No thanks. I've seen what Libertarian doctrine effects in practice.
Like in Houston, with extreme inequality between different zip codes, environmental protection regulation rollbacks that caused black people to get sick, etc
Discussion
Houston libertarians? 😂 don't make me laugh.
It's an oxymoron to talk about state and libertarianism.
You're confusing mercantilism with libertarianism.
I recommend having an open mind. There are many ways to write the same program. No one says that you must accept sickness and poor quality building codes, a chaotic or ugly city, waste on the streets, etc.
I think the core argument bein made by #[3] is just that we don't need to involve a violent monopoly to have the same services and rules that we all would agree to. Just that it was done violently makes it illegitimate.
It matters how it's done. Do it the right way. The hard way. Allow people liberty and work to build systems that benefit all.
Incentives, not force.
I totally agree with you.
Sometimes rules need to be enforced. There are lots of people/corporations that would like to break zoning rules, and zoning rules really help foster calm and quiet residential areas. Houston is a complete mess.
Enforcement doesn't have to be violent and it doesn't have to be a monopoly. We each check the npub in our client. The client says, yep that npub who signed that message signed this profile saying this is who they are.
I think the most effective enforcement is nonviolent ostracization. Bitcoin does this with anyone that's mining an old fork. Ok, knock yourself out, but that's not my chain.
You see things like this, mostly, at the geopolitical level. Each agent being a sovereign and anarchistic entity. They don't use violence on each other. War costs too much to rely on violence at this level.
They threaten removal from trade arrangements, tariffs or refusal to associate to accept transactions over the boundaries. #[3] and I and other libertarians and anarchists, simply argue that this is how individuals should be treated. As sovereign. Each should be so costly to attack with violence that you must use legitimate voluntary association type responses to incentivize cooperation over conflict.
So if you decide to build a commercial establishment on your residential property, the reaction is what? It should not be allowed, and that residential zonig should be enforced.
It's not an "attack" if they shut down your new nightclub, bar, etc
I think you need to look honestly at yourself and ask, am I the asshole?
Who is harmed, by a property owner doing with their property as they wish? You don't have to go to this establishment.
This is called Not in my Backyard. NIMBYism. It's why affordable housing is difficult. People are permitted to build additional dwelling units which would provide plenty of affordable housing for everyone.
If what you're asking is in violation of the non-aggression principle or some violation of property rights and individual liberty, you should probably rethink things. You might be desiring the oppression of another and that is not compatible with true liberty.
*not "permitted to build"
A better example for good government is in the local grid. There's no violation of liberty, only cooperation. Everyone has to be on the same page regarding currents and appropriate treatment of waste.
Getting connected to these requires obeying some protocol and it's not a violation of rights to simply shut off someone, or reject new association, new connections.
Of course these could be used as carrots if these same institutions are also in charge of zoning, but I think zoning is a violation of liberty and allowing the power over this civic service to be used to violate an individuals liberty is going too far. That is an abuse of power, even if it is not violent.
TMIAHM is a fascinating idea to me: previous major changes/innovations in government structure and function have occurred from and within pioneering contexts, makes sense that a moon colony would be the same/next to innovate again