Freedom is the absence of monopoly
Arnold Kling defines freedom as “absence of monopoly” saying that what matters MOST is a right to exit, touching on the possibilities of charter cities — (the danger here is the everpresent danger of White-Flight, which is the Privileged [who didn’t get that way by accident] cashing out before the game is over).
Kling argues that people would & could prefer a right to exit than a right to vote. Maybe (and yes, no country should force people to stay, only to abide by certain rules if they do decide to stay –)
But what about people who can’t exit, who are stuck where they are? (Kling might argue that those people should have the right to *exit* in place)
So what about the *right to exit in place*? Nozick talks about this ASU. Well, to a certain extent this is possible in America to a point. What’s required is that it happen in an area not already controlled by a local government — and in America, there’s plenty of those places. Why not allow it within the boundaries of continguous communities? Maybe because the Rights of your Neighbors not to live in a Gerrymandered Balkinized Community where everyone pays what they will is an effective Veto on your right to opt out of the rules of the local area. And that if you want to opt-out, you either need to get your neighbors to agree or go somewhere where there are no neighbords.
To some things, our neighbors are so geographically disparate that everywhere within the sovereign borders is a neighbor, and there can be no opt-outs, only votes. However, Kling, and Nozick is right that a Maximization of Freedom should be careful about how many rules the Federal Government requires >> thereby promoting, within reason, the laboratory of federalism.
However, given that there are large number of people who can’t leave, because of economic reasons, there should be some binding rules that cannot be exited from. Otherwise, there might be strong incentives to spoil and move on.