[latefordinner]

well I'm not an ACer or an expert on market anarchist understanding of contracts but I would say yes, certainly I think some people could make the case that a contract that "runs with the land" and includes an "unable to secede" clause is unfairly restrictive in that it allows people to negotiate unbreakable contracts that future people will have no option to renegotiate or back out of.

as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved (with an appropriate loss of access to whatever the original perceived 'advantages' of that association were in the first place)