“You're one of the few people on this thread making cogent arguments for the state.”
Understand that I might say that “In its largest sense a ‘state’ is a body politic or a society of men” or that a state is “The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people.”
When I make arguments for the state, I am making arguments for our society’s representative form of government at its best, which was established to secure rights, and which is supposed to be majority rule without infringing the rights of the minority beyond the limit on rights necessitated by forming a society.
Of course, “our society’s representative form of government at its best” appears to be a rare occurrence. But the state or the government should not be blamed for being misused any more than guns should be blamed for killing people. The problem is the people who misuse the state, government or guns and the people who allow those people to do so.
“A homeowner's association is a legit enterprise precisely because it's voluntary.”
If by “State” you are referring to the organization which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people who are Citizens of the United States, was it not voluntary in the beginning?
I’ve never been involved with a Home Owners Association so I don’t know for certain, but I imagine that if one inherited property that was subject to a Home Owners Association, membership in the Association and subjection to its rules would be mandatory not voluntary if one wanted to retain ownership of the property. In much the same way we have inherited the “State” established by our forefathers. As such our membership in the State is mandatory, except we can leave it or disestablish it. Or we can use it as the tool it is for our own purposes, modifying it as necessary. And of course we can blame it for our own misuse, like a carpenter who blames his hammer for hitting his thumb.
I do not understand your comment on “Social Contract.” Among other things, there can be more than one party to a contract. Loosely speaking, the “Social Contract” consists of the agreements made when people associate into a Society. You are partly correct in that someone else may have made the agreements. We inherited the Social Contract established by our forefathers as they inherited the one established by their forefathers. But we are not entirely bound by its terms nor were they. The Social Contract may change as new agreements are reached. And of course you can always ignore it and be an outlaw. But if you want to be an outlaw in the society of other outlaws, you will find that they have a Social Contract too.
Accepted. When I described your argument as "pro state", I was being literal--I wasn't trying to classify how pro-state you might be. Any fan of limited government is my brother; exactly how limited is an in-house debate between friends.
I’ve never been involved with a Home Owners Association so I don’t know for certain, but I imagine that if one inherited property that was subject to a Home Owners Association, membership in the Association and subjection to its rules would be mandatory not voluntary if one wanted to retain ownership of the property.
Awesome question! I don't know the answer to that one. I suspect you're right that the property does come so encumbered, but inheritence is a special case. I suspect the Misesian answer would be, "So you inherited a house with a covenant. It's all the same as if you inherit a trust fund: you have certain powers, such as receiving income, but not others, such as spending the principle." So I think it can still be interpreted within the rubric of property rights.
The natural comeback this suggests is that, perhaps citizenship can be interpreted in a similar light; you've inherited property encumbered with certain obligations, including property taxes. That will take more consideration, because it's not a trivial argument, and I don't have a ready answer. Once again I doff my cap to you.
I do not understand your comment on “Social Contract.” Among other things, there can be more than one party to a contract.
That's true, but all parties are concenting. There's no way in which a person can be brought under a contract against his will. The closest analogue would be a contract of adhesion, but those are viewed critically by the courts, and every presumption is made to the detriment of the adhesing party.
My observation was that the supposed "social contract" is not in fact a contract. For starters, nobody signed it, least of all me--so this is a contract that binds me against my will. A sort of shrink-wrap license that says, "By being born, you consent to the terms of this user agreement..."
Conversely, the other party to this "social contract" is presumably government. Well, I can't sue them for breach of social contract, can I? Nor can I renegotiate this contract. And if I did manage to open negotiations, guess who gets to arbitrate? Yup--the party of the second part, his very own self.