I think such privatized state should be small and still be subject to laws of higher state. At least, in the beginning it should be very regulated.
So the local governments cannot, for example, raise tax arbitrarily without giving those who don't like it a time to get the hell out. Otherwise they will lost protection from the big government.
Well, to be honest with you. Ancap is like extreme libertarians. I am far more centrist than most libertarians. As you see, I don't even know the name of my ideology.
I like EIC and VOC because of it's success. I want something far more benign.
In fact, I can see some benefit of conservatism. Why change too many laws? Libertarians want a very different society where government is minimal. No. Keep most of the laws.
Just "experiment" with the broken one. Legalize weed, for example is a step. Another may decide that sugar relationship is better than marriage.
And the libtard? Redistribution of wealth is not totally false. Just don't keep breeding welfare parasites. Citizens that vote for better governments, like Americans and Singaporean deserve higher standard of living than citizens in Afganistan.
Most libertarians think in terms of right and wrong. What for? You think tax is wrong. Then what? Wrong according to you, right according to many.
Humans are profit seeking anyway. We can tell all of our logic of morality, at the end, we think something is right because we're profited by it. It's just real politic.
If libertarianism is so practical, why there is no libertarian countries in the world?
May be it isn't practical or ideal. May be there are roles for governments. May be governments should build road. May be it shouldn't. May be some wants to ban pork and have loud prayer calling. May be more disagree. Why do we have to ensure that all places governed the same way?
Let each method tried, and see which one works. It's already done. Most countries do it differently. US Federal government is almost like what I want. Different states have different rules. It's working. The globe is good enough.
The question is what counts as "works". I just think that the market mechanism that works so well on normal relationship, will works well too in government.
Under current system, where is your right to smoke weed? You said you have right? You said the rest are wrong. Okay fine. Where is your right?
If states compete with one another, you will have that right. Why? Because if one state prohibits it, you move to another state. Is that a good idea to legalize weed? Let some cities experiment and see if they get more tax revenue and be more prosper than cities that don't.
What about if some cities experiment legalizing weed, xtc, and then the experiment went well? What about if by legalizing weed, the cities have more money to capture and jail real criminals like thieves burglars and robbers? What about if people are safe on those cities?
Then many would want to live in such cities. Just like many would want to live in western world right?
I think whoever make decisions to legalize weed need to be rewarded, if and only if, the decisions really works.
On the other hand, if it fails, whoever make that bad decisions should suffer. That's why I think cities need "owners". I don't think they should suffer death or anything. Well, voters do die under democracy. Just look at venezuella.
However, if a city decides to ban pork, for example, or have laws against blasphemies, or practice too much socialism. The one that should suffer are those making decisions for those cities, namely the owners. Not just the voters that can just move somewhere else.
Notice decisions that's good for certain tax payers may not be god for another. Banning Pork is awesome in a region where most tax payers are muslims. Banning mosque is fine in a region filled with islamophobe. Insisting that those who want to ban pork and those who want to ban mosque and draw Muhammad cartoon to live side by side is insane.
