I think what a lot of people don't realize is that most of the things that government does for us right now can and would be handled through property rights and

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that most of the things that government does for us right now can and would be handled through property rights and voluntary contracts if government were limited to a minimal role. For example, a group of property owners could agree to a contract that controls whats on sale at stores in their collection of properties, decide what channels are available on its cable tv system, ban smoking of tobacco and even combine their bargaining power to get better deals on credit cards, lawn mowing, etc. I think we'd certainly see such systems evolve if government restricted itself to just enforcing property rights and contracts. There is nothing about this that conflicts with property rights, as long as people can enter and leave these contracts and the terms cannot be changed arbitrarily. A lot of these things are impossible for government to do without stepping on the rights and preferences of large portions of the population. It tries and fails at many of them. It actually regulates very badly compared to standards that For example, we still don't have smoke free communities. I doubt it will ever be mandated. But its been possible in private property forever. And smoke free communities can coexist with communities that allow smoking (except for whoever's downwind). These neighborhoods would attract people who value the overall quality of life who may even disagree with some parts of the contract, but are willing to tolerate the rules to get the safety and health benefits or just to live with people like themselves. And there'd be others who'd prefer not to be involved with any such arrangements.