So, here is the main quote I want to take up in this installment of commenting on Pete Leeson's book, The Invisible Hook, because it expresses something that underlies a lot of "While [government] is based on force, the [condo association] is purely voluntary" (p. 51).
First of all, this ignores the distribution and rules of property that allow the founders of the association to set it up in the first place. I may agree to buy a condo from them, given that, somehow or other, I find them with lots of armed force behind them asserting they "own" that land. But no one alive today ever agreed to more than a tiny fraction of the tangled past of appropriation, theft, fraud, public domain seizures, etc., etc. that led to current property assignments. It's nice to dream of a world where all property titles are "clean," but that world never was and never will be.
What's more, setting aside the questions of ownership, let us consider a young Pete Leeson, growing up in Celebration, Florida. His parents, certainly, voluntarily agreed to the community rules, at least given the caveat noted above that they never agreed to the property distribution that gave Disney ownership of the land Celebration was built upon. So Pete grows up there, makes friend there, has other family there, goes to school there, and one day, turns eighteen. The next day, tragically, his parents drop dead, killed by the heart attacks they have when they realize he has gotten a supply-and-demand tattoo on his bicep.
Left his parents' condo in their will, Pete is now a property owner in Celebration. There is simply no sense in which Pete 'voluntarily' agreed to abide by Celebration's rules. I suggest the situation Pete would face is very much that of a current resident of the United States, who never voluntarily agreed to the rules that govern the US. Both are faced with the hard choice of abandoning the place they know, family, friends, a job, etc. and voting with their feet, or living with a set of rules that come to them 'from outside', as it were. This example demonstrates that even if the current US government were dissolved and its territory completely occupied by ancap communities, with the passing of the founding generation all of the communities would be back in the "non-voluntary" state of current governments.
But it is not just the children of the original members who would find themselves in such a state. Despite their initial agreement to all of the rules of the ancap community, the initial residents will as well, due to the fact that rules do not interpret themselves. It is a near certainty that any particular member, despite having agreed to live by a set of rules, will at some point find themselves in disagreement (perhaps profound disagreement) with how some rule or other is interpreted. For instance, she may have been happy agreeing to live by a rule that forbids "public nuisances" (with her contract giving examples such as public drunkenness). But when one day the community association decides tobacco smoking is a public nuisance, she is shocked and dismayed, and finds herself "coerced" to follow a rule to which she never agreed.
Another attempt in the book to clarify this distinction: "Voluntary choice requires that our options aren't framed under the threat of force" (p. 50). How many people would pay for their groceries if the grocer was just going to say, "Hey, you, come back here with that," when they walked out without paying, and never used the threat of (police) violence to stop them? So it turns out buying groceries is not voluntary.