Candyland

>>66913451
Probably the same with less roads

>>66914853
this

>>66913451
1940 disney cartoon

that's what

>>66913451

An invisible hand would create flying cars to deal with the total lack of roads.

>>66913451
Sort of like EVE Online

>>66914853
So you're telling me that in a libertarian society commoners and rich people won't agree to build a road together as a mutual common interest?????


Also to answer OPs question, it would probably be like the old wild west.

>>66915315
EVE has governments and spess police

The same with more drugs, guns, prostitution etc.

>>66915562
In short, yes they would build roads. There just wouldn't be the Federal High Way system as we know it and all roads and cities that are built around it wouldn't exist as allocation of resources would go else where. So, I think there would be less roads.

But in what you describe it's already occurred in our history. For example, 19th century Chicago had wealthy business leaders meet as city commissioners and organizers to fund projects, build infrastructure, cleaning river ways, and other issues that would be mutually beneficial. They didn't need the law to do so as they were in the realm of their collective properties. The issue people have with this system (and was an issue) is that they fear they'll receive low pay, hazardous work, or be exploited in some other way and so frequently they held strikes that turned violent. Anyway, the point is if you suddenly make roads the people's or business' problem, I'm sure they'll deal with it.

If we want a libertarian society, we're going to have to emphasize the importance of the law to protect people, their property and their voluntary economic and social activities, even if it is minimal.

>>66913451
Fuck off with your utopia bullshit. There will never be any kind of utopia because human beings are flawed.

>>66913451
Some dude already wrote a book about it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7zCELvE-tCc

>>66917146
Yeah but who will enforce the law when the the govt is so small?

>>66918649
Small in role =/= weak in ability

This shouldn't have to be explained

Who here /conflicting views/?

I'm like 70% libertarian 30% fascist
There are just some things not even freedom can solve

>>66918649
You'll probably have to read into that philosophy, I don't really know the full details.

Mises group might say a private police could offer private protection and they compete with other security companies, large businesses or groups of people could unite funding for mutual police to protect them (Like in the Chicago example). An issue is that police could turn into essentially gangs that war between one another. Mises scholars argue that war is generally only capable through taxation or limitless borrowing and currency creation or manipulation that the government has the power of. So in comparison smaller scale groups of police be less likely to risk war and if they did the scale of loss of life would be smaller. But I don't know the full details, proponents would say that if that were true we would still need minimal policing backed by the state to defend or monitor against private police corruption.

>>66914853
>roads are so complex no private company could ever make one

>>66913451
Hobbes' state of nature?

>>66913451
City-states run by private security companies that are beautiful, secure and prosperous that you can only live in if you can hack it
Everywhere else is either farmland or utter shit and totally lawless

>>66919604
Same m8.

I would look into paleoconservatism. It has a lot of ideas and core philosophies that are appealing to both groups, such as a limited state, isolationism, traditionalism and opposition to multiculturalism.