They are hugely different. Houses and cities should be 100% privatised, the rules come from whoever owns the land.
Ideally, the “City of New york” would be owned by some private entity (let’s call it the “Corporation of New York”) - this entity gets to set the rules.
If you want to buy the city and change the rules, you are free to do so. The corporation can do anything it likes with the city, because it *owns* the city, or at least it has contractual authority over it. Nothing can happen without the consent of the person that owns the property.
When the government passes a law, it is passing the law over property that it absolutely does not own. You have no opportunity to “buy the country” and change the way it is run, because the state doesn’t actually own any of the land you are talking about.
That’s not to say you can do anything you want with your private property. A city couldn’t, for example, decide to amputate the arms of its residents. The state’s role is to ensure that private entities are dealing with each other properly, which means in a manner consistent with individual rights.
This is a REALLY BIZARRE statement. Nobody has ever owned an ENTIRE CITY, cities only EXIST because you have a multiplicity of people all wanting to own property in the same spot. Usually they parcel up the land into teeny tiny little postage-stamp sized squares because ownership competition is so fierce.
Now, if you’re talking about the facilities currently “owned” and operated by the city government (the streets, traffic system, bridges, etc.), then yeah, they should be fully privately owned and operated, but even then probably not just by one corporation. (I’m not saying that if one corporation does decide to buy ALL of it, that corporation should be broken up, I’m saying that the expense and logistics and degree of competition would be prohibitive, so this would be EXTREMELY unlikely.)
Ultimately what will determine property usage is the free market, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Good users who foresee market conditions will prosper, those who can’t will fail and have to sell and move on. Prices for use and methods of payment will gravitate toward the lowest possible profitable level. Increases in productivity will lead to increases in profit, which will lead to an increase of investment in that area and the increased competition will drive prices still lower while spawning a multiplicity of models suitable for everyone.
Most of these sorts of questions and problems (about taxation and so forth) derive from a misunderstanding of how economic planning works. A free market, contrary to what many people believe, is reality-oriented and (ultimately, not always immediately) acts like the most supremely perfected and tuned instrument of economic calculation. Conversely, a centrally “planned” economy, which is *supposed* to be calculated and efficient, always turns out to be chaotic, damaging, and incredibly random in its effects, because an economy is not a bus that you can drive. If you want a metaphor, trying to “steer” or “plan” an economy is like trying to steer a bus made out of thousands of quasi-independent bits each haphazardly moved around by people you can only “control” by prodding them in sensitive spots. The only ultimate certainty is that if you prod enough, the whole thing will collapse.
How does this relate to taxation? The services that are now paid for by taxation ARE VALUABLE. In a free country people WILL pay for them even when they have the choice not to. Maybe not all of them, all of the time, but enough of them because that’s how the metaphorical “calculation machine” works. Heck, even in a semi-free market people produce so much that the vast majority of them voluntarily throw away money on things that demonstrably have only emotional value! And the things that people actually need from the government and can obtain nowhere else are pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.