It is a simple analogy, but one that was designed to bring the complexities of a large government down to a simple lesson.  If you are going to pick nits, then of course it will not work.  It was not designed to "replace" government, only to provide a simple way for most people to understand the workings and intent of government.

And that is just one of the differences that TA was trying to point out that misses the point of the comparison.  yes, you can move to another country, but it is not as easy as moving to a new neighborhood.

It is a good analogy, and I think many are missing the point.  Perhaps if you look at the NA as a place you want to live - or not - then it works better.  And place yourself in the NA both as one of the top dogs (in earnings) and the also rans. 

In the US, NAs are very common.  But they charge fees based upon a set schedule. They provide some benefits for those fees and that is why people are willing to pay for them.  However, if the association decided to start providing benefits to just some residents, and making other residents pay for those benefits, then the dissension would start.

Your friend is wrong. Sorry.

If you take a tour of AMD or Intel you will find that the key innovations are being done by a tiny number of people. 

The curve of capability is not linear. It's exponential.

Your analogy is flawed as well. Rand isn't saying that the best from only some companies went on strike. But rather the most productive from across the entire spectrum of society left.  So there'd be no Intel or AMD CPU innovations for a long while.

You remove say 5% peopulation in which that 5% are the most productive from our society and yes, I think society as we know it would end. We would have mass unemployment, collapse of the tax base, and a very abrubt decline in the standard of living across the board.

In the United States, over half the taxes are paid by those 5%.  If you think that the remaining group would just step in and everything would be hunky dorey then I don't know what to say to that except that be thankful that your belief won't ever be put to the test. 

If you were to remove the owners of every successful small business (i.e. the people who employ the super majority of citizens) I can assure you that nearly all those businesses would go under and most of the ones that survived would be struggling to some degree. 

At the risk of being arrogant (more arrogant than usual) even where I work, where I'm surrounded by extremely talented and gifted people who are hard working and extremely motivated, if I disappeared, the company would be a shadow of its former self in a short order.

Yes. The views are sooo different.

Also, you may want to read the constitution and the federalist papers. You will discover that they outline what is, essentially a neighborhood association. I mention the federalist papers because in those papers (written by Hamilton and Madison -- who wrote most of the constitution) they clarify questions that make it abundantly clear that the federal government of the United States was to essentially be a large-scale neighborhood association.

Wow.  What breathtaking arrogance and ignorance combined into a single sentence.  Perhaps you should expand your horizons and discover that more people see the role of the federal government like we do than the number of people who think the federal government exists to play parent to citizens.

For most of our country's history (up until the early 20th) the federal government was run essentially like a neighborhood association.  So for most of our history, "the peple of this nation" not only adopted that view of their GOVERNMENT (not country) but supported it. 

Apparently not given that you clearly have not read it.

By whom?

Or do you view people like Bill Gates or Henry Ford as merely hogging all the wealth and largely disposable?

As a practical reality, only a tiny % of the population is willing and capable of building a successful enterprise. 

But if you think it's a trivial matter, why aren't you rich, Iben? Just staying back out of politeness?

How do you define nation then?

Your usage of the term seems to imply that only the federal government of the United States can do the things you wish to have occur in "the nation".

Of course not. The nation is all the neighborhoods in the United States combined together.

What are you talking about?  What control do you suppose people like me want over you? I want you to be free to do whatever you want as long as what you do does not infringe on someone else's freedom. But I also believe that you should be accountable for that freedom.  You don't want to work? That's fine. But don't expect other people to pay for your lifestyle then.

Nation: the collection of pepole living within a defined state. In terms of our discussion, our nation is the people of the United States.

I believe people should help their fellow citizens in time of need.  I do not, however, believe that people should be forced to help their fellow citizens at the point of a gun.

When the government takes my property in the form of taxation and gives it to another individual, they are, in essence, forcing me to help someone without my consent at the point of a gun (if I don't pay, men with guns will come and take me away). 

The family who has more children than they can afford demanding that I pay for the health insurance for their children is an infringement on my family's inalienable rights.

To get back to the analogy: - the neighborhood association (the government) is set up to provide services and manage common resources to the entire community of residents (the nation). 

The neighborhood association leaders (congress) are voted in by a majority of the residents of the neighborhood (nation).

And while the majority of a given neighborhood might like the idea of having the richest residents pay more than the others or pay for additional services, they know that that would only result in the wealthiest residents to simply move.

But at the national level, the majority can vote in representatives who will happily confiscate property from the richest to hand out to the majority because they know that the richest people are not likely to move to another country.  And so they do.

That's how our nation (the United States) went from being unable to get the Erie Canal project going for awhile because it was considered unconstitutional for the federal government to fund a project for one group of states to now having people claim that Bush is a "scrooge" for vetoing a bill that would have the health insurance of middle class children paid for by the government.