Great article. One of the things that many people have an aversion to when it comes to this kind of thing is the "socialist" aspect of it. We all agree that it'

Great article. One of the things that many people have an aversion to when it comes to this kind of thing is the "socialist" aspect of it. We all agree that it's great, but is it for everybody? I totally see where libertarians come from. They want A LOT of freedom. But why can't we have it both ways? One of the reasons socialism is hard to maintain is because of how spread out things can be, I think we can all agree that with socialism you inevitably have to force people to do certain things so that society can work (for example, live in a certain place), and this is much easier to do in a small location, but what's stopping us from having two sets of laws governing two areas of land? You can fit everyone in the US into an area the size of Jacksonville Fl., so why not just establish "tech-metros" which are open to anyone and provide basic necessities in a socialized fashion, and use automation and digitalization to provide goods and services, while designating certain swaths of land out side these places as under a different set of laws that are more libertarian in nature? I believe ~60% of people would flock to the "tech-metros" while the remaining portion would attempt life in a more privatized fashion out side of them. With a more centralized "sub-government" in charge of these small areas, and with it being easy to come and go as you please, it should be easier to take care of the masses that want to be taken care of and let the masses who don't want to be taken care of take care of themselves. Now that's just a couple paragraphs on a very radical idea, so there are a lot of details being left out, but imho this idea provides the most happiness along with the least destruction.