You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What comes first? Open borders vs. ending the welfare state
I actually understood it that way at first, but then I was like wait, maybe he is just talking about something very similar with another person and got us mixed up :D.
Free Private Cities sounds a little like "owned by a private person" but apart from that (leftist) biased association it is pretty much exactly what I am advocating for. In a city or district your voice actually matters, so this should be the main decision making entity or maybe even a little smaller, but cities are a very good start, imo.
I agree that decentralization is a very good way to move power back to the individual, but I also think that individual rights aren't subject to a public vote of some sort. Living in a (small) society is very often necessary, but that doesn't mean that people have to listen to decision makers if they haven't agreed to do so.
Private cities will turn off a lot of people because of the name, but it's nothing more than a person owning a big plot of land and letting people inhabit it according to his/her rule. It's that person's property after all.
Wait... then i am actually completely against it. Cities are century old mammuths that nobody should own.
That's one way to look at it, and I would much rather see that everyone owns his house etc. themselves. But then again, a person should have the possibility to do with his property whatever he wants, so you can't really withhold someone from creating a city on his own plot of land. It wouldn't look like much, but hey, that shouldn't matter :)