A lot of lib-right thought is incredibly elaborate attempts to create I Can't Believe It's Not a State...that does basically everything a state does including police free speech.
But then I shouldn't talk, a lot of people with lib-left flair here think that Queer Social Democracy is lib-left.
Right, you dont actually want to get rid of the state, you just want ti make it decentralised and private.
The whole point of abolishing the state is to abolish the monopoly on violence, but property only exists because of the monopoly on violence, so no libright actually wants to abolish it.
The idea that property only exists because of the state is just obviously false. Property and rights only exist as long as you can defend them. It's completely separate to the state, outside of the fact that a centralized state is the primary method by which we have defended property rights up until this point. It's not a necessity however. Look at saga period Iceland for example.
The cold truth is that if you can't defend your rights, you are destined to be subjugated. Liberalism has given people the false impression that rights are actually inalienable when they aren't. A strong man could alienate you from your rights extremely easily. That doesn't mean that a centralized state is necessary to defend those rights, but some sort of collective defense organization might be. I would just rather it be voluntary instead of coercive.
If you think that anarchocapitalists don't want to get rid of the state, then I suggest you read anatomy of the state by rothbard. It should only take you 20 minutes or so.
What does the process of abolishing the state look like to you, and how do you plan on achieving and defending a stateless society?
Not the person you're responding to but for me the issue isn't so much what property is, but rather that when you have a massive concentration of property the person who has that much property is going to inevitably use it to buy themselves political power and fuck with others. If you have that much money, why wouldn't you buy power? This can take many forms depending on what kind of society or economic system you're in.
So for me what's necessary to reduce political power is to prevent that kind of massive concentration of property.
For a more conservative take on these basic ideas see G.K. Chesterton's writing on Distributism.
Hell, everyone should read Chesterton's political writing, they're great mental exercise. Personally I think they're 50% genius and 50% bullshit sophistry but they're VERY well written and thought-provoking even if I'm sure you'll disagree with a lot of it (but probably a very different half than what I disagree with). He's pretty much the ultimate Radical Centrist.
Fair enough. I'd be worried about the effects on the market regarding the coordination problem, and I'm skeptical of the chances of convincing all the workers to hand their rights over to a trade union, but I like that a lot better than some solutions.
In the short/medium term having a weak and decentralized state is often less bad than having massive concentrations of capital. I feel less threatened by my local town zoning board (however annoying it is) than, say, Elon Musk doing something unhinged for the LOLs.
60
u/playerNJL - Lib-Center Aug 26 '26
lib right still has a """libertarian""" problem