How is this for a categorical imperative: Don't be a slave.
I am not an 'anarchy now! burn it all down!' anarchist. That is absurd, and could not be implemented without forcing people's choices in a very un-anarchist way.
I am happy being an anarcho-syndicalist, which is I like to work on leaderless/bossless teams, and most of the time this is what I do. In my band for instance, there is no leader, no one bosses me around, I do everything in the band without any coercion.
Anarchy does not have to be systemwide, and it actually exists all over the place, even high level CEO's groups don't have any specific boss and they cooperate and no one gets coerced, some of the time.
I am happy with democratic socialism being the goal and next step in our time, I don't imagine police or armies being done away with, but as an anarchist that is my future utopia where none of those unpleasant things will be necessary.
Someone who says they are a capitalist, that means, basically, that this is their utopia and they lack imagination or are outright twisted.
Libertarianism as a next step is not sound, it is similar to the anarchist revolutionary who demands change now, even though even the half-decent things in society we have right now would be done away with.
Trump and stephen miller, they fancy themselves radical libertarians, grover norquist etc they want to drown the government through sideways means, so that it makes freedom, when it will just mean brutal tough love for the poor who will be continually be punished for their starting point in life, while industrial tycoons craft laws for themselves that are essentially helicopters of money falling on them. This is what we saw with the bailout in 2008 and I see no reason to think they would do differently.
This word libertarian, I do not think the people who use it are genuine and it is pretty obviously a trick of greedy people, who just don't want to have to care about anyone else.
That's why they hate socialism, socialism says at the center of society is not capitalism, it is society(lol, which should be obvious, but many are pretty thick headed). These people deep down don't care if someone else starves and don't think anyone should have to force them to care. It is a sick mentality and so I always argue against it.
These capitalists and libertarians rig the game, then when their side wins, they say things like it is the best system that has been tried lol. Weaponized ignorance is what the usa is right now, and I fled because I couldn't survive in it, because well, read what I write, I am not going to be popular in such an insane place, and I didn't have the luck to be born to a father that had money.
You can only rise in libertarian and social systems if you say what the people who started with the money want to hear.
And this could be what's happening on steemit now as well, as if yet another attempt at a new society was coopted on day 2.
For the record, when I use the term "libertarian," I mean left-libertarian. I refer to the rightwing ideology as "vulgar libertarians" or "right-libertarians".
i am not familiar with left libertarian, what do i need to know about it? how do you have a smaller government without the wealthy simply ruling by force and crushing the poor?
Left-libertarian, as in Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, et al. It generally refers to the anti-authoritarian left, like libertarian socialism, anarchism, democratic confederalism, council communism, etc.
I follow "civic republicanism" in defining liberty as "non-domination." This is a comprehensive definition of liberty, as opposed to the partial liberty of liberals (positive liberty, the freedom to do things) and right-libertarians (negative liberty, freedom from things). Taking this freedom as non-domination approach, I say government's task is to ensure the maximizing of liberty, which entails ensuring domination is minimized. People ought not to be dominated by gangs, politicians, bosses, monied elites, corporation, etc. The sole purpose of government is to protect people by minimizing domination, which would entail social libertarianism (drug use, "sodomy", prostitution, public nudity, etc. would be legal), but also entails an anti-interventionist peace-seeking/diplomatic foreign policy, and ensuring universal basic income to eliminate wage-slavery (domination by bosses), help prevent domination of women (who are often exploited as a result of their economic dependency on men), etc. And politics must be thoroughly democratic and participatory in order to ensure that people are not dominated by politicians or government. The term "left" denotes egalitarian, meaning equal distribution of wealth and power among the populace. So, my libertarianism, being based on civic republican "liberty as non-domination", is actually left-libertarian or anti-authoritarian egalitarianism.
ok, im on board with left-libertarianism then.
the corporate types are going to wine about being told what to do, but at this point I simply don't feel bad about telling these non-human entities what to do so they don't outright destroy the world.
Corporate types loves telling others what to do, so they just have to deal with being told to relinguish their power over others. :D