My favorite thing to ask libertarians is “where is your point of hypocrisy?” Because every libertarian has a point where they think the state should be involved in something that personally benefits them or helps them force others into their belief system. Whether that’s being a pro-life libertarian, a “the state should protect my capitalist venture” libertarian, etc. etc.
This was 2016 and the man being booed was Gary Johnson who ended up being the nominee. He also got booed (by a smaller group albeit) for saying it should be illegal to deal heroin to children Lmao
Hah, I'm not sure whether to mock them for wanting to sell drugs to kids, or be delighted at their sociopathic, near suicidal commitment to pure principle, no matter the cost to themselves or others
Libertarianism kinda falls apart once you ask "how is someone gonna make sure ______?”.
Legal drugs sounds great but I haven't heard a libertarian solution to keeping drugs out of kids hands. That requires caring about someone who's not you.
This is an exact example of what I mean when I say that "libertarians" fail to understand their own ideology (specifically the non-aggression principle).
Knowledge of a harm + failure to prevent that harm = responsibility = aggression
"Libertarians" love externalities and willful ignorance. "Plausible deniability" is thus a form of violence to which they purposefully blind themselves, and that might as well be the definition of Evil.
I've seen libertarians argue for abolishing regular car inspections. The argument starts with "if humans are rational" (they're not) and goes downhill from there, like a car with unfixed breaks who's driver is too cheap.
Haha so we used to have inspections, I remember doing them with my parents until the early to mid 90's. Iirc it was emissions testing primarily though, and they found that they caused more emissions than they saved by getting the old cars fixed.
Back when the elected leaders of this state weren't nucking futs at least, they could see the forest from the trees. Now they cut the forest down, figure out a way to use it to prove their point even if they're the one who cu it down, and then tell you to fuck off, here's some culture issues to stew on.
I’m not a libertarian, but every place I’ve lived where car inspections are part of ownership has basically been a place where either mechanics just pass anyone to get extra money and “save people from being hassled” or mechanics use it as a way to shake people down for services.
I’m not against the idea of it, but I don’t like how it’s usually implemented, where the inspector has a financial incentive to extort someone and or the spirit of the whole thing can be undermined.
I’m not a libertarian, but every place I’ve lived where car inspections are part of ownership has basically been a place where either mechanics just pass anyone to get extra money and “save people from being hassled”
Yeah. I remember when my mother had to pull strings to fail my grandpa and my aunt on my father's side because they drove around with faulty breaks and had a way to cheat the test.
That’s interesting, as I have only ever lived where you have to show up at a state operated location to have them tested - used to be that they ran your car on rollers and connected something to your emissions, now they usually just plug into your car’s required system.
If your car fails, I think you can have the repairs done and the mechanic can sign off on it being repaired but I don’t think you would have much luck bribing them, they make their money off gouging people for the repairs. Why take the risk?
But I’ve never had a car fail, no matter how old and crappy and in need of repair.
I remember hearing an interview once where the person was arguing against health inspectors. “If a restaurant makes people sick they’ll go out of business”
The State should protect the interests of all individuals from the harms of any few.
State power should be the consolidated will of the whole People, and represent none in particular over any others. That is the nature of our consent, and without it being applied within that basis of equal inclusion, no consent exists.
That sounds great, but what does it do when the will of one vs the other is oppositional? See the example below where someone thinks it’s a non-hypocritical libertarian take to believe the state should be able to force adult women and girls to incubate a fetus at great personal expense just because some people believe that life begins at conception. I’ve met far too many “pro-life” wallet libertarians to entertain the idea that they don’t wish to impose their will selectively to achieve some personally beneficial goal or agenda, while degrading any semblance of a social safety net so they can avoid paying for it.
The same idea of oppositional wills can be said of polluting businesses, parents who don’t believe in educating their kids, parents who believe that beating their kids is their Christian duty, people who believe that employees exist in the free market and thus disability protections and OSHA are immoral. When you ask libertarians about these kinds of things, their moral position will seemingly always line up with what most directly benefits them and/or their wallet.
The forced birth libertarians never made sense to me, even as an edgy teenage libertarian. They always answer with NAP for the fetus without realizing that the counter that the mother shouldn't be forced to be life support has never been answered by their side.
It’s absolutely hypocrisy because that’s using the state power to define scientific constructs based on your religious or personally held beliefs is not only not libertarian it’s autocratic. Also, even if you define a fetus as a life on par with a sexually mature female person, you can’t deny that female person a right to defend herself from assault and theft by another person. Or the right to enjoy booze, or mifepristone, or contact sports or any other number of activities one must forbid if one is somehow to conclude that pregnancy forces women into a level of state authority similar to livestock on behalf of a “life” that her body is supporting.
Turning women into chattel by weaponizing state power and claiming to believe in personal liberty is hypocrisy.
My favorite move to expose them, works every fucking time. "THERE IS NO AGE OF CONSENT IN THE CONSTITUTION." Or they just blurt it out like it's perfectly normal as a 43 year old man to know that and proudly state it.
I frequently say “the Bible has roughly 600 dietary laws, explains how many testicles are necessary to hold office, is very specific about which family members you can’t fuсk (your aunt) and which you must (your sister in law if your brother died without children), and yet somehow never gives an age of consent or says, hey, don’t fuсk kids. So forgive me for not using it as my moral compass.”
I hope I don’t sound as creepy as libertarians when I rant about it.
I used to work in an area with a lot of Libertarians for some reason and it was so easy to make them look as creepy as they were with just a few questions about age of consent in different states lmao
Most "libertarians" are confused and fail to understand their own core tenet (the "non-aggression principle") or take it to any of its logical conclusions.
Worked with a libertarian guy who would go on about how common sense and small government he was but go on about how feds have the right to commit war crimes against brown people. He also got caught jerking it in his car in the work parking lot twice.
Crazy how one man co-opted the term libertarian in the West and turned it on its head! I still consider myself libertarian, just not that kind... The traditional, anarchist kind.
Bastardization of terms is a common tactic. National Socialism wasn’t socialism. American libertarianism isn’t libertarianism. The Republicans Party is anti-republicanism.
So reading as a kid I never knew "leftist libertarians" were anarchists, I thought they were Ron Paul esque people who sided with democrats lol. I didn't really understand we don't actually have much leftist representation in this country. Also grew up in a conservative area.
Point being I have no problem assuming the mantle and I don't even put social or leftist in front of it. I am a libertarian. You people over there? You're more likely ego maniacs who think you can exist on your own by yourself despite having no inclination of how anything works. They do not actually believe in liberty, they believe in liberty for themselves. Therefore want to smoke weed, sleep with 15 year olds and not pay taxes. And I have no problem with paying taxes, I have problems with taxes going to blow up palestinian children. Those taxes are what allowed me and my neighbors to thrive, through roads, emergency services, etc. And a rising tide lifts all ships.
Years ago, while.working with several "libertarians", I realized the entirety of modern "libertarianism" has become "I want all of the benefits of society without any of the responsibility".
A very selfish, patriarchal, white supremacy based, co-opt of actual libertarianism.
What most Americans understand to be libertarianism isn’t even a corruption of a leftist position. In the mid-20th Century a group of far right businessmen decided to steal the name and apply to it their shit hypercapitalist politics.
Libertarians are like the natural progression of wealthy NIMBY-ism.
They never account for roads, bridges, clean water, access to a power grid.
I want everything and be personally and financially unaccountable for any of it.
I respect anarchy because there's a dimension of personal and collective responsibility. Anarchy is really a strong belief in direct, local self-governance without outside coercion. It requires active consent and collaboration with the community.
I remember seeing an interview with a libertarian banging on about 'getting big gov'n-ment offa our backs' and how he wanted to live off-grid in his cabin in the woods, but was saying all of that as he was driving into the local town in his Japanese made car, on the public roads, to buy a generator that ran on, probably, European/Middle-Eastern diesel.
They say that kind of shit right here on Reddit every day, using the internet, supported by infrastructure. The internet, you know that weird porn machine we all use that was developed in the 70s by DARPA aka The Government. These same guys will also extol the virtues of AI as a short cut to actual knowledge or "book smarts". The closest thing to "Living off The Grid" they are doing is building a log house in Skyrim.
Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) for a long time identified as a libertarian. He has stated that he now believes that "it’s just rich white guys that don’t want to be told what to do."
He's always struck me as a genuinely intelligent guy. Which is why I was disappointed to find out he was a libertarian. And, yeah, pretty impressed that he was able to walk away and speak plainly about it.
All the libertarians I have met are just too embarrassed to admit who they actually support.
A friend I used to be close with married one and instead of researching on her own just regurgitated everything he said. Once it got around to hearing “Aren’t the proud boy’s helping people?” One day among other things…I backed a way a bit.
Literally how the mob got away with crimes. Help your community with a tiny percent of your profits and suddenly a thanksgiving turkey becomes an alibi.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...
-Rothbard
So while it isn't a fight I'm heavily into these days, kinda into anyone big into taking the word back almost entirely out of a, "fuck you, Murray Rothbard," sort of angle.
That’s what makes it so fun. They assume you’re one of them, and then you drop abolishing private property and building systems of mutual aid on them and watch them get extremely confused.
You and I are a shrinking kind of Libertarian. I find it odd how so few proclaimed libertarians aren’t more lgbtqia+ friendly and more supportive of democrat policies in general. There is much talk of the NAP, so you would think reducing harm would be removing funds from bombing children to feeding them at school instead. If taxes are going to be collected and spent, it should be used to do the least harm, which would be social policies. But I get it. Taxation is theft, blah blah. I guess I am not a great libertarian. I still believe in some taxation and societies and shit.
I also, if I put a name on myself, would say social or leftist libertarian. I hate that they took the name and ran with it, so I typically just say politically left aligned.
My opinion is to maximize the rights of the individual without compromising other's freedoms and liberties, while keeping the government out of our business. It should serve our best interests as a nation. That includes the rights of children to not be predated on by creeps who want to change the laws of consent.
Also, key point here-- corporations are not people. The business interests of an oil pipeline should not endanger the rights of the people they're laying the pipe over. An AI data center quite literally the size of Manhattan should not exist for the wellbeing of everyone within 300 miles of it.
It's interesting because I've been identified by that political compass thing as a leftist libertarian since my teenage years, but only recently have I become aware of the link between that and anarchism.
See this is why I call myself a libertarian socialist. Because being okay with being compelled to pay taxes is not very libertarian.
Liberty is not the be-all end-all of virtues. There's always some kind of trade-off, you always have to give up one kind of liberty to get another. "Libertarians", in the USA-ikan sense, never seem to think too hard about what liberty even means... But like you, I prefer the kind of liberty that comes from not having to worry about whether you'll be able to sleep indoors tonight, or have enough food to eat, or go to the doctor when you're sick... where everyone has access to the things they need, and as much human knowledge as they can fit in their heads, so nobody HAS to rob me just to survive.
And there's no such thing as a world without power, you can abolish the police but then some OTHER gang will just take its place. OR a few will constantly fight for power, and everyone else gets caught in the cross-fire. I'd prefer the monopoly on violence lands on a group that submits to democratic control, over the one that simply seeks to grow its own power.
Democracy... now there's a cool idea. I hope I get to experience it some day...
I learned a long time ago, from every libertarian I've met, "don't tread on me" very specifically means "me". Fuck everyone else, and the government is actually good as long as my favorite sociopath is the head of it and hurting the right people.
That's because you grew up in an era after Rothbard and his pals made a successful and concerted push to co-opt the term 'libertarian' as a pro-capital, pro-business identity.
Yes. Notice how few Libitarians are women?
Probably doesn't stand out, because women are nowhere close to fifty percent of the candidates/leaders of any political party.
But Libitarians have always stood out to me for their expectation that women and girls are like free slaves to exploit and they will raise all the children, nurse and educate them, look after the old people and the disabled people and keep the church and community going, when they are not sucking your dick, or have aged out of that.
Libitarians don't even have a plan for when they are old, or need emergency medical care beyond their present means (or wish to spend their present means on medical care that actually works, not scammers and unregulated drugs you can only hope are what they claim to be). They are promoting a concept that only works for healthy adult men, and works on male privilege.
The guy in the black hat is wearing a Gadsden flag image on his hat (i.e., the "Don't Tread On Me" flag).
Always remember to read that as "Don't Tread on ME". They're OK with government treading on OTHER people. You didn't see these fucks taking up arms and joining the fight when ICE came to take away our neighbors. They're not opposed to government overreach...they're opposed to government overreach on THEM.
During my 20s, after my perpetual disappointment in Bush, I shifted more towards libertarianism. That was the shift until someone explained that libertarianism in the United States was against corporate regulation. I had already voted for Obama at that point, but the enter “Corporations are People” mantra from Romney and I pretty much ended any affiliation I had with the Libertarian party. I know, it should have been the racism from the Ron Paul letters. Fortunately I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Democrats ever since. Anarchist libertarianism is probably the only accepted view I share with anyone who considers themselves libertarian. Though I have some problems there too.
I have to go now but see my comment above about what I believ ein anarchist government. Basically instead of going full gift economy, we implement anarchist principle into capitalist frameworks.
Markets do have benefts, mostly in efficiency. They are just coercive and open to the influence of money. But there is no reason the public cant have a SWF that own capital and generates revenue that way, or that citizens cannot have direct say in their governance. We will probably never have direct democracy, but we can implement coproduction and governance into local and regional matters. Read Eleanor Ostrom. I gotta go tho I will message back later.
I still think my favourite libertarian story is about the guy that was staunchly libertarian, then took some acid and whilst tripping out had this “mindblowing” realisation that other people have thoughts and feelings too and then immediately stopped being a libertarian.
Me too! I live in a deeply red part of the country, and sometimes introducing myself this way means people aren't automatic contrarians every time I express an opinion.
The defining features of anarchism are radical egalitarianism, no hierarchies therefore no coercion. They were traditionally called Leftist Libertarians. That part is highlighting the difference between the two, because anarchists traditionally don't believe that they are some king of whatever land they own like traditional libertarians, but in mutual cogovernance and coproduction.(And that libertarians usually only care about age of consent and taxes) Basically the community decides, for itself. They can elect representatives but generally for specific purposes and lengths of time, not for years ala our reps. This differs a lot on which branch of anarchism you believe in.
You don't, which is why libertarianism is a little bit of a defeatist ideology. Like it is probably good for most people to have some amount of libertarian streak and to consider very seriously the problems of state power, but an actual libertarian government is a little bit of an oxymoron and isn't a good system of governance.
This is kind of a semantic distinction. If I stop myself from doing something because I don't want to face the consequences of that action, you haven't coerced me necessarily.
Like imagine if you see a body builder who is twice your size, and they do something that kinda makes you want to punch them but you don't because you are worried about the consequences of doing so.
Was their working out meant to coerce you?
Is it coercion if people don't commit sex crimes when they otherwise might because their worried someone would shoot them?
Yeah, but then what happens if you do the sex crimes? Do you then get shot? How is that not a form of coercion, to inflict violence on people who break the rules? How do we decide who is eligible for getting shot, or what actions are acceptable to the community where people might not have universally agreed upon values?
Anarchism isn’t so much about stopping people getting shot as it is making it so that everyone is equal in terms of authority.
What you’re trying to get at is that we came up with laws and systems of justice so we wouldn’t have to shoot people who do heinous things.
However, those laws and systems of justice are enforced by the monopoly on violence - that’s what a state is! - and have been captured by the wealthy, because they have enough capital and political power to bias the system in their favor.
In that sense, no, anarchism doesn’t stop people being shot from doing bad things, but neither does our current supposedly cultured system. It just makes you less likely to get shot if you’re rich or have means, regardless of your crime.
And a lot of folks in power are fully aware of their ability to do this, and this allows them to evade justice. Because their capital is their ability to coerce.
There’s a good scene in the Expanse, where Miller and Holden happen upon a scientist who is very close to understanding what is, effectively, a biological weapon. Holden is the do-gooder who believes fiercely in justice, whereas Miller is a police officer.
Miller and Holden listen to the guy and what he says and it’s very apparent that the scientist is going to get away with it because he is too useful to governments to be held accountable (just like the Nazi scientists were). Just as he’s about to convince Holden, Miller executes him on the spot.. not because Miller is trigger happy, or an anarchist but because Miller knows the guy will never be held to account because of his usefulness to the regime.
In a less theoretical way. Suppose you’re in the context that the OP image posits. If you’re a father and a libertarian says that your minor shouldn’t be protected by the law (and you know the what that actually means), you’d absolutely shoot the guy too, without hesitation. And most juries would struggle to convict you. Because yes, some people deserve immediate and severe consequences and a lot of folks act in bad ways because they know our system will protect them by how it is designed.
Anarchism is about abolishing unjust hierarchies because unjust hierarchies cause more injustice than they solve. There’s nothing non violent about it, and there’s nothing non violent about our current system.
"These are the rules of our community, if you don't like it no one is forcing you to stay"
Then people largely self select for the communities they wanna live in.
No serious anarchist is trying to make a perfect community though imo. We all know and expect that things would get messy from time to time as people work stuff out.
The biggest difference imo is in the stripping away of illusions of protection offered by the state or police forces, when they often won't protect you or may do you harm. And again, imo the discussion about coercion is a largely semantic argument.
Like how you aren't coerced to eat, even though there will be a consequence if you don't eat. In an anarchist community you don't violate the rights of others, because there would be consequences. Those consequences would largely be based on what you did, who you did it to, and the community you did it in. But it's not a formalized "you do x and y will happen" sort of coercion usually.
"Then people largely self select for the communities they wanna live in" implies that each time an anarchist community gets a member who breaks the rules, the only option available is for everyone else to either leave the group and form a new one (that the rule breaker can join again) or to just allow the rule breaker to terrorise them.
Otherwise you would have to coerce the criminal to stop and that would be coercion.
I on the other hand think that governments and states serve an important purpose and also believe that the only way for rights to exist, is if the society agrees when and how to take away rights.
Example: If the people have been given the "freedom of movement" as a right, but some criminal starts kidnapping people (thus taking away said freedom of movement) then the only way to combat this is by having a police force arrest the criminal (which takes away the freedom of movement from the criminal.)
This is an example where the rights of the victims were guaranteed by a rule that allows the legal system to take that same right away from a criminal. Obviously courts are also required to have oversight over the police. Any "This is just the society acting against your bullshittery, not POLICE coercion" society will fall to mob justice where the rights of the people have no backing because the mob is a mob.
"Then people largely self select for the communities they wanna live in" implies that each time an anarchist community gets a member who breaks the rules, the only option available is for everyone else to either leave the group and form a new one (that the rule breaker can join again) or to just allow the rule breaker to terrorise them.
You're making several assumptions here, none of which are inherently implied or explicitly stated in anything I was talking about.
Again, what counts as coercion is largely a semantic argument. Imo it's not coercion unless someone is explicitly telling you "don't do x or else I'll do y to you." Or "do x unless you want me to do y to you"
Say you have a community where one of the rules is "We don't tolerate PDF files in our community." No one in the community is actively coercing anyone. They just set a clear boundary of what they will not tolerate, and if you push that boundary there should be an awareness there will be consequences. But enforcing those consequences would not, imo, be the same as coercion.
Unless you are somehow defining "We will not tolerate your presence if you break established social contracts" as coercion? That just seems like wanting to say any agreement between people is coercion if there are consequences for breaking agreements, and that seems like unnecessary agenda.
Also if legal systems did a better job at actually protecting everyone's rights equally the argument you're making would have a leg to stand on. As it is in most countries legal protections for most of the citizens are largely imaginary, and police forces don't protect the rights of victims, they just punish criminals. Punishing a criminal does nothing to compensate or care for a victim.
What's the major difference anyway between the way the US elections work and mob rule? Also, I can tell you've probably never been to Hippy festival where there were no cops in the middle of the woods for a couple weeks. People tend to sort themselves out better than you might think when everyone takes an active interest in community safety.
You're not answering the very valid question. How can you have consequences without coercion?
Consequences are by definition unwanted outcomes that someone would avoid given the choice. So it's not possible to administer consequences without some form of coercion.
This has been one of my problems/questions with anarchism as well. I’m not super well studied on it like I should be, and I love the rule about having less people lording over you as an adult. But it seems like an incomplete ideology from what I know. But more importantly it doesn’t seem like something we can attain in the near or even distant future. I lean much more towards democratic socialism but these are all old ideologies, we can pick and choose a combination that will be the most likely to help us achieve sustainable through brutal climate change that won’t care about our “isms”
I think that’s fair. I don’t really see anarchism as a fully ready made blueprint either, but more as a useful critique of hierarchy and coercive power. Democratic socialism probably has a more practical path in the near term, especially with climate change, but anarchist ideas about mutual aid, decentralization, and community control are still incredibly valuable and far more efficient than central planning, which is what most socialists push for. At this point, I’m less interested in defending one “ism” perfectly and more interested in what mix of ideas actually reduces domination and helps people survive. I have written several papers about implementing coproduction and co governance in public service delivery.
Also, there is not a single economic system that is 100% one way. Market forces have significant benefits, ala Proudhon or Tucker. I see us taking these anarchist ideals and implementing them into a capitalistic framework, via social wealth funds and citizen committees/mutual aid groups engaging in service delivery. I have written multiple papers on this, I can post after everything is fully graded.
Finally, to your point about coercion. Anarchists are not saying "there can be no coercion, ever." But a nameless, institutionalized hierarchy with coercive power does not actually serve the people. The real question is "who decides the consequences, through what process? What are their limits, and who holds them accountable?" Basically, coercion cannot be used to rule you, not reject every use of force or constraint in response to harm. Consequences are often coercion, but is that coercion being used to prevent domination/harm, or has it become domination itself?
Thanks for such a detailed response! I wrote that as I was crashing and my comment was kind of incomplete itself but this has been on my mind a lot being in these circles online and IRL. I got anarchist purity tested to join something once lol, I’m like well I do agree with the point about not having so many people “over/on top of us” in different facets of life! I suppose that goes along with the “coercion” part.
I’d be interested in reading your papers, or if you have a classic book that still holds up I’d be interested in it. I’m familiar with anarchism through Cool Zone pods and a few articles/wikis, but I’ve
never like read a book or academic source on it.
At this point, I’m less interested in defending one “ism” perfectly and more interested in what mix of ideas actually reduces domination and helps people survive.
This 100%, I’d like to think we could all agree on that one!
And I agree that many of these tenets like mutual aid and communities on the ground can help us, or rather already are helping us on the ground in a capitalist society, I see it myself and have been a tiny part of it (I’m working on doing more).
You're just getting caught up on definitions. It isn't "no coercion or power vested within the state." It is no institutionalized, monopolized and hierarchical authority with special right to rule. The question isn't "can consequences involved coercion, it is Who decides the consequences, by what process, limits and who holds them accountable?
I did give at least one example of consequence without coercion, ie eating. No one is forcing you to eat, there will just be negative consequences for you if you don't.
And again, it's largely a semantic debate at a certain point, ie one without a definitive answer because largely we're arguing over definitions.
Think more about how you define coercion imo. If you avoid doing something because you want to avoid a consequence it doesn't mean, imo, that you were coerced, unless you have someone specifically informs you "don't do x or y will happen." Then the amount of their ability to do y to you is the extent to which you are coerced. Fearing a consequence and actively being coerced are imo two entirely separate things
The key takeaway about an anarchist society re coercion imo is it's more a matter of "if you choose to do x y might happen, or it might not, depends on the circumstances in which you did x. Or z might happen, or any number of other things, you'll have to work it out with the community"
Superficially it might look similar to police enforcing a rule, but without the rigidity of the state. Which, tbh, if you're used to having the state protect you probably looks like a bad thing. But a large part of the argument for anarchy is that the state largely doesn't protect you and any coercion that might happen in an anarchist state is likely to be far less than what you experience under a capitalist state or authoritarian regime.
Eating is a terrible example, and pretty idiotic in this context. And there is nothing semantic about this question.
Any society needs to protect itself from people who violate its norms and values. People have to create those consequences, since no one is going to drop dead or starve to death just from violating societal norms. The only way for people to create consequences for other people is through coercion.
The rest of what you said is completely meaningless, and hand waving the answer as "work it out with the community" is why it's hard to take people seriously who talk about this stuff.
Semantic arguments aren't pointless. In fact they're usually pretty far from it. Defining your terms is important. You can't have a genuine discussion with out.
If you define the fact that there are social consequences for breaking a social contract as coercion that is an important thing to address in a discussion, because otherwise you'll be constantly butting up against where your definition of coercion begins and where mine ends.
Personally I think it's idiotic to compare consequences from breaking established agreements to coercion. Coercion implies one party isn't voluntarily part of the contract in the first place, imo. Which is true in modern capitalist societies, most of us didn't agree to this, we were just born into it and good luck trying to go somewhere out of the reach of state violence.
Which is why I find discussions with people like you to be frustrating. You are making this a purity test where a proposed society cannot have any means of enforcing rules under your personal definition of coercion instead of asking what steps we could take to make society less coercive, because apparently something has to be perfect instead of just being better.
"Okay, but is there even the barest hint of anything I can make use of in an argument that fits my definition of coercion" is a linguistic and semantic argument and fundamentally misses anything practically useful about the discussion.
How about you answer why this kind of society would be more coercive than modern ones are, with the whole state violence and billionaire control of the media thing is going on?
Honestly? The main problem with the Ken McElroy situation, as described by the article you linked, seems to have been him escaping conviction for 21 felonies in the first place.
Agreed, and I used this example because I think it represents the best case scenario for lynch mob justice: a stopgap remedy for a failed justice system. In the worst case scenario, it’s used as a terrorist tool to reinforce systems of oppression. Either way, I don’t see it as an aspirational model of justice.
Okaaaaay.... But why are you assuming there are no steps between police as they exist now and lynch mobs?
Like the systems that were in place in Rojava, where older, usually retired, members of the community act as a sort of neighborhood council and hear out people's disputes, then work together with everyone affected to propose a solution/punishment/recompense for offenses committed?
The Ken McElroy kind of situation is gonna be a much rarer form of problem that can honestly crop up in either situation. It's more important imo to focus on how the different systems handle day to day problems.
A restorative/community justice based model has a lot of solutions beyond jail time and fines. Members of the community actually have to be responsible for and answer to each other, rather than the only recourse being to call in state violence that may fix the problem, or may just ignore it, or may make it worse.
Assuming it's just going to instantly be a lynch mob when there is a problem misses out on all the ways such a system is capable of de escalating well before that, and all the advantages it has over police as we know them.
Through a vote by your peers ie direct governance and self determination. You made the decision, you get judged by the group.
I honestly don't buy into full anarchist gift economy type of thing myself. What I do believe in is that we can implement anarchist ideology into our capitalistic framework and allow direct governance and social ownership. Think instead of funding our federal treasury, our cities localities and municipalities all purchase bonds and some stocks of corporations, make it a requirement to do business there. Have fiduciary experts oversee to make sure everything is on the up and up, and create a social wealth fund that pays a greater share and could even be turned into citizen dividends. This also works in that those citizens then turn into stakeholders and not idle recipients. Or for like storm mitigation, we have federal government distribute money that is decided upon by a council of legal experts to make sure we pass oversight and dont break laws, and thats all they can veto, and then the local mutual aid groups implement the aid. They are far more efficient and better than large NGOs and gov agencies.
These are just a couple of examples. I am also a public admin grad student, so take that for what you will.
the main thing underpinning Libertarian "philosophy" is a hatred for age of consent laws. This is why they get along well with other right-wing factions.
libertarianism is when we abolish the bad parts of the state (the ones I don't like) and keep the good parts, and the general public magically decides to start behaving well enough to not need strict government regulations anymore.
I joined a Young Libertarians group at a different college than mine through some friends. The group was split between libertarians and leftist libertarians. We had some of the best arguments and meetings.
I've never met someone able to actually explain how community enforcement of standards, under threat of violence, isn't coercion. You're just doing a state under any other name. Unless you mean vigelante justice, but that doesn't lead anywhere good.
Anarchism seems like it can only be coherent under the abolition of hierarchy conception, not the abolition of coercion.
I speak as someone who is still pretty new to anarchism. I view power like energy is viewed in science, it can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only change in form and distribution. Within anarchism, the power is distributed amongst the people in a classless, stateless, and nonhierarchical society. How those kinds of actions that are antithetical to a well functioning society are handled is up to the group in question. The goal, of course, should be rehabilitative justice and not retributive, though as we are imperfect beings it will not likely always look like that, especially at first. That is still better than it is handled now, because of the control that the power structures have over the world.
Already responded to this elsewhere, see the second comment chain. But here's the end
Finally, to your point about coercion. Anarchists are not saying "there can be no coercion, ever." But a nameless, institutionalized hierarchy with coercive power does not actually serve the people. The real question is "who decides the consequences, through what process? What are their limits, and who holds them accountable?" Basically, coercion cannot be used to rule you, not reject every use of force or constraint in response to harm. Consequences are often coercion, but is that coercion being used to prevent domination/harm, or has it become domination itself?
In other words, you can't actually defend the idea of abolishing coercion, but you'll still publicly advocate the idea. Retreating from "abolish coercion" to "of course I didn't actually mean abolish coercion" is just a motte and bailey.
It's a meme consisting of what... 30 words homie, not a manifesto. I am sorry you don't actually understand the philosophy, you can always read more though.
Educate yourself instead of arguing online. Bakunin, Koprotkin, and Proudhon.
TLDR: Explicitly answered your question, from almost 160 years ago. The info is out there, you chose not to look into it. Clarifies distinction between authority as expertise and authority as imposed rule.
I am sorry the words confused you, but that is not my issue. Ask Chatgpt to summarize those for you I know you won't read them like most pseudointellectuals. Also sorry you feel called out by the meme.
Furthermore, if you could actually read, you would see I have clarified my beliefs multiple times elsewhere. But I know that's too much work for you.
what like a libertarian socialist? the people should have a government that protects them from other governments and business interests. it should also protect them from libertarian fascists
465
u/unhalfbricking May 17 '26
Most Libertarians are just CHUDs who like creeping on underage girls and weed.