Comment: Comment

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: In my own words? (see in situ)


While we are relatively close to being on the same page, it occurs to me that the following (contrarian) comment might be helpful for you. I believe you have presented the same point of view elsewhere, and I was considering looking that up to comment there, but I'll do it here.

The problem with the notion of "walking with your feet" from state to state, or local government to local government is the importance of "connection to land."

The fertility of soil can be mined or it can be improved. This is actually really important to civilization. As a consequence those who are good stewards of the soil are important, and it is important for them to stay in the same place and be connected to the land which they nurture.

If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use. Of course, if you can only see the life of some kind of "itinerate corporate vandal" (terminology due to Wendell Berry), then you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model. I think that if you realize the importance of connection to land for the long term viability of society, then there is only one option left, in the sense that the majority of a local population (large enough to be self-sufficient and defensible) accepts the nonaggression principle. The exact details of that acceptance---and what else is necessary to defend the resulting community in a hostile environment---comprise the crucial things that need to be determined. Without this minimum, I don't think you have civilization---at least by my definition.