What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out such areas.
Although I generally agree with you, it's really hard to make the case that it's not all-or-nothing for him when he literally says
> we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t
Although I generally agree with you, it's really hard to make the case that it's not all-or-nothing for him when he literally says
> we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t