Sorry it loaded from the start for me, not sure why.

I messed up the link! It's fixed now. Man, you must have been really confused because the scene is almost two minutes in.

On the question being asked you could be right. It seems what enables someone to bulldoze my house is involuntary force against me.

Exactly, so we see that this isn't really a question of economic systems, but rather of political systems.

I think that the decision to bulldoze your house to make way for a new road should be made democratically by means of a consensus vote involving all of the stakeholders in the decision.

This is the most strict form of democracy there is, where a decision is only made when consensus is reached. Consensus being a state in which all parties are in complete agreement with each other.

Let's imagine a libertarian-socialist society called Cascadia. It encompasses the entire Cascadian Bioregion (essentially Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia) and has no singular state. Instead there exists a multitude of authoritarian institution chartered to operate within Cascadia.

You live in Cascadia in a rural area outside of any chartered town or city. Basically you live in my house.

The relevant institution for this conversation would be the Cascadian Transportation Authority (CTA). The CTA's charter defines its magisterium as the construction and maintenance of roads and related infrastructure, as well as enforcement of traffic laws outside the city limits of the three major cities (Seattle, Portland and Vancouver) and some of the larger small cities. The CTA combines the traditional duties of a Department of Transportation and a Highway Patrol.

The CTA would be one stakeholder in this decision.

Someone is also obviously agitating for this road. Lets say its the town of Acme. Acme is growing and wants a new bypass built to ease traffic flow into the town. The town of Acme would be a stakeholder.