自主遊民的爭議就是定義政治的爭議。個人問題與社會問題向來主導主流遊民研究的問題意識，而權益與義務則是主流遊民研究解決「遊民問題」的路徑。這個路徑暗示遊民受到社會排斥的處境；不過，自主遊民是對社會吸納的否定。社會吸納同時意味複雜的社會關係以及對於集體性的強調，相反地，自主遊民強調簡單的社會關係以及對差異的包容。因為國家建立在集體複雜關係的再生產，自主遊民對於簡單關係的追求毫無疑問地挑戰國家的延續。自主遊民對於國家的挑戰突顯自主遊民的生產在於解構共同體。最後，自主遊民對於社會吸納的否定也就是對主流集體認同政治的反詰。 The controversy of homeless by choice centers upon the question of the political. Debates on this issue are divided as individual problem and societal problem, both of which problematize the excluded status of the homeless. Be it “homeless rights” in Taiwan or “government responsibility” in the US, the remedies that dominant homeless studies come up with incline to integrate the homeless into the collective. Nevertheless, homelessness by choice is a reversal of social inclusion, a reversal initiated by an interrogation of the sociological bond and the land bond. In contrast with the sociological bond and the land bond, which harbors complicated relations, the ethical bond on the street promises the establishment of simple relations. The ethical bond of homeless by choice, on the other hand, poses threat to the State as the latter is composed of the land bond and the sociological bond. The ethical bond of homeless by choice, in the eyes of Henri Lefebvre and Jean-Luc Nancy, is an effort to produce differential space/inoperative community that will lead to the end of the State. The ethical bond of homeless by choice challenges the dominant idea that the political is the power relation between the collectives.