I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I actually had an email exchange with Kenneth, and he didn't seem anti-social in the least. I don't know if he likes Rand or not.

>>"Wikileaks has made a forward assault on the governments of the world, and as of yet seems immune to their prosecutions" paranoia and violence cling to this sentence, government must be assaulted.

I didn't read it that way. I think that he is saying that technology is building people-power. In the decade of the Patriot Act, I don't think it's paranoid to say that the government needs to be challenged on the information front. But I do have some canned goods in my basement. :)

I need to read up on Charter Cities. From your description, they sound like company towns. That didn't work well.

I'm not much for Libertarianism. Not because I don't think that it doesn't make theoretical sense, I do. But, I don't like it because it is too fragile. Any social-economic policy that doesn’t work unless practiced in a near-pure form is a non-starter with me. Or a system that assumes the masses will become better at something than they currently are. People will game any system, and people will seek to destroy any system. A system based on profit-motive is very easy to game. I think that’s why some libertarian-leaning folk have a disdain for the masses. They are an obvious stumbling block, as they don’t act libertarian very well on their own. As a result, it’s easy to characterize the masses as lazy, unproductive, and unrealized.

All that aside, I think Kenneth is getting at something just a bit different. I think that he is talking about a fundamental shift in the playing field, wherein some libertarian ideals are less fragile. Good or bad, I think I agree with him, -as to that’s where I think we are headed.

>The idea that government is bad and whatever opinion "I" hold is good seems pretty pervasive now a days.

I think this is more or less true. However, I think ‘isms’ are getting tired too. Better data analysis is allowing us to see what works and what doesn’t far better than we could just 20 years ago. Some governments will become data-driven, and they may rule the next century. Those that chase philosophies based on a non-technological history will stumble.

Yet, I think the real danger for the have-nots is not so much what type of government they have, but whether or not they will have one that has any power. There is a class of global elite growing that doesn’t have strong national bonds. I see the first non-geographic nation forming in the next couple of decades.