I consider myself a leftist, but also I believe that religion should be fought against by the government. I think this mainly because I consider the act of spreading religious belief by parents to children, who are biologically incapable of rational and independent thinking, coercive and extremely immoral. I think this is such an important problem that it should be addressed with government policy aimed at fully preventing it, which would in practice means a complete prohibition of child baptisms, taking children to church, religious clothing, text and symbols worn and displayed at home and attempts at convincing children that religion is true.

Is such policy compatible with libertarianism considering that even though it is an infringement pm some freedoms it's preventing a very immoral act?

I've made a post about this before on r/Anarchy101, asking about the difference between true anarchy and direct democracy, and the answers seemed helpful—but after thinking about it for some time, I can't help but believe even stronger that the difference is semantic. Or rather, that anarchy necessarily becomes direct democracy in practice.

The explanation I got was that direct democracy doesn't truly get rid of the state, that tyranny of majority is still tyranny—while anarchy is truly free.

In direct democracy, people vote on what should be binding to others, while in anarchy people just do what they want. Direct Democracy has laws, Anarchy doesn't.

Simple and defined difference, right? I'm not so sure.

When I asked what happens in an anarchist society when someone murders or rapes or something, I received the answer that—while there are no laws to stop or punish these things, there is also nothing to stop the people from voluntarily fighting back against the (for lack of a better word) criminal.

Sure, but how is that any different from a direct democracy?

In a direct democratic community, let's say most people agree rape isn't allowed. A small minority of people disagree, so they do it, and people come together and punish them for it.

In an anarchist community, let's say most people agree rape isn't allowed. A small minority of people disagree, so they do it, and people come together and punish them for it.

Tyranny of majority applies just the same under anarchy as it does under direct democracy, as "the majority" will always be the most powerful group.

Where do you draw the line between the two, and why?

Full disclosure up front: if you want to vote for Harris because you don't want Trump back in office, do it. Don't let a redditor stop you. That's your choice, and I can not blame you for making it. That said, we do need to bear in mind that the Democratic Party is awful. When you stop using Republicans as the only metric to compare them to, there is no metric by which they are anything resembling any form of leftism or libertarianism.

Of course, the bit there about comparing them to Republicans is pertinent to an election where they're the only two viable choices. But I think my point is best summed up in the following question: if the Democratic vote is guaranteed because the opposition is worse, what reason do they have to improve?

Now, I don't think that they'd dare getting any worse. If they get any worse, it won't be such an obvious choice to vote for them for harm reduction. However, their current model is not sustainable. It isn't sustainable for them to keep ignoring renewable energy, or public transport, or police reform, or the wellbeing of workers, or not giving Israel military aid, or any of the other bad shit they're already doing. And if the only thing they have to do to get voted in is keep doing all that while Republicans do all that and more, they will never stop doing it. I simply propose that harm reduction, for enabling these practices, is not sustainable in the long term.

So, I'm American for context, and an ex straight up libertarian. But I found them too optimistic about the private sector's ability to create change in some areas. So, I'm extremely diehard civil libertarian, I wanna bring the government's overall power way down, and I want them to do less things, namely protecting people from violations of rights. But I also believe that labor rights are among those, as in a market economy, businesses are also a massive center of power and hold direct sway over a person's livelihood and so they should be mandated to act ethically towards workers. So I believe in strong strong labor protections. The government's one other job to me, is to have a competent welfare state (in instances where doing so would be an improvement over market forces) that is as robust as circumstances will allow in order to ensure the highest standard of living. I also would like to see businesses over a certain size be run by workers. Is this left libertarian, and is there more of a specific term for this? Property wise, I have no real issue with the current state of private property, except i do believe that the government or society should scrutinize landlords. Idk how yet though.

Petition for the removal and arrest of Governor Mike Parson for his role in the death of Marcellus Williams. Ignoring the lack of evidence of William’s involvement in the death of Lisha Gayle and the pleas from Lisha’s family and the persecutor to spare his life must not go unpunished.

Here’s the Petition

I listen to Cool People Doing Cool Stuff. Margaret Killjoy examines history from an anarchist perspective. Entertaining. Margaret hates tankies (for good reason, history) and so do I.

Looking for more.

Can you help me out?

Thanks in advance.

View Poll

Title says it all lol

I recently started considering myself a left-libertarian but I don’t know where to start with the actual reading to get a grasp of the ideology.

Are there any suggested readings for a beginner like me? A guide perhaps?

Project 2025 puts loyalists in place to plan the government and economy and society in a way that is very unAmerican - no checks and balances, closer to the Soviet Union than to America, but closer still to something else - call it what you wish.

https://youtu.be/5ZA0iSTVqMc?si=rpcLaRU293zfpYb2

In terms of a hierarchy of rights and freedom #Project2025 puts it in the plan: no reproductive freedom or rights of any kind for women, and their families if they already have a loving one - many have died from these policies already. If you are truly pro-life this is clearly not that.

Trump loyalists would push every other Project 2025 policy, and if it's Vance instead it's the same. They are both top in this movement with a plan written by Trump's closest allies with the support and work by Heritage and other right wing groups - Christian Nationalist and White Supremacist groups.

For the hierarchy and loyalty to implement it, Project 2025 is much like Soviet planning - something I have studied deeply and written books about (Rediscovering Fire, Spontaneous Order and The Utopian Collective).

But the society it is crushingly implementing is worse than even much of the Soviet Union history, at least in Russia.

It's dictatorshop at it's worst : in terms of selfish non benevolent and non free society.

The structure of government and economy as described by Project 2025 is actually very like Soviet Russia but exactly like Putin's Russia: party political advisors and/or loyalists in government, like in Soviet times and maybe today - and government heavy ties to business and wealthy alliances as in Putin's oligarchy.

... That was how planning was done, except government owned the businesses and the economic plan during Soviet period. And that plan could be better or worse for people, even as it failed... And non economic things were better or worse, over the decades.

But massive monopoly (tied to government) corporations are used by Putin a lot like planning - corporatism and planning economics are the much the same - and like in the Soviet Union there would be party supervision of that, via the Project 2025 loyalist-only government

But unlike some of the better moments in the Soviet system, the planning would be done purely for the people at the top of the proposed hierarchy for their own selfish reasons...

This is possible in part because of the ideology used to create their project. It's why selfish= good, greedy= good in the ethical ideology of free supposedly markets, which were not and certainly wouldn't be free, if they got their way! It's a way to amass wealth and then use its power to control everything, via government.

I am party at fault for that, hence my Mea Culpa: https://medium.com/@guinevere42/mea-culpa-readers-digest-version-3e786ce12f87

TL;DNR: Founding document of “capitalism” fully read, implies Proudhonian mutualism (though retains its own errors).

Reading “Wealth of Nations,” we find Smith’s intention is to encourage competition between stockholders (capitalists, wholesale and retail sellers), and free choice among wage-earners between sellers, thus incentivizing lower prices to entice demand, eventually giving price reductions to the lowest possible levels. All of this was hoped by Smith to enable thrifty wage earners – he thought them so – to save their money and increase their wellbeing.

In book one, chapter eleven of “Wealth,” from Smith himself [!]: “The interest of the dealers [stockholders or capitalists] […] is always in some respects […] opposite to, that of the public […]. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the public; but to narrow the competition [between capitalists] must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy […] an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.”

(Everyone should read “Wealth of Nations” – but after Boswell’s “Life of Sam. Johnson,” for Smith’s circumstances, language, and opinions, e.g., the broad contempt for aristocrats and their “rents”; Johnson defends them only as a contrarian. Many, e.g., Milton Friedman, couldn’t read it – or misrepresented it knowing nobody would. Sometimes objectionable, there’s a fair bit of egalitarian “common sense” in it, too).

And, we can deduce mutualism from Smith’s conceit. If competition in stock reduces cost for consumers as a benefit, then absolute-maximum competition minimizes costs, for ultimate possible benefit. But maximum stock distribution occurs when everyone owns capital. And they then can also support themselves by the revenues of capital, not only labor.

This condition of ownership obtains, if all non-solo enterprises are organized as co-operatives. (Worryingly, Koch Inc., is privately owned – but its capital is not parceled in equal shares in one-to-one correspondence to its 120,000 employees – were it, they’d receive $1,041,623/year – therefore Koch is neither corporation, nor co-op).  Any reduction in revenue by such enterprises, is balanced by the stability from employees’ incentive to be conservative in the use of their sole – but also collective – capital. As competition, any “rival” co-ops in a market can challenge monopoly by lowering their prices. Even without a competitor, so long as workers are free to sell out of their own, to found a rival to a monopolist co-op’s inefficiencies at any time, only such inter-co-operative competition need be guaranteed to ensure consumer wellbeing. Those two collaborating to raise prices is disincentivised, as yet a third co-op could take market share from them at any time.

Corporations, using accumulated capital from shareholder’s investment to artificially depress prices and exterminate competition, then to raise prices monopolistically, as Smith abhorred, should certainly be eliminated, perhaps prior to the establishment of co-ops, so they and their good is encouraged.

As collective capital, certainly workplace democracy in co-ops is required. Conversely, corporations have either capital set aside to offset expected losses, or a venture fund (as with the first joint stock companies), so that capital is not distributed in a one-to-one correspondence of worker to a uniform tranche of capital; this implies corporations must be hierarchical, as will be detailed presently.

Now, a corporation is to eliminate competition, or in the original joint stock companies to raise funds for expansion into markets without competition. In the former case, per Smith himself this hurts the common good by artificially raising prices. In the latter case, it must be less responsive, so less efficient, than local businesses would be – or else has a bureaucracy, and acquires inefficiencies (and by the Iron Law of Oligarchy excludes workplace democracy) thereby. Or, if a foreign stock company “creates” a market – but then it diminishes local revenue resources, leading to inevitable reductions in local development. Therefore, corporations can never be the most efficient means of human development (vide also: Louis Brandeis’ “Other People’s Money”, passim).

Moreover, corporations and stock companies by definition do not parcel capital revenues only into equivalent shares given to each employee in one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, some employee must have more than another – and so, the ability to suborn the will of who has less (if only by buying up all the resources the latter needs, with reserve for one’s own needs), who in turn has no ability to ameliorate this condition, without directly aggressing against the better-resourced, which even libertarianism forbids. Therefore: corporations are inherently hierarchical, at least as greater capital-owner above lesser owner – and “ancap” as anti-authoritarian, yet permitting such capital hoarding and hierarchy, is thus definitely contradictory. Doubly so, since a monopolist, particularly of necessities, can deprive customers of their revenues at will, which plainly interferes with an individual’s property. “Ancap” permits corporate hierarchies that violate its own “non-aggression principle,” and violates its supposed anti-authoritarianism. “Ancap,” backhanded libertarianism, is a cruel, contradictory absurdity.

[This is part one. Probably no part two.]