Is total laissez-faire at all desirable?
Experimenting with various forms of government is what got you to where you are today.
Should we continue? Or is the system of government we have (wherever we are) the most perfect we could ever hope for?
There's no reason to think mankind must always get worse. From time to time he'll get better. "laissez-faire", in this context, is non-sensical, ie, there is no government to allow anything. The concept is beyond that.
Personally, I think some form of representative republic with three branches of government with checks and balances is the right way to go. But even in the U.S., we have virtually a permanent legislative branch by gerrymandering, an executive that is split between only two political parties for over 140 years, and a court system that seems to misunderstand its own role. Is there a reboot button? A way to start over, with perhaps time-limits on laws, a constitutional balanced-budget amendment, (insert own ideas here)
New ideas, even ones which are scary dangerous, are not to be feared. No new ideas? That's what to be afraid of.
Why do you care if someone else picks that option?
> You'll get drug dealing. Maybe there'll be polygamous Mormons.
So what?
Even if you choose to live in one of those societies, you don't have to deal (or use) drugs or "marry different".
If your choices are actually superior, you'll prevail over those who made different ones. Why isn't that enough? And, if your choices are not actually better, why are you unwilling to let them prevail....
There might be indentured labour of course, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Maybe you think Social Security is a poor investment for 14% of your income, maybe you think your local school should offer more courses in area X. Too bad. If you don't have a 51% majority, a person willing to run as a political candidate that agrees with you, two years to campaign, and millions to billions of dollars, you won't get your choice.
However, in the market for retirement products you just call up your broker. In the market for schools, you just pick the one you like best (admittedly choice is a little lacking in the school market, due to a government near-monopoly and heavy regulation).
For, and by everyone (or nearly everyone), which does confer on it some amount of legitimacy. Still though, I agree that if people are able to go off and try new things, that's a good thing.
I really don't see why people think they have some "input" in democratic decisions, other than decades of conditioning in schools run by a democratic government. Try submitting a story and getting it to the front page of Digg. You have approximately zero chance. Your influence over public policy is much, much smaller.
Once you realize that there are more than two choices for any given policy decision, in fact there are almost as many choices as there are people, then you realize how incredibly farcical your "democratic voice" is.
And yeah, if you don't like laissez-faire, you don't have to join a seastead that practices it. That's the whole point -- choosing your system of government.
Lots of situations can be interpreted as slavery, and a lot of the creative interpretations are likely to revolve around children.
The quoted comment shorn of conversational context wasn't all that illuminating, so I expanded on it here: http://syncretin.livejournal.com/73427.html
The result of one of their brain storming sessions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9742300@N06/2946735005/