For example the Democrats provided structure in the form of slavery in the south pre civil war but that was found to be wrong of the government and on the repressive side of the continuum.
Some would argue the government is heading towards repression in modern times as well. The Democrats seem to be very pro-government still though and support government engineering of society.
I don't think anyone's arguing for anarchy though.
Are you one of those folks who insists that, because the Democrats supported enslavement 160 years ago, they're still to be regarded with suspicion? If so, do you also think that Republicans get a perpetual free pass, no matter what they do, because 160 years ago they were the party of abolition?
You made a vague claim that "society requires structure" to justify repressive housing rules.
I'm presenting another example of government rules: slavery...that your vague claim of "society needs structure" can be applied to. (like many Democrats back then supported)
My point is that your claim is vague, lazy, and incomplete because the concept of social structure can be applied to literally anything.
The Democrats are the party of big government. Whether that's repressive zoning and taxes or repressive slavery or repressive public health regulations... the Democrats are and always will be supportive of repressive big government policys.
The only thing that's changed is the way the Democrats express their support of oppression.
EDIT: I wasn't the one who posted the "Living in a society requires structure" comment.
And efficient small government will be a moonshot.
Its confusing how you can argue against monopolies but support the the biggest monopoly of all... the government.
ANY fair system is completely impossible just by the nature of human beings.
There is no world and no system which unfairness does not exist.
However, a free market at least doesnt put all the power and control into the hands of a singular monopolistic entity that can use violence as an option.
Yeah, I used to believe that, because it was such a neat theory and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged seemed so right. (I was a teenager.) Life has convinced me otherwise. There's a sweet spot (which probably moves over time), but free-market absolutists aren't being realistic, largely for the reasons mentioned by 'defrost in response to you.
(NY Times lead economics writer Binyamin Appelbaum got it right in his book The Economists' Hour when he said, of Milton Friedman, that Friedman celebrated drivers but took roads for granted.)
Anec-data
you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence.
A single monopolistic entity that can use violence to accomplish it's means is no way to run a country.
Wait, are you not the one making sweeping claims about small government and the free market?
I'd love to spend several days with you discussing what has caused me to evolve from pretty-conservative and -libertarian Republican in my younger days, to moderate liberal today. Unfortunately, I'm heads-down with, um, work, so I'll have to take a rain check.