Comment: these are fantastic points

(See in situ)

these are fantastic points

it does make me think that a separation would be the best answer, but how do i know if others would agree? i could see the possibility of someone not wanting to move even if there was a disagreement with the majority.

i have to believe that the people would discover new ways towards resolution if/when disputes occur. i can't speak in specifics, because i don't know the potential problem that would be faced. but, in an effort to maintain peace, there would probably be some sort of compromise that both parties could agree to. and i'm assuming both sides want to work towards peace. this process could be a possible bridge to a more co-habitable existence. on the other hand, i could also see a person not validating another's dispute, in which case, i wish i had a reasonable solution. i wouldn't know what to do. who has the final say in the matter is a valid concern. i have a hard time thinking anybody in the realm of libertarianism would have a difficult time resolving private property violations, if that were the case. but, what about those that aren't libertarians? again, separation might be best.

i realize that the pregnancy scenario is factual. plenty of men aren't paying now with a huge bureaucracy in place to compel them to do so. this is where personal responsibility comes in. there's not much i can say in terms of resolution, except a person should know who they're sleeping with. i understand people lie, and that's unfortunate. there are no guarantees.

i would argue that the naked man is not initiating violence. he is however forcing others to see him naked. seems a small problem. although, i have a mind to think you're sugar-coating a bigger concern.

what's wrong with toll roads? if a group wants to volunteer taxes towards public areas, why couldn't they receive a stamp or sticker or something to show they pay that way for them? everybody else could pay as they go; through tolls for the roads, and a daily or hourly fee for the parks, etc., etc. either way, it won't be free, nor the increasing property values unearned, for the most part. i can see a person saying no to both. to which i say, there will always be freeloaders. i'm not sure how to fix it.

i agree there would be dissent between two, or more!, groups that don't see eye to eye on the rules. i think there are two outcomes to this: the groups can either separate, or they can compromise.

i feel like i need to read Localism to gain a better understanding of the general idea. i feel rothbard had the best solution to national defense. pretty much it's in the hands of private citizens, with guns, bombs, rockets, what have you. i know you disagree. and that's ok.

there's a part of me that thinks all the scenarios you've presented are sugar-coated. because i know you know not only liberty minded people will be here after a collapse. but, maybe it's the best way to state your case. which is wonderfully strong!