It’s because the state is also an oppressive force. I wonder why you come across lots of libertarians and lots of socialists but not so much the combination of the two (toward realities alternative to both state and capital)
Anyways, since the state is a tool of oppression and the state should reflect the will of the people, it'd be nice if people chose negative things to oppress like extreme inequality, rampant exploitation, and extortion (looking at you healthcare system aka "your money or your life" highway robbers).
Are other countries as dysfunctional in terms of voting themselves policies that aren't consistent with our internal behaviors? E.g. "someone" should do something about homelessness but I don't want to see it?
Other than digesting a whole ton of history at once--or debating ChatGPT--how do you establish your axis or "quadrants" of political lean?
I wish there were a way to systematically track voting record. We're never in the room where it happens, so it can be difficult to tell if a political compromise is for a future favor, or part of a consistent policy position.
Seriously Libaterian Socialism is another word for Anarchism
This link rejects the equivalence, but I don't really know. Could you clarify the distinction?
> socialist economics but have an aversion to vanguard parties. Anarchy is a whole lot more than economics.
> To identify as an anarchist is to take a strong stance against all authority, while... other such milquetoast labels take no such stance, leaving the door open to all kinds of authority, with the only real concern being democracy in the workplace.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-are-libertarian-...
There are other legitimate flavors of anarchism as well outside libcom.
Is there really an illegitimate flavour of anarchism?