So in our apartment complex there were no rules beforehand that prevented someone from pooping in public areas, because there was an implicit understanding that this is not something you do. However after a difference of opinion you've just started to do this to annoy me. Everyone but you wants this to stop, but you're having too much fun annoying me. What are we as residents to do about you? You're being extra cautious to make sure you don't overstep any other boundaries to ensure that you can keep doing this for as long as you please.
If your ownership contract allows for such an action, then yes he can continue for as long as he pleases and you needed to do a better job of creating the contract in the first place. Now that you've gotten yourself into this situation, your option is to sell your share of the ownership and move elsewhere. Be more careful about joint ownership contracts you sign in the future.
And connecting back to the driving part. When a road is built, everyone who uses this road agrees to a specific limit, then someone else starts using the road. Do we need to assemble everyone again and agree to keep the limits as they are, or can they just stay the same?
After constructing a new road in the LA-area, which people should we invite to have a say in what speed limit there should be on it. Everyone affected by or using it? Do you think you'll be able to set a limit on this side of the heat-death of the universe?
This is why myrkul wants to see private ownership of the roads, then the owner gets to set the rules for how the users use the road. A new user doesn't matter, because ownership hasn't changed. In the case of a supposedly publicly owned road, myrkul has already explained that the entire public should have the right to use that road in anyway they like until the moment they cause actual harm to another. One person can choose to use the road as storage for their explosives collection, while another can use it as a high speed test track (although in the case of a collision between the two I'm not sure who is considered responsible for the death of the driver).
1) So that means that one person can effectively hold others ransom and there's nothing they can do about it. Seems like a dream situation for lawyers. All you need to do is to find a loophole where you follow the letter, but not the spirit of the contract.
2) So a dictatorship where one person tells everybody to do it his way or GTFO, is better than an agreement, or as close to an agreement as we can come? How is this an improvement over the current system?