To My Fellow Libertarians,On Improvements Needed in the Movement.

Miscellaneous General
61

I can see one issue that can bring together anarchists in a local, grass roots way: Abandoned housing. State ownership of unused property is one devastating problem of social utility. Getting capitalist and socialist groups together to get these houses and properties torn down, rebuilt, bought/sold, used as shelters run by anarcho- socialist organizations, etc., would show that anarchy ( in any aspect ) can get things done and improve public and private welfare. The primary goal would be to get it out of the state’s control.

If it would happen on a wide scale, certain philosophical differences would matter less than showing the state’s incompetence and aggression to others that believe in the state.

62

Civil rights would probably be the easiest ways to bring anarchists together. Find me an anarchist who’s pro gun laws, pro drug laws, and pro police.

63

This is why you don’t get ancap. You think it is, to quote Scott Horton, “the white man’s anarchism”

Actually, I think it is the rich man’s anarchism. But I don’t hate, if you want to live in a peaceful cooperative society, so do I compadre

Which means you implicitly disfavor one half of the transaction

It’s not like I trust labor that much either, like I said, anyone with an agenda is suspect imo. But labor definitely has the lesser bargaining power. It’s not like I’m anti any business, just the one’s that don’t care about their workers, or if applicable, their consumers. I have seen many members on this page claim that workers should just take what they get, yet I don’t see anyone decrying them for “implicitly disfavor(ing) one half of the transaction.”

You don’t seem to favor the market as a process producing voluntary outcomes

How so? If I didn’t put a gun to an employers head, but still convinced him to raise wages, are you saying that was involuntary?

That is charity, not socialism

The only difference is the means

Taxation is theft and backed by coercion. Again, you pick and choose who deserves justice, and you do it arbitrarily, what seems like being based on marxian class analysis, which is a distortion of libertarian class analysis.

Libertarian rightists have a class analysis? I was not aware.

And I agree that taxes are stealing. But like I said, if the tax was only on the top 5%, I would still be against it, I would just find them highly likely to be able to pay it w/o harming them too much, and it wouldn’t be a top priority for me.

Communities don’t make decisions, individuals do.

Agreed, but individuals do make decisions as communities. To deny this would be to deny reality. Collectives don’t act, but people do frequently act in collectives. And if a community gets together as individuals and decides they will not patronize companies that do not meet x expectations, I do not find that anti-market in any way.

Then be prepared to pay for it all by yourself because no one else is obligated to pay for it, including the rich

I am. Once again, would not put a gun to your head and force you to agree with me.

64

Just to throw it in there.

Egoism != the free market. Done.

65

3 Free territories in unused land in the USA

1 for ancaps

1 for non-propertarian anarchists

1 for me

It advantages all 3 groups, so we can form a coalition and stop fighting with eachother.

66

^ This

67

Would you be willing to explain it more?

I’m quite a deist, but I disagree with intelligent design. So I’m not of the school of Deism. I’m kind of a socialist, but I disagree with Marx on a lot of things, and I don’t find the “dictatorship of the proletariat” very appealing, so not really of any school of Socialism.

Bruce Lee once said:

You see actually I do not teach Karate, because I do not believe in styles anymore. I do not believe that there is a chinese way of fighting, or a japanese way of fighting, or whatever way of fighting. Because, unless human being have 3 arms and 4 legs… we will have a different way of fighting. But basically, we have only 2 hands and 2 feet. So styles tends to uh, uh, uh, not only seperate man.. you know, because they have their own doctrines, and then the doctrines became the gospel truth…but if you do not have styles, if you just say “here I am as a human being. How can I express myself.. totally, and completely.” You won’t create a style… and that way, it is (now) a process of continuing growth.

I think that, if you understand the meat of it, pretty much sums it up. To say "oh, I’m a conservative (or whatever), and then later “i’m a minimalist,” and only later to go, “no, libertarian,” AND YET AGAIN go “ahhh, there it is, I’m an an-cap, austrian, libertarian, voluntaryist, propertarian” is not really productive. (I use this assuming there are many here who followed a similar path) Instead, why not just be a person that learned things over time?

In my experience it creates an incentive to become dependent.Sure some people will manage to overcome those incentives but I think it’s rare and in any case creates the thought in poorer people often that the state cares about them or wants to help them which is false.

First, I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of “yay government” down in the ghetto lol. They may be like “don’t touch my food stamps sucker,” but I seem to remember a strong “F the police” amongst urban culture. Dave Chappel; “If I see George Bush I’ll kick his m’f’in a** for cuttin my medicaid!”

And I don’t neccesarily think it’s the state, or Bill Gates (who, actually I always point out is a great guy if you learn about him) or anything like that infinging upon our right to education and healthcare. It’s our civilized system. It has currently proved far to expensive to fulfill people’s desire and provide universal education. All that needs to change is people’s minds about just how much they need, a large gap to leap, but I see a lot of progress over the last 500 years towards that end (not just including mandatory education which I am absolutely adamant against)

68

Oh yeah.It’s been part of our tradition and the classical liberal tradition for centuries.

It began as far as we know from the french classical liberals Charles Comte,Charles Dunoyer and Augustin Thierry who devised it in the Le Censur Europe.The theory was called Industralism.

It was continued and clarified through the ages by such figures as Bastiat,Herbert Spencer, Albert Jay Nock ,Thomas Paine etc.

Albert Jay Nock gave us one of the clearest explanations of it based on terminology from Franz Oppenheimer’s book the state.Murray Rothbard UUsed this terminology to explain the class analysis too.

We see the state as resulting in two classes: The Exploited and the Exploiters.

The Exploiters: The state and it’s agencies like the police,military etc. They gain wealth by what Oppenheimer called the Political Means( via force).They are the few and the rulers.

The Exploited: The few.They are the ruled.They gain their wealth via the Economic Means(which is aquisition of wealth by trade on the voluntary market)

Nuanced Approaches(and I’m certainly in favour of them) complicate the picture by allowing for a class which lives by the Political means but is not actually involved in using force to gain the wealth.They benefit from the Exploiter class.These would be group who receive corporate welfare,those on the welfare state etc.

Also We allow for some overlap between Those gaining from exploiters and those exploited.Few people are solely in one or the other class due to the widespread granting of privileges by the state.

As Hans Hermann Hoppe says Libertarian Anarchists are for a classless society i.e. a society where because there is no state there is no exploiters or exploited and everyone gains wealth by the economic means.

Here are a few links on the topic:-

Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis By Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes

Classical-Liberal Exploitation Theory

CLASSICAL LIBERAL EXPLOITATION THEORY: A COMMENT ON PROFESSOR LIGGIO’S PAPER CHARLES DUNOYER AND FRENCH CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

Charles Dunoyer

Class Society.

Class Struggle Rightly Conceived By Sheldon Richman.

69

…Oh and I forgot to mention generally libertarians hold that society is controlled by ideas.The controlling ideological group is the Court intellectuals as Rothbard called them and is composed of pro-state sociologists,economists,political theorists,philosophers and the media.Essentially the opinion moulders of society.In a sense this is just consistent Gramscianism.They try hard to propagandize society with anti-market, anti-anarchy,pro-state,pro-obedience rhetoric.

70

My strategy is often to argue for liberty without using liberty. To be sure; I’m a ‘natural law’-libertarian, i.e. I think there is something morally right which can be objectively determined by analyzing human nature as such in ‘liberty’ and I think an institution like the state is morally wrong. But as a general strategy; I often employ other means.

I’ll give a few examples.

  • I argue for the meta-discussion on democracy; pointing out that ‘democracy’ as such isn’t really a good decision making procedure. (Fostering rational irrationality, rational ignorance, etc. etc.)

  • I argue that even if you accept the state; that there might be an argument for smaller states. (Not federalism; but literally; more states on a lower level, to increase thiebout competition in the world.) If you want to have democracy; than it makes sense to make decisions like that on a lower level, with fewer people, etc. I even posit the question: ‘why not city states’? And argue from there. Obviously; standard arguments arise, but they are relatively easier to counter and to say ‘well; we could have a confederalist level of state for those issues’. A lot of the issues can be solved like that and it puts a lot of the really hard questions between brackets.

  • Another example is pointing out the redistribution from the rich to the poor, the powerless to the powerfull, etc. in the current system. Having empirical data that proves that the poor get less social/economic/political protection and representation often helps. Also; when they assert ‘well; this obviously helps the poor’ I ask them for the data. Often there is no data that proves it. (And when there is, I have no problem accepting it.)

  • In general; I emphasize often the meta-structure, than the concrete. ‘Instead of me explaining how anarchism would work; how do you think it would work?’ And when they really give a bad assessment; I just ask questions. ‘Well; given those (implicit) assumptions and mechanisms, why doesn’t it happen now?’ Or something like that.

Admittedly; I’m more of a ‘step by step’ libertarian, more than a ‘well; I’ll argue for anarcho-capitalism from the start and let’s see how I can convince him to take the whole step at once!’ Often - but not always - this doesn’t really help.

71

Which is why we need to reject any ideology as truth. Yay!

(Warning: The preceding was shameless propoganda)

72
73

But the rich man in an ancap society is the perfect servant for everyone else. See, this goes back to not understanding praxeology and Austrian-ish market theory. If you did and disagreed, I could understand it. But you’re not even addressing what wealth is or where it comes from. You assume ancap is an extension of the current order, not a radically different one.

Do you feel that an employer demanding more work from his employees for the same or less pay is just?

Not at all. The ends are very different as well. Charity is a voluntary exchange, socialism isn’t.

Then why would taxes on the rich be more ok with you than taxes on everyone?

And if the shareholders of a firm get together and decide to boycott a customer group, like say midgets, blacks, women or Jews, you would also be ok with that too, right?

74

Do you recall where he said that? A radio interview you can link, perhaps? Sounds like an interesting discussion.

75

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/07/159-war-and-central-banking/

It’s somewhere in the second half iirc.

76

I was deeply impressed with this statement of truth. I particularly appreciate the distinction between the academic, cererbral libertarianism that is heavily present in our modern libertatrian movement, and the plain, honest, instinctive desire for most people to naturally want to do what’s right, and for the right reasons.

They are the same thing.

The lacking element in libertarianism’s past is the rosetta stone that we now have the chance to implement today: a clear, defined way to translate our ideas instantly to the large majority of populations with different cultural norms–and make no mistake that that’s exactly what they are: ours (libertarians) is a distinctly different philosophy. We have to relate to other worldviews in a way that speaks their language, or we are never understood because they think we are talking about something academic and not viceral–real.

I admire the discussions in this long, well-spoken thread. Please continue to spell out your thoughts-- we are at work to make libertarianism clear as the only true unique link to every human being on the planet–in the only language we are all capable of speaking. It’s the language of safety through cooperation (be it cooperation with your surrounding environment (to allow you to survive) or the cooperation between a team of engineers (to allow the purely intellectual ideas to become a technological feat of world-changing proportions.) Every human, from the African plains to the Nordic mountains, from the islands of Japan to the streets of Boise, Idaho–every man and women, and every child (remember, you still need to guide and train your kids) has, at the core of our shared humanity, the desire for these basic, fundamental desires/directives.

I hope we all continue to think deeply on our motivations, and use our newfound ability to share it with each other like never before possible. I firmly believe every person on the planet wants exactly what we want-- we only have to show her the pictures that explain to her that when we think of free-exchange, we’re thinking of the same networks of support, safety, science, and cultural growth she values through the ultimate Big-Business Monopoly: Government.

Think about our government as a modern company providing services-- it’s not hard. Find ways to analogise how government is like a man that is declaring he can simultaneously give you a root canal, cut your hair, drive your car, decide on your education and direction, and fight off armed bandits hiding under your bed.

Is there any one company on the planet you would trust all of that to? Of course not–it’s bizarre, even absurd to imagine any company you pick attempting to do all of thise things–and thousands more.

Until you call your company “Government”.

We can share these truths with people. We should dial back the academic arguments once we’ve learned them ourselves, save to study for our expanded enjoyment and understanding, and use a different set of skills to relate these ideas to that vast majority of people that doesn’t understand our world-view. They believe in it–they just don’t “get it”.

Our interpersonal communication skills are better employed than our facts and logic with our infinitely simple but abstract natural-law truths.

Why an I knocking our wonderful academic discourse? I am absolutely not. I just believe there is a much better way to explain all we believe in in a way that everone from a 99-year-old WWII veteran to a Twelve year-old tween will instinctively understand.

We all want the exact same thing. Safety, peace, and cooperation from our surroundings and cohabitants.

May we all keep up the good work in spreading our ideas and our unwavering commitment to peace–

m

77

“All rather cynical.Why shouldn’t libertarians be part of things such as these when they are applications of our principles.”

because libertarian ideology will be further muddled in with the tripe one sees at those events.

“True.However just because it failed at a specific moment in time does not mean it’s impossible.Take for example Anti.war.com, not everyone there is libertarian yet they work together for peace ,oppose empire etc.”

and how effective are they being at ending an actual war?

“My principles do not require me to oppose leftwing anarchists who truly oppose the state and aggression.They lead me to seek to ally with such people.There’s nothing in our principles that opposes that”

allying with them and doing what, exactly?

“I’ve talked to a few left anarchists.Granted it hasn’t always gone well.But in so far as we are anarchists we’ve had common ground”

as they will invariably view capitalism and private property as odious as the idea of the state, no, you have not had any real common ground.

“I can see why you might think that.However we just can’t know”

the evidence is overwhelming, and I mean OVERWHELMING, that the masses will never choose a system which requires them to accept responsibility for their actions, regardless of the potential benefits.

“Impossible to know.So your saying you won’t learn of a new commonality? or individual both groups like? or idea we agree on or etc…”

yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.

“My apologies in regard to (a). As for (B) well I have seem some equate Capitalism(which I assume means the same as a free market) with the current economy intermittently with calling it Corporatism or Socialism.Which is confusing and contradictory.”

because we’re speaking amongst austrians and we know what we mean. the second an outsider wanders in, the semantics get cleaned up.

"I don’t buy that.It doesn’t make sense.

Same could apply to rapists,criminals,politicians,soldiers,terrorists etc."

you’re talking about walmart using eminent domain or about a company suing another for branding issues. these are people who are trying to do business in a crooked and over-regulated market. you can’t blame them for playing dirty because everyone else is.

a rapist does not have to rape to get laid whereas a business has to push out a large chunk of their potential workforce due to minimum wage laws. a terrorist doesn’t have to kill civilians to protest whereas a business has to sue upstarts with a similar name to protect against future lawsuits claiming it didn’t protect its brand.

“That’s not an excuse.There are businesses who get by fine without them”

name one.

“That’s rather simplistic view if you think anti- corporatist business = anti-rich/anti-business.”

when it comes to the left, especially the so-called left-anarchists, the ideas go hand in hand.

“in the case of weapon manufacturers who know who the weapons are going to and what purpose or what likely purpose.”

…what crime did they commit? are they guilty of murder? what if they are only really sure the guns will go to, say, support a genocide. are they still guilty? what if they are only kinda sure?

“Also I do not see any sign that players have to go through hoops to scrap a living when the state so quickly hands out corporate welfare.”

only to certain industries and certain political donors.

"Buying up property.Voluntary organizations dedicated to cleaning up rivers,homesteading the sea etc.This is all mentioned in free market environmentalist literature.It’s a major part of libertarianism.

I’m not quite sure I understand what your getting at."

I was talking about a situations where one party feels another is being environmentally destructive in either the sense that his actions are harming another’s property or are some vague affront to mother gaia, not about how people who like nature can protect it in a free market.

“That’s exactly why other people do not take us seriously and view us as cold.”

I am cold. save your emotivist blubbering for the patchouli drenched, hairy armpitted left-anarchist women. it doesn’t go far with me.

"Somehow I don’t think that’s the correct response. "

if we’re discussing ethics, it is. why should I have to continually bow to people’s anti-business misconceptions if my logic is airtight?

" Nothing emotivist about caring for poor people or any people for that matter.Again your coming off cold and heartless."

you’re pretty much screaming ‘oh but what about the children.’ that’s as emotivist as it gets. again, save it.

“Who’s to say it couldn’t? I’m not saying that one argument alone could win someone over but it does show we do have solutions.We don’t just shrug things off.”

our solutions fly in the face of those kinds of problems. when someone gets all womanly and starts moaning about the poor and the sick and the yadda yadda yadda, they don’t want to hear anything accept for paternalistic bs. you can go on and on about the benefits of dropping minimum wage or allowing workplace discrimination, but it won’t ‘feel’ right to them. and as these creatures are driven by their emotions, using logic will be wholly ineffectual.

“I disagree. All I’ve gotten from you is that ,these people reject some of our ideas therefore “ahhh scary”! Really not helpful.”

they reject the core of our ideas.

“Make us have a larger voice.More people to do what we do now.Debate.Educate.argue.protest.Appear in books,magazines,radio,tv. Look how libertarianism has grew from being little known to at least mentioned in numerous people even if only briefly and even if only derisively in the main.”

and what progress has been made?

“Why not?”

because you want to set up shop in a bs market. people who pick up your idealogy amongst the other fringe and usually silly beliefs that you find at these ‘alliances’ are fickle and ignorant. they can contribute little more than incorrectly parroting something ron paul said and turning more people off.

"I don’t think that JUST those types of people will be involved. "

it is.

“(“the kind of men who molded america out of a stagnating britain” Into what exactly?”

the first nation that was formed around the idea that men have natural rights not given by government or a monarch. it wasn’t very successful, but it was much more of a step forward than any grassroots save the whales rally will ever take.

78

But the rich man in an ancap society is the perfect servant for everyone else.

I get that he is subject to consumer demands. But my problem is that purchasing power is not a 1man 1 vote phenomenon. If 99% of the people are against something, and the remaining 1% control the purchasing power, that thing is very likely to go through anyway. Perhaps there is an answer to this, or it is an incorrect view, idk.

See, this goes back to not understanding praxeology and Austrian-ish market theory. If you did and disagreed, I could understand it.

I try to understand a little more everyday. What more can one ask?

But you’re not even addressing what wealth is or where it comes from.

Let me try; wealth is created by entrepeneurs taking risk to meet consumer demand. Overproduction (producing more than what the original producer would need) and the concurrent trade of said items garner said entrepreneur a profit. He can then reinvest this profit into his company, expanding the capital. Close?

Do you feel that an employer demanding more work from his employees for the same or less pay is just?
If the circumstances deem fit. If a business loses money, it goes out of buiness. It’s better to have a low-paying job, than none at all. I live but 3 miles from the factory where the build the Cruise. The local UAW has taken pay cuts 3 years in a row. It’s not like they want these places to go out of business. They just want their fair share.

Not at all. The ends are very different as well. Charity is a voluntary exchange, socialism isn’t.
I think this shows a general lack of understanding of genuine socialist theory. Not all Socialists are Marxist/Leninists (Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, things like that are developed from this school), not even all Marxists are (and not all socialists are marxists).

Years later, another prominent anarcho-syndicalist emphasized the main lesson of the Russian experience:

In Russia… where the so-called “proletarian dictatorship” has ripened into reality, the aspirations of a particular party for political power have prevented any truly socialistic reconstruction of economy and have forced the country into the slavery of a grinding state-capitalism. The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which naïve souls wish to see merely a passing, but inevitable, transition stage to real Socialism, has today grown into a frightful despotism and a new imperialism, which lags behind the tyranny of the Fascist states in nothing. The assertion that the state must continue to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of all historical experience, almost like a bad joke.2

Here, in brief, is the historical verdict passed on Marxism by anarchism

Marx’s views on the capitalist-state (as he called it. What you would refer to as the democratic state);

Far from seeing the state as a neutral arbiter that served to realize individual freedom, Marx considered the state to be a sphere of social life not only separate from, but also opposed to civil society. For Marx, this contradiction between the state and civil society is characteristic of a society divided against itself, in which the functions of government are administered against society. Marx writes, “The ‘police’, the ‘judiciary’, and the ‘administration’ are not the representatives of a civil society which administers its own universal interests in them and through them; they are the representatives of the state and their task is to administer the state against civil society.”5 Furthermore, the idea of the general interest of all citizens being realized within the bourgeois state was a fiction to begin with. Firstly, the “bureaucrats,” who perform state activities, use the general powers of the state to pursue their own particular interests within the state hierarchy. Marx writes, “As for the individual bureaucrat, the purpose of the state becomes his private purpose, a hunt for promotion, careerism

“The separation of the political state from civil society takes the form of a separation of the deputies from their electors. Society simply deputes elements of itself to become its political existence. There is a twofold contradiction: (1) A formal contradiction. The deputies of civil society are a society which is not connected to its electors by any ‘instruction’ or commission. They have a formal authorization but as soon as this becomes real they cease to be authorized. They should be deputies but they are not. (2) A material contradiction. In respect to actual interests . . . Here we find the converse. They have authority as representatives of public affairs, whereas in reality they represent particular interests” ~Marx

This isn’t neccesarily a defense of marxism on my part, he does refer to the transitionary phase (dicattorship of the proletariat) as the people as a whole using the state to abolish the state (abolition of private ownership of the means of production and the standing army, all that). I’m just saying, the way you are characterizing socialism refers most specifically to marxist-leninism.

Then why would taxes on the rich be more ok with you than taxes on everyone?

It’s not more ok. Taxes are disgusting. But I am not a dictator, and some people do not share my/our views on taxes. So, It has just regressed down the chain of my priorities for practical reasons.

And if the shareholders of a firm get together and decide to boycott a customer group, like say midgets, blacks, women or Jews, you would also be ok with that too, right?

No, that would be disgusting. But I would not aim missiles at them and give them an ultimatum. I would protest and boycott said businesses, but you can’t hate the hate out of someone.

79

Q. But how did that 1% get their purchasing power?
A. By satisfying the needs of the 99%.

Fair enough.

Wealth is created when people exchange something they value less, for something they value more. They are both better off after a voluntary exchange, and so aggregate wealth is increased. Sometimes I get the impression you see wealth creation as a zero sum game in which there are winners (capitalists) and losers (consumers). This view is common, but not correct.

Your long quote did nothing to enlighten me about how socialism is voluntary.

I agree, it wouldn’t be very nice, but my point was, they have as much right to boycott customers for whatever reason, as customers have to boycott them. You see a dichotomy between capitalist and consumer. A more nuanced free market view sees them as interchangeable and the differences as mostly aesthetic.

80

Q. But how did that 1% get their purchasing power?
A. By satisfying the needs of the 99%.

In a hypothetical society. In reality some of that 1% may have. But some of them also recieved there purchasing power through feudal land ownership in europe, state displacement of natives in n. america, and state-capitalist (meaning the capitalists themselves, not the system of capitalism) siezing of native lands in s. america, and if not these direct expropriations of property, then through using state coercion to their benefit. I’m sure asia is no better, but I’m not quite familiar with their history.

Wealth is created when people exchange something they value less, for something they value more. They are both better off after a voluntary exchange, and so aggregate wealth is increased.

That’s pretty abstract, but ok. I don’t see how any wealth is created if I trade you a stuffed bear for a piece of bubble gum (just our subjective desires fulfilled) tho. I think I was talking about how profits are created tho, and not neccesarilly wealth.

Sometimes I get the impression you see wealth creation as a zero sum game in which there are winners (capitalists) and losers (consumers). This view is common, but not correct.

If that were true, I would think we would still be cave-men. I don’t follow the school that says one man only gets rich by taking from another man.

Also, a consumer could only be a loser if the product was faulty, or something.

Your long quote did nothing to enlighten me about how socialism is voluntary

My point was that you were mischaracterizing socialism as either marxism, or marxist-leninism. The only non-voluntary part of socialism is in Marx’s (as I said, not all socialists are Marxists) transitionary period (dictatorship of the proletariat; democracy) where the people would use the state to abolish the state;

Both Marxism and anarchism, for example, have been influenced by utopian socialism, which was based on voluntary cooperation, without recognition of class conflict. Anarchists are committed to libertarian socialism and they have focused on local organization, including locally managed cooperatives, linked through confederations of unions, cooperatives and communities. Marxists, who as socialists have likewise held and worked for the goal of democratizing productive and reproductive relationships, often placed a greater strategic emphasis on confronting the larger scales of human organization. As they viewed the capitalist class to be prohibitively politically, militarily and culturally mobilized in order to maintain an exploitable working class, they fought in the early 20th century to appropriate from the capitalist class the society’s collective political capacity in the form of the state, either through democratic socialism, or through what came to be known as Leninism. Though they regard the state as an unnecessarily oppressive institution, Marxists considered appropriating national and international-scale capitalist institutions and resources (such as the state) to be an important first pillar in creating conditions favorable to solidaristic economies

The question isn’t about coercion. It is about whether or not it is coercion to take from a theif (also, are they really thiefs, but that’s not the point).

I agree, it wouldn’t be very nice, but my point was, they have as much right to boycott customers for whatever reason, as customers have to boycott them. You see a dichotomy between capitalist and consumer. A more nuanced free market view sees them as interchangeable and the differences as mostly aesthetic

I take a more material view of the world. In theory any worker can become a capitalist. In a snapshot, there are many many workers who are not. And even more so who are (capitalists), but not of any real significance until they retire.