You’re misreading the axes.

There are different kinds of ancaps. Objectivists are also in that category.

Not altruistic in terms of trying to benefit everyone; altruistic in terms of expecting people to unselfishly serve the nation.

They expect individuals to sacrifice their self-interest for the nation, and expect leaders to voluntarily do what is in the interest of the nation.

Maybe, what are you referring to?

Well, I was deliberate to not say “if we got rid of the private holders of capital.” Capital being successfully democratically controlled is key. I’m definitely with you on there being countless other bad options.

Maybe you’d like this piece by the same artist https://slrpnk.net/post/34365210

I totally agree, but the gardens depicted strike me more as ornamental.

That stuff has less of an effect of power is distributed.

They would be light, but have a high mass, so not as jerky as a balloon.

I get that there are a lot of theoretical problems with flying cars, and current technology is sufficient for improving society if we just make different choices. I’ve seen Adam Something video, I just think we shouldn’t stop dreaming about something that has inspired utopian visions for generations. It can be easy to grow sour on the entire idea of innovation after people like elongated muskrat use it to hype up their stock prices and fail to deliver. But innovation can be great, and better futures start by daydreaming.

No way, it keeps itself on the air with 0 energy expenditure, then moves with minimal resistance. Much more efficient than a land vehicle.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4117/2/4/30

I don’t know the jargon version is funnier to me.

Trains are great, but some level of personal transport will always be necessary at least supplementarily (e.g. bikes, scooters). And we don’t know how much natural resources would be used by flying vehicle construction, maybe there is a decent way to do it.

What if they are silent, lifted with vacuum levitation?

Acknowledging that a revolution can improve society even if it isn’t flawless is one thing; actively promoting those “flaws” is another. I do believe that the humanity would ideally be acknowledged in the oppressors. Moreover, the benefits of free speech are greater to society than the individual.

Out of curiosity, what do you think OP got wrong?

The benefits to society of free speech are really only realized if people who have incorrect/offensive/unpopular perspectives on important issues are able to express them without severe enough consequences that they choose not to out of fear. That could include community reaction, depending on what it is.