You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What comes first? Open borders vs. ending the welfare state
But without government, there will be lawless chaos!!
Wait are you just putting words into my mouth or did you reply to the wrong person? :D
Haha those are not your words!! Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant is that a lot of people say that ;-)
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 :)