Who will give up the life of an urban(commons) social democracy for a rural (pri

Who will give up the life of an urban(commons) social democracy for a rural (private) anarchy? Who has that incentive? What will occur?

Are you saying manorialism (a market that is capable of being ruled by an individual who makes discretionary choice over the production of capital and institutional investments is best, as long as such an individual market produces sufficient returns to defend such a market.) (iow: a plantation or manor)

Are you saying a city state (a market that is capable of being run by a collection of individual owners of manors) who make discretionary choices over the production of commons? ( iow: a mall or market town).

Are you saying a monarchic territory containing at least one if not more urban(commons) markets, where manors (plantations) and oligarchies (corporations), are collectively defended and differences adjudicated by a judge/general of last resort? Where some commons are produced at the manor, city-market, or monarchic-territory level?

Are you saying an Empire containing many monarchic territories, that provide univorm laws between monarchies, resolve differences between monarchies, and provide defense of all monarchies, (or at least provide the best equipped and largest force) that prevents defectin of any monarchies to escape

As far as I know, these are only questions of scale of population, scale of productivity, scale of territory, and the discounted cost of pooling resources (Taxes) to pay for (a) consistent internal rules that allow the organization of patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, and (b) adjudication (including forcible) of conflicts between manors, city-markets, and regions; and (c) defense of all of the above – at a profound discount.

In general, life is cheaper the farther you get from the market. When you get to a borderland you can engage in ‘unpleasant’ activities in exchange for holding territory that no ‘better’ ruler can afford to or desires to administer. And by your occupying that territory in the name of that ‘better’ ruler, you are homesteading it on his behalf. And as such, others are denied access to that borderland without provoking your warfare, and thereby risking the loss of their territories as a consequence.

The best freedom of choice is available at the farthest distance from value. This is why people all compromise. Some borderland, some rural, some suburban, some urban ring (ghettos), and some urban core (Elites). Cities are plantations.

What is the difference between {empire, monarchy, city-state, manor, freeman, serf, slave, and barbarian}, AND {Federal government, state, urban city, rural town, middle class, working and laboring class, soldier and underclass?}

The difference is corporate decidability rather than private decidability. Yes. But that is only possible because the difference beneath that is discretionary rule (arbitrary law), not algorithmic rule (natural law).

When all men have universal standing in matters of the commons they cannot be ‘taxed’ for what they do not ‘use’. yet others who WANT to produce commons cannot be PREVENTED from producing them as long as they impose no cost on the investments of others.

However, no one can escape all costs.

Having failed to solve the problem of politics the libertarians threw the baby of the commons out with the bathwater of discretion.

Truth is only discovered through competition between the market and the law.