[jackbob]

If you are speaking about a government election, absolutely not. Libertarians would oppose it to no end. If you are talking about a private election, held under rules unanimously accepted going in, then libertarians could object, but they would be obligated, as they contracted into such a covenants start with.

[robertpaulsen]

You're losing me.

Government election? Private election? Covenants? I'm talking about a state within the United States. Hello?

Someone circulates a petition ... starts a referendum. An issue then appears on the ballot, "Shall gambling be allowed in our state (community)?" A majority vote no.

Man, you can't get more bottom up than that. You can't get any more democratic and legitimate and voluntary than that.

But no good huh? Not unless each and every resident approves, I guess is what you're trying to say. Then it's OK, right?

Now, how do you propose to get everyone to approve? You going to break them up into little enclaves? So we've got gamblers here, non-gamblers there. Drug users here, non-drug users there. Prostitutes here. No prostitutes there.

Uh-oh. Where do we put the gambling prostitutes that don't want drugs around? Hmmmm. Separate enclave, I guess, huh?

And the non-gambling, drug-using prostitute? Yet another enclave.

You're a pretty funny guy.