules), what happens when your neighborhood decides to begin an "association" without your consent after you already live there?

Homeowner Associations=Terrorcrats Without Guns

Professional Associations (National Association of Realtors, American Medical Association, State Bar associations)= Terrorcrats With Regulatory Authority Without Guns

Groups=Government, in some form or fashion. They may not begin that way, but lately I've been realizing that it may be better from a freedom perspective to contract with other individuals only.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Without Guns

I agree with your points, bigmike, but many of the "professional associations" do indeed have guns. Try opening a clinic with research Ph.Ds, but without AMA gang signs. You'll see the guns fast enough, Mr Anderson 

[John Edward Mercier]

My point was to help Paul understand that KBCraig was reference something not geographical.
Words can mean many things, and many associate 'community' with real estate within a neighborhood or municipality.
Rather than non-geography based communities like this forum.

[Paul]

The way you described voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist, I definitely fit the voluntaryist viewpoint and not the anarcho-capitalist one which sounds a lot like authoritarian government.

Nah, anarcho-capitalism just allows for the holding of people to their word.  If someone voluntarily enters into a community contract which may for example provide imprisonment for murder or rape, if that person proceeds to rape and murder people incarceration is justified as a defensive measure in compliance with their contractual arrangement.  Likewise if a person steals property from another and refuses to make restitution, mandatory servitude is permissible as long as it was part of the contract.  It is not authoritarian in any way as this is what the criminal actively and voluntarily agreed to when they entered the community.

Pure voluntaryism however does not allow this.  It is dependent on ostracism as the ultimate means for maintaining justice.  Like I said absent a dramatic reduction in population or a significant paradigm shift, one likely being a consequence of the other, this is little more than idealism.  If someone is going around raping and murdering children, once they are identified and their crimes confirmed there is nothing to prevent them from continuing to rape and murder children if nothing is being done to actively prevent their continued crime.  Simply saying, "Well, more people will be armed," or, "That's what protection companies are for," doesn't keep the kid's bodies from turning up in alleyways because just like cops, guards can't be everywhere.  Forcefully removing the criminal from the population however accomplishes this.

In this manner I do consider myself presently anarcho-capitalist more than anything.  I feel once a truly minarchist state is reached the next logical evolutionary step is anarcho-capitalist with a rapid transition to pure voluntaryism given proper conditions.