We should beware definitions of "socialism" which come from those who hate it, as well as those seeking power by claiming to champion it.

(Much like "democracy", which actually isn't about voting in your managers every few years then going home.)

A main part of historical socialism is control over production by the producers themselves. Not by "bosses", whose commands producers must obey.

Collectivism vs individualism is a false dichotomy. We can easily imagine that a healthier society cooperates to increase the freedom of its individuals.

Simply talk with mainstream anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists and so on). They typically call themselves socialists, organize collective action like strikes and radical unions, etc. Certainly, anarchists aren't known for supporting the state. :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)

This is a good example of why very few libertarians exist in NYC. Fantasy solutions like a thousand different HOA's to plow the streets just don't make much sense when you think about 8 million people spread across hundreds of square miles.

The HOA is just an example of how creative solutions can be found, it is not an answer to every problem. Did you really expect me to provide a full theory with all solutions to all problems in this post?

Your tacit premise is: "Since you didn't show me how to solve every problem, then your general solution is false." This is like blaming calculus for not having worked out all possible calculus problems.

As with most libertarians when you point out fundamental flaws in their reasoning, they deflect the conversation and try to talk about an ideal as opposed to anything based in reality.

Well first of all you didn't point any fundamental flaw in reasoning; you engaged in it yourself. Second of all this is just pure ad hominem. On top of that you've failed to respond to the point at hand, i.e. my underscoring of your fallacious mode of reasoning, namely that you can't rationally reject a general method on the grounds that the method didn't spell out all applications for you.

What happens when that HOA needs to make a new rule? From what you described it sounds like any person on the losing end of an argument is being violated, and an HOA that has to deal with anything but some basic set of agreed upon rules will not satisfy the non-violation requirements.

I cannot speak for the parent, but disagreements can be resolved by independent, third-party arbitration (which may have also been agreed upon by the HOA). This is not to be confused with a territorial monopoly on final arbitration, viz. a government court.

HOA's can be formed based on a premise that democratic procedures govern the creation/modification of new rules.

Wasn't your original idea something that democratic procedures violate people? Is difference that in an HOA you agree to the procedures, instead of being born into them?

This is actually a very deep question.

To oversimplify, yes, the difference is that you've consented to the rules. Imagine you and your friends decide to order a pizza and agree to vote on the toppings. That's fine. But it's not fine for a friend to force you to pay for the pizza when you didn't agree to do so.

Is it OK for you, a neighbor, and your friend to agree on the toppings of the pizza and then for your neighbor and yourself to "vote in" different toppings for every succeeding pizza?

Your friend consented to the first pizza, but he didn't consent to any pizza after, except insofar as you can say that his remaining a member of the pizza-owners' association represents actual consent.

I don't see the point of your question. What you consent to is what you consent to. You can consent to just one pizza or you can consent to a succession, it's up to you.