We are more libertarian now than our ancestors. We're fine now. Why? Because there are 194 states competing with one another. As long as governments "COMPETE" then it won't get big. States will be like ice cream shops. Sure, ,each shop can raise price and set terms as they wish. But because they compete, then most ice cream shops, most shops, will just sell ice cream at "reasonable" price and move on. In fact, my idea of ideal world, is no longer libertarian. Not everyone wants to be free. Some wants certain flavor, some wants religious people, some wants to hang out with those of the same race. Just like every noodle shops have different secret sauce, why not let every states provide different flavor of government. There are limitations of course. I don't know what. But should be something natural. Noodle shops cannot scam customers, cannot attack other shops. Usually this is done by government prohibiting it. However, is it? Noodle shops that scam customers will be avoided. You can only scam people once on free market. Noodle shops that attack other shops will be obliterated. The same with states. Even though technically every state is sovereign and can simply decide to attack other states, most don't. Let governments do what they wanna do, but make sure they don't wage war against one another. Move to states you like. States can be like cinema. Are cinemas libertarian? No. You can't brought pop corn to cinema. It's his cinema. He decides you can't bring pop corn. So? By doing so, cinemas can charge less for movies. The same way, so what if some states have sales tax, tariff, or land taxes. I kind of hate income tax but so what if they have? It's what makes those states exist for the time being. Without any sort of taxes the states will collapse. Next time evil terrorists want to loot your house, who you gonna call? Most libertarians think that states should completely decriminalize all drugs. What about if some states choose to tax those drugs instead and prohibit the really dangerous one like flaka? Good enough for me. Most libertarians hate welfare. What about if some states pay people to stop producing kids? Good enough for me. There could be one "perfect" solution for some problems. However, many other reasonable solutions are fine too. Yes. There is a lot of problem with that. But I think that will be solvable. Have this been tried? Perfectly no. There are things that are close enough. Sample case: Western Europe culture. The most advance culture in the world for the last 500 years. Why are they so advanced? The chinese emperor can ban all foreign trade just like that. In western europe, they got tons of mini states. When colombus is rejected by one, it got money from the other. Notice. Not only this is a relatively libertarian measure compared to China, it's even better. The travel to find a new world produces more money than the research cost. That is not solved by market mechanism. Yet a king can say, okay, I fund it. And for quite a while, europeans are the richest most powerful nations in the world. Sample 2: United States. Ever wonder why the country is called united states? The federal government prohibits ganja. Yet, California legalize it. People can just move to California. Now there is a problem with this arrangement. Imagine if a state is better governed. Then people will simply move from another state to that state. That means taking resources away from the advance state. This lead to another sample Sample 3: Our whole globes. Our whole globes are getting more and more libertarians. Recently Donald Trump lower highest corporate tax rates. Big businesses are more powerful than typical governments. That means with no or very little force or fraud, people can build big businesses and now in power. Once you are in power, why should you complain about anything? You want something just get it. That's what in power mean. There are 194 competing states. Just move to where you like. What about if some states are well governed and too many wants to come in? Reasonable reaction. Imagine you have a very successful companies. Imagine if many wants to own the stocks too. Of course you said no. That is why most western countries have large number of people don't like immigrants. Surely we can have some sort of a deal for this. For example, a country with too many immigrants wanting to come in can charge money for people wanting to come in. Oh they did. We call that visa. Most countries are doing it well actually. You can enter any country with cheap visa as tourists. You wanna work? That's more involved. So not too bad. I want something more libertarian, but we're not there yet. The world, currently is, is fine enough. Immediate improvements? Why not start with something I can do my self. Be a digital nomad. Any place I should move around? Anything else I can suggest to the world? Hmmm... I think states should have owners like stocks. That way all citizens can know whether their states valuation go up or down. Currently I think citizenships are like owners of those states. However, it is given freely to anyone born on the right spot. So welfare parasites that breed 1000 kids got 1000 citizenships. The problem in most western civilization is not welfare. The problem is a never ending exponential growth of welfare given to people that do absolutely nothing positive for the state except being born at the right place. I think citizens in most states should see this is not a good idea. Say immigrants from Mexico is cheaper than American working in US. I think those mexican should be hired to further maxed out profit for businesses. If American citizens do not like that, they should strike a deal. May be they get free cash from visa or something. If something can be done cheaper it should be done more cheaply. Dubai is doing it well. What else? Another way is more autonomy for provinces all over the world. Moving between countries are too difficult. Moving between provinces are too easy. I think each countries should be split in a way that allow the provinces to say, disallow certain incompatible groups from coming in. I am secular. I want to move to secular provinces. My fellow citizens are religious. They may want to move to religious provinces. Each provinces should be able to say, okay, those too different from me can't come in. A more natural way to do it is to arrange that residency have valuation. So only those who are willing to pay the price of residency can live there. It worth the money for a secular person to buy secular residency. It doesn't worth the money for a religious loving people to go to a secular provinces. So no longer citizenship in a certain region have to bend over backward for immigrants or refugees. You wanna come? You pay. And if that guy is willing to pay, you can bet he likes your value so much that he is willing to pay for it. Europe is secular. If europe charge money for anyone wanting to stay, the only people coming to europe are those that like secularism. The europeans will no longer have to kow tow to syariah demand for example. But refugees do not have money. How do you charge that? Ah, this is where things get better. If a state is fucked up like Syria, and we sort of see that it's no other states' fault. Residency and citizenship on that state will have low value. The more successful state can just buy citizenship and residency to that state. We can say to Assad, you messed up. You know, province ABC in Syria is war torn. Tell you what, you sell or rent that province to us, and we'll turn that into Chinese colony. The Chinese, or the Europeans, that will surely know how to keep peace will pay syrian people in the region, takes control of a province, and live well. Wait 100 years, and we'll see if those syrian provinces want to rejoin or not. May be yes, may be no, but eventually it won't matter any more.