How unfortunate for anyone who cares about your posts that you resort to childish bullying when you’re uncomfortable. That says enough about the quality of your objections to my ideas. Bullying, trolling, red herring, how original… My issue isn’t that “there will still be corrupt people.” Of course there will be, and like shit to flies the institutions of power-over-others will attract them. But my issue is that the system itself is fundamentally flawed. You can give a mustang a new paint job, but it’s still a mustang. And since nothing fundamental will have changed, then as ever the institutions of power will pour money into outlets of propaganda to mould the masses.
Look, libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. Power corrupts, but libertarians want a system to get less corrupt over time while still being dependent on institutionalized violent morals enforcement. They shout how a definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and then they advocate the same thing with a new paint job and expect different results.
In real life there are workarounds, and there are solutions. Libertarianism is a workaround masquerading as a solution to the problem of conflict due to scarcity. The problem isn’t finding the right violent morals enforcement institution; any system of violent morals enforcement is flawed because power corrupts. A solution will address scarcity and the drive to conflict with others, I’ve gone over that here.
If you want to challenge yourself and troubleshoot anarchism, great. Let’s talk about the unintended consequences of changing the face of violent institutions. To me that sounds exciting. And it’s not enough to talk about it as though it were already present in a bubble. What are the real-world obstacles it has to confront, and compromises it has to make, in order to even (be allowed to) exist as a beta model available to consumers?