>

So I think you've maybe extracted some value judgment in my statement. Like, the claim I'm making is that -in the absence of government intervention or in an environment governed by the Non-Aggression Principle- cities would end up looking more like 15 Minute Cities than traditional American suburbs.
It's not that government intervention is incapable of producing 15 Minute Cities - it clearly does that all the time. Rather, it's that government intervention is necessary for low-density suburbs in ways that it isn't for 15 Minute Cities.
With little to no government interference, the border of my property ends where the border of your property begins. There is no allotment for roads or utilities.  It's every property owner for themself.  If people cross my property to get from one place to the next, there is nothing stopping me from building a giant wall.  Or building a path/road with a toll booth.  Or cutting your electric/cable/water lines.  It doesn't become easier to get around with no government interference; it becomes much much harder.  You get twisted mazes of narrow paths that are dangerous to travel down.  
For example, look to the various slums of the world:  these are places where many people are forced to live with essentially no government interference.  You don't end up with nice, easily traversable, clean streets with readily available amenities for all. >


With little to no government interference, the border of my property ends where the border of your property begins. There is no allotment for roads or utilities.

A property with  to way to access it is essentially worthless. It will be bought by a developer who will connect it to the roads.
Besides, that's not what u/DJJazzay is  arguing.  He's  right  though,  it  takes  a  ton  of  regulation  and  subsidies   to  make  suburbs    exists.  Without  those,  we's  revert  to  older  models  for  towns  and  cities,  that  predate  them. >

It takes a ton of regulation and subsidies for any  urban area to exist.  Cities need food. Food comes from farmers. Farmers live in more remote areas that still need roads, power, and other infrastructure that all needs to be organized, built, and regulated by governments.  
You can say the same thing about industrial factories that supply jobs and products to cities. Or large commercial distribution centers. Or power plants. Or wastewater treatment plants.  These all make cities what they are, and they have to be carefully zoned so they aren't in the same places that people are living.  It wouldn't be nice to live next to a polluting factory or power plant. People used to do it in Victorian times before cars, and it wasn't very safe, clean, or pleasant.    
So yes, subburbs are allowed to exist by specific zoning laws, and there are a lot of issues with that. It's not about different levels of government interference, but rather different types of government interference. Because again, a great deal of government interference is required regardless of whether or not suburbs exist. >


Food comes from farmers. Farmers live in more remote areas that still need roads, power, and other infrastructure that all needs to be organized, built, and regulated by governments.

This is absolutely not the case. Farming regions don't need to be subsidized, food would just become more expensive to pay for the higher infrastructure cost. >

It would have both! I agree that without single family zoning, several suburbs close to city center would instead be a walkable, mixed-use city.
But not everyone wants to live it such a place (which is obviously where the support for single family zoning comes from). There’s still going to be people who want their detached homes and yards and lower density living within driving distance of the city - they just won’t all be in the same location they are now. >

This raises a good point! I'm maybe a little ore skeptical of whether the desire to live in exclusively single-family neighbourhoods (like the traditional American suburb) would emerge in a vacuum. Like, these neighbourhoods didn't just emerge because of a clear market preference for single-family neighbourhoods, particularly in the United States, they were a byproduct of government subsidy and racial segregation. 
Single-family zoning, in my view, exists to protect a built form and cityscape that could not have emerged without that government intervention in the first place. Absent that  intervention, there's no sprawling, exclusively single-family, residential suburban neighbourhood to protect. 
You would have to start with a large enough group of people who desire to live in an exclusively single-family community that they are willing to live on the least valuable land to do so, right? Because any land with sufficient value would no longer be an exclusively low-density neighbourhood. 
Meanwhile, there is no government subsidy for the large highway networks necessary for them to commute into job centres and commercial areas. There is no subsidy for the much less efficient and more expensive infrastructure services. So they would be paying a lot more to live on less valuable land. 
I'm just not sure there would be a critical mass of people so desirous to live in exclusively single-family communities with no commercial integration that you could support that kind of development. >

But I really do think that demand is there. Look at polls like this. Now I readily admit there’s going to be a good number of people who wouldn’t want suburban life if it wasn’t subsidized, but even if this number is cut by 90% (which I think is a very high estimate), you still have 5% of the country wanting to live in a suburb. That’s 1 million people in the NYC metro area alone. I think this is more than enough demand for suburbs to continue to exist, but just to a lesser extent. >

If given the choice, most Americans would want to fly first class too. Once cost is factored, people change their preferences. >

I don't think there is a rule one way or the other. 
Private communities exist... and some are designed to be walkable (like Disney World Resorts), but many are not (see virtually any traditional suburban development). 
Similarly, government-regulated cities can be well designed for car-less living (New York, Paris) and others are not (LA). 
The libertarian model is a good logical argument, but in practice nobody actually supports it...because nobody actually wants the risk that a private recycling plant or a noisy tavern opening up next door to their home. And it's not just preferences, there are serious dangers too (see Houston and it's constant issues with flood management). The fact is, what you do on your land does affect other people. 
So the solution is probably not zero zoning. The solution is probably relaxed zoning that incentivizes public transport and a human-friendly design while also keeping industrial and living separated.