I am a “pro-corporate libertarian”, I can see why a lot of people wouldn’t like this sort of thing, but my response is “If you don’t like it, don’t move there.” They’re not proposing to turn existing cities into these.
It seems quite possible that the Network Staters want to build them in our national parks.
That’s possible in the sense that it isn’t forbidden by the laws of physics, but it’s quite a stretch. The federal government owns over a quarter of all the land in the USA - 650 million acres. National parks cover less than one seventh of that land. There’s plenty of space to build charter cities without having to use the most unpopular possible places to put them.
I am a “pro-corporate libertarian”, I can see why a lot of people wouldn’t like this sort of thing, but my response is “If you don’t like it, don’t move there.” They’re not proposing to turn existing cities into these.
That’s possible in the sense that it isn’t forbidden by the laws of physics, but it’s quite a stretch. The federal government owns over a quarter of all the land in the USA - 650 million acres. National parks cover less than one seventh of that land. There’s plenty of space to build charter cities without having to use the most unpopular possible places to put them.
Sure ignore all the environmental issues arise from these cities when normal cities cant even keep conpanies in check with their dump.
So building these cities close to any national parks is as stupid as your attempt at justifying the push