I've mentioned before that 'shared space' schemes are one of the best illustrations of libertarianism in action, but moving pictures speak louder than words.
Two aspects of this are very significant.
Firstly, it's quite clear that, whenever tested, projects such as Portishead's are not just mildly successful, they are almost faultlessly so.
Secondly, prior to their implementation, most don't believe it possible.
The former is proof that humans are very capable of interacting with each other with courtesy, the problems occur when a hierarchy - and with it, a superiority - is prescribed by a third party. The latter shows how deeply ingrained the figment of the state (and its delegated local administrators) as sole arbiters of our safety has now become.
Libertarians believe that people are innately social, that they can interact harmoniously with minimal authority. Statists believe that no-one can be trusted to wipe their own nose without someone being paid to instruct them. Libertarians like people, statists fundamentally distrust them.
'Shared space' schemes not only suggest that libertarians have a valid point, they also show that by taking the same line in other areas, society and behaviour may well be improved for the better. Which is a 'good thing', surely.
Or we could just carry on encouraging people to be selfish 'entitled' bastards at the state's behest, I suppose.
No, actually, I don't suppose that at all. Freedom works, we should aspire to more of it.
