Dear Jardine,

It would indeed be practically impossible to have voluntary states in this day and age when population is so dense. If there is any chance, then states will have be much smaller in size, having much fewer citizens each. "Large parts of NSW" would probably be too big for that.

What's the big deal whether or not a group-of-people satisfies the formal definition of a state in international law? I wouldn't be interested in a United-Nations seat anyway!

Now if you do prefer to have laws, then I cannot see why, after carefully weighing all the pros and cons, people could not voluntarily agree to a constitution which includes provisions (with clearly-defined conditions) for legislation and enforcement.

If I could live in a voluntary state and its constitution allowed, say by majority vote, to limit how people interact, then I would vote to prohibit all advertisements except by opt-in (Penalty: others will be allowed to dump their dirty toilet papers in your yard and stick them to your windows): if one wanted to receive advertisements, then they could add their name in an appropriate public register.

Regarding contracts, there is the law, there is reality and there is discrepancy between them. Signing a legal document does not necessarily imply that you consented to what's written there as well as to all the possible/non-trivial implications which you couldn't find between the lines. As a rule of thumb, when a contract is specifically written by two parties for a particular occasion, then it's very likely to be truly agreed on, but the more contracts are routinely streamlined and printed rather than hand-written, the less likely they correspond to a true agreement.

For me, the non-aggression principle is a spiritual principle, rather than a legal thing. If I were to form a [small] voluntary state, then it would likely be based on agreed spiritual principles, so legal-or-otherwise, if you know that someone else doesn't want to receive your communications then you wouldn't be sending them communications in the first place because it would contradict your own principles.