...or alternatively titled..."Steve answers @freebornangel, @builderofcastles, and and @valued-customer in a long, drawn-out, and roundabout way on their comments on an intelligence post" ;>

For those of you wanting to know just wtf Left-libertarianism has to do with their comments, I'll say that the answer is nothing...directly. That's why this is going to be a loooong damn post ;>

First and always, there aint no such thing as Left-libertarianism

Never was, never will be, never can be

Nolan and Pournelle were geniuses, but they fucked up in creating a 2-axis model to describe political alignment.

The introduction of the economic belief axis creates an integral contradiction to the use of force in social control.

• Point, the first - Economic control necessitates State control.
• Point Two - What is the level of State control the person supports. Basically, the more power you think a state should have, the farther to the Left you are on the political scale. The more freedom you support for the Individual, the frather you are to the Right. Argument for the first two points can be found here, What is leftism? What is rightism? Why are there so many different interpretations?
  
• The Three-Pointer - State and Society are two different concepts, yet from the viewpoint of the Individual, the use of force to control behavior looks the same. See What does this image mean to me? Liberty, Society, the Individual, and the State

Semantics can confuse these issues very easily, so I have tried to be exact in the terminology I am using. I am afraid you'll have to read the other posts for details.

What you end up with is the following diagram, in reality.

or in snarkdom, as such

The L-Ls aint completely wrong.

The use of force relies on Power. Economic power accumulates, as does every other form of power. So when an L-L says that his concern is the accumulated power of a corporation, or of a capitalist robber-baron, that is certainly a valid concern (and I'm a capitalist admitting this!)

I'm not sure I have the following quote from Howard Fast's' Power(1962) correct, but it's close enough

You use power to punish your enemies and reward your friends.

In the views of leftists, of either the gulag OR unicorn varieties, the people that question their...ahem, wisdom...are enemies to be punished...

Moving away from the left, and their constant use of force and power against their enemies, but still recognizing the legitimate fear of power in economic terms, let's try a quick scan of other uses of power:

• internet lynch mobs doxxing people and threatening their employers (oops, sorry, that's still leftists)
• Klansmen burning crosses on people's yards
• church shunning of sinners
• Cartel gunmen bribing, threatening, and blackmailing politicians, journalists, and policemen

It is this last point which will transition us to the next part of the discussion, but I do want to stress that the cartels show a great example in the accumulation of power. Transportation routes had to be controlled for drug trafficking, but the control of the routes and the money generated from the drug trade provided the cartels with the power to gain control over other economic sectors, ranging from blackmarket oil, to smuggling illegal aliens, to selling counterfeit goods. In fact, amazing as this sounds, drugs aren't even a majority of the cartels' income at this point in time.

The main point to understand is that there are multiple accumulations of power and of use of force to control how people (individuals) behave. These vectors go beyond government entities.

Tribalism

I'd say this picture is almost right. I wouldn't necessarily put down nationalism as a collective force, but I won't argue that it isn't one either.

What nationalism IS , however, is a form of tribalism. See Etho-nationalism Versus Civic Nationalism for my discussion of tribalism...even better, for the purposes of this post, tribalism is discussed in terms of nationalism.

Basically, though, the main point here is that tribalism (national or not) is a Societal force that can bear down on the individual with as much force as the State. Which is why I don't really see as an issue of semantics.

And the second point here is that whatever tribe you belong to (nationalist ethnic, religious, political, ideological,familial, etc), that tribe is going to use force, power, against it's enemies. Whether that means bringing force down on internal enemies that won't conform to tribal rules, or external enemies that threaten the tribe's security or even just its values, doesn't matter if it is YOU that is the target.

Finally, you belong to a tribe, probably several, whether you like it or not. Don't want to belong to a tribe? Move the fuck out to the boonies and stay away from people. Once you have a partner in crime of any type, you have now created your own tribe. Hell, even if you Grizzly Adams out to nowhere, old or even renounced tribal memberships can be used against you. Suppose you're a black dude who is tired of all the tribal bullshit surrounding your racial origination...it could be from other black folk demanding you behave like them in crab bucket mentality, or it could be from white people who are racist, or Hispanic people trying to drive blacks from their neighborhoods. So you bug out, only to find your new neighbors are Asians who bugged out themselves due to crimes committed by OTHER black people. Surprised they see YOU as a threat? Welcome to human stupidity.

Yes, I present the worst case scenario in all examples, because i believe in cutting percentages to 0% when it comes to negative outcomes.

None of these dumb bastards have an all-purposes solution

Whichever ideology has been looked at so far, even passingly, has problems. Leftism's problems are obvious. Liberty can tear at social harmony. Capitalism can lead to economic power accumulation.

See Utopia ALWAYS leads to Dystopia Verion 1, and Version 2

I think one problem here is that people assume that

• A. Everybody is alike
• B. Everybody is like THEM
• C. Everyone is reasonable (in terms of A and B)

Therefore, anyone who isn't a Reasonable C is an Enemy and must be dealt with by using power.

The simple fact is that even people within the same tribe have different goals and personalities. There are a lot of different patterns to weave a human from...The Wisdom of @valued-customer: A classification system based on the political nature of humanity

And IMO, humans are NOT reasonable. While this was once something I believed in, I took it as a matter of faith, not of experienced study. What empirical observation shows us is this:
Humans are rational providing that
A- They have the same cultural background
B- Currently have sufficient food, water, shelter, and emotional resources to satisfy Maslow's hierarchy

Even more, some tribes are hostile to the idea of rationality. The Deep State tribe, for example, has no Utopian goals, unless you count accumulating graft and power. If these people weren't in government, they would be roadside bandits, preying off any Individual that crossed their path.

And one of the reasons none of the ideologies work is because they won't acknowledge the circular nature of some of these problems.

"Humans are fallible, so we need government to fix their problems"
"Government is made up of fallible humans, so therefore is a problem in of itself"
"Nuh uh, we NEED government"
"Nuh uh, we DON'T NEED government"

The circular problem is that the use of State to resolve some issues causes different problems, but that the lack of some form of society-state causes it's own problems. Communitarian solutions work...until another tribe has accumulated power and decides you are easy pickings.

The common issue here is humans.

Can they be fixed?

WHY?

Why do you need to fix other people? Let the fuckers be; let them die of their own fucking stupidity, so as long as they don't bother ME while they're doing that.

Can you trust them to fuck off?

I think, that when you come right down to it, you can't trust humans to behave in any particular fashion. Yes, they can have tendencies based upon the tribalisms (plural) that they grew up in, or acquired through life, but even those can be contradictory...look at SEAL Marcus Luttrell, who took shelter in the home of an Afghani who prized the values of pashtunwali over the values of Islam. Had it been a different villager? Who knows.

"We owe each other brotherhood." Fuck if we do. We owe each other brotherhood when we share common values, and respond in kind. Which is kind of the point of tribalism.

But can we build a common tribe?

Oh ho! That's a different point, and as far as I digress today. I think another long winded bout of pontification on my part will be required to ask that question...on another day. I think we have what we need to address the initial questions.

Getting to the point

There is a reason I took the long way around. Let's look at the flow:
A- Discuss the failure of Left-libertarianism as a coherent ideology, but introduce it's main correct point, the recognition of accumulation of economic power and the danger that power represents.
B- Discuss the nature of power and use of force, and recognize these are human problems that go beyond the idea of government
C- Discuss how humans break down into tribes, and why tribes use force
D - Argue that human are NOT reasonable

So, there is a pattern here, believe it or not ;>

Answers and Answers

So now that I have a framework to refer back to, let me answer those comments from the gentledudes as noted. Sorry guys, this question leads to endless digressions, and it took me a day longer than I thought it would just to distill it down to this.

I see the basic thread of these comments as wariness of the use of force, especially from the State.

Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
@freebornangel

---

The very existence of governmental authority under the Constitution then is an ideological assumption, and any consideration of such effectiveness of incarceration, and the use of force against sovereign individuals is inherently ideological.

I here also will state that the assumption of that authority to use force has been proved to be based on faulty reasoning
@valued-customer

---

Anyway, the real things to know is
When things go sideways in the economy, what will your sheriff do?
@builderofcastles

---

At the end of the day, putting the blame on the State does not make humans any better people, but NOR does criticizing anarchy over it's own problems while ignoring the problems caused by State, make any more sense. This is a circular argument that only chases it's own tail, and it doesn't matter which way around the circle you chase

Conclusion - I have yet to see any society has not resorted to use of force, from the most free to the most oppressive. What I can see throughout history is smaller villages living in peace...until a band of brigands or a force from another tribe comes rolling through.

So what do? That is the point of another post, but the framework of that answer lies in the links I have posted today. On the other hand, understand that anything I propose is still yet another Utopian blowhard scheme