Great to see that you've introduced subscriptions.

It'd be great if users could tweak their subscriptions to just 'posts only' notifications.

Howdy folks!
I'll have a good beer, or at least a single malt, please

I've wondered something similar to this for a long time. I never hear it discussed that what was a sensible system at time X is not necessarily sensible at time X+100. For instance, in an era where there was a frontier, and property claims loose or nonexistant [1], certain political economies were sensible in a way that they are not when there is no frontier.

One solution to this is to try to retrofit something, which is what your answer seems to do. Another solution would be to say: these axioms don't make sense in the world now, where there is no practical place to "exit" to. There's no practical opting out of modern ideas of governance; if you don't believe in whatever system of social organization is on offer, there's no higher-entropy state to retreat to. If you head into the wilderness, it's somebody's wilderness.

The answer you offer seems, to me, to duck the question. Temporary easement leaves the fundamental problem unresolved. I don't think libertarianism can solve it.

[1] e.g., in the USA, Native Americans seemed to not have the same idea of land ownership as the European settlers did; and even when entire continents could be 'claimed' for a sovereign, the power of the claimant was hard to exercise.