Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
That is the nature of the human experience, but some failures have a bigger impact than others, and some with respect to more people. For example, for a commune of 20 or even 200 people fails, the impact is far less than if police, fire, health services, garbage, highway construction and repair, etc. all were allowed to fail in the major metro areas.

As I wrote earlier, the shift to a libertarian-oriented system would have to be gradual and in increments. The system you have supported has done way too much damage to suddenly switch to a libertarian system. We are, of course, assuming that the damage done can even be undone.

Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
It always seems cavalier to me to take away from the people the right to impact the venue they share, whether it is a township or a nation, by the exercise of the right of the community to take some of the spoils of all that freedom from those who have gained most from it; take for the purpose of common defense, both against armies, nations or rogue elements and against failures of other kinds, such as the health, economic policies to best enhance the chance for all to prosper.

Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Well I do not want to give specific instances of what I consider to be appropriate "takings", because that would divert this thread into a discussion of those suggestions, and I am not interested in this thread going in that direction.
Well then, you will need to explain what you are tip-toeing around in a way that I can understand, Phil.

Now if you want to discuss specifically about the failure or non-failure of one or more cities, I would ask that it be done on a different thread.
It was you, not me that injected failing cities into the thread, Phil.;-)

"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos