Anarchy or Liberty, or why I am an anarchist

Weird point, but what if the US gun lobby are right?
I mean they are not, but perhaps it's fair to point out that of all the things you can and can't do in the United States, there are a lot of things which are a lot harder to do than obtaining a firearm. In many cases there are freedoms that most people in the world enjoy that are affectively forbidden in the USA.
Like having a drink on your 18th birthday.
Not being shot by the police or being a victim of a mass shooting.
Obtaining an abortion or healthcare.
Driving while black.
Crossing the road (it's called "jaywalking").
Crossing the road while black.
Public drinking.

The point is, there are often two sides to an argument and in specific circumstances the "liberal" and "conservative" sides to an argument are actually both right and wrong. Being:
guns
abortions
hard drugs
soft drugs
euthanasia
marriage (in general)
killing in defence of self or property
smoking/drinking/having sex/injecting drugs in public
I think it is for society itself to deal with these issues not any government, no matter how democratic or otherwise it claims to be, simply because legalising in effect means official endorsement by the state while there are obvious problems with prohibition which anyone can find arguments for  (They all boil down to the same thing anyway).

Alternately, they could be dealt with on a case by case basis or localities can decide consensus on which is appropriate. This is basically anarcho-communism, summed up by Emma Goldman's phrase

"Society gets the crime it deserves"

It is interesting if one goes back to the issue of firearms how it is somehow considered acceptable in some parts of America, particularly Texas, to openly carry firearms in public while drinking and even smoking in public can result in a fine or imprisonment, let alone open drug use or fornication! Yet, surely being openly armed is a threat while none of the other offences would actually harm anyone directly?

Censorship is another issue.
Libertarians would contend that banning a film is wrong as is putting an age certificate. But what if one simply cannot afford to "go to the movies"? Isn't that basically the same as censorship because poverty, especially extreme poverty, prevents one participating in society and, to be honest and using films again as an example, having an opinion about society?
Which we are all part of.

But, guns.
If people can carry guns in public they could justify that using freedom of speech or even freedom of association. So, banning people from openly carrying firearms is restricting freedom of speech.....
...but by that argument ALL forms of pornography should be legal, while blackmail and even threats to kill are legitimate.
But, all this proves is that libertarianism is basically bollocks. It just gives one the right to intimidate and even be an outright threat to society.

Are libertarian ideas totally wrong or can one be selective?
Maybe.
"Democracy is when three sheep and one wolf argue over what to have for dinner"-an anonymous (well not because it's Facebook) poster on a Facebook libertarian group.
This comment probably sums up Objectivism, which is basically a reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-debate anti-liberal non-ideology. Just like libertarianism! Hah!

However, if one ignores the "justification" for capitalism and looks at the arguments for treating human beings equally because they are rational beings than Objectivism can start to make sense.
But.
What is the difference between being forced to eat grass because one cannot afford to eat or pay rent/mortgage on the land they occupy and, say, the state murdering you because you are rich or Jewish? We are humans, not wolves or sheep. We are animals and that is a good thing. Denying one is an animal with feelings, the ability to feel pain and pleasure and the need and desire to survive is illogical and denying reality.
So if we take these ideas seriously one should be free to work or not as one desires and all products and services available to any should be available to all.
Or at least rational people who give a good reason.
But.
A libertarian would say this is communism and an Objectivist would say communism is evil.

I would say that poverty is itself a form of violence AND censorship. I would also say that there is no objective way to allocate a value to labour so the most reasonable way to value it is to think of it in terms of time spent and hours worked.
Another way to put this would be to ask this question: You have two people. they are both on a very low income, say £100 a week. However, the first person only works for two hours a week while the other works for 112 hours a week. So, who is poorer?
I think it is obvious.
The poor worker is the one who barely has time to eat and sleep while the "rich" worker has time to educate themselves, have hobbies, practice their religion, spend time with their family or just sleep in from time to time, get wasted and end up with a hangover in the morning or just look for another job.
Objectivism basically states neither is rich or poor although Ayn Rand would almost certainly state that the second worker is somehow more virtuous.
The ridiculous hours spend by the second example are not used to make a spurious or extreme point but is a direct reference to the "heroes" of 'Atlas Shrugged'. Don't bother reading it, just trust me.

As an addendum to comments on libertarianism and Objectivism; what if one is irrational? For example a child or a very elderly person.
Or someone who is uneducated because all the public schools were closed when they were young and their parents didn't have time to teach them how to read.
Or they are angry because they are unemployed or homeless.
I think people should be allowed to fulfil their potential and all are of equal value. Libertarians (if we conflate the philosophy with Objectivism) would disagree. These people have no value and are practically considered animals along with homeless people, the developmentally disabled, drug addicts, religious people (presumably) and trade unionists. It is that extreme.
It is also hypocritical as it claims to be based on non-violence but effectively justifies if not violence at least neglect.
What we have to remember is that being asked for small change by a beggar is considered equal to asking one to rip both one's arms off and that being "on welfare" is effectively the same as murdering someone. For most rational people this is ridiculous but there is no such thing as moral relativism in Objectivism and no room in Ayn Rand's "philosophy" for compromise.
"A equals A" apparently.
But.
A socialist system based on voluntary association is not inherently violent. Communism is a good idea and need not require central planning or state co-ordination as I hope I have explained.

But what is wrong with government?
It is not all-powerful. In fact I would say it is incredibly weak, feeble and ineffective at solving especially global problems. Or at least without mass deprivation of personal freedoms.

What is the difference between anarchism and libertarianism?
Anarchists are against all forms of authority while libertarians just focus on the government. Libertarians also treat the government like some supernatural agency with wide-ranging powers when, objectively, the state, like money and perhaps God, DOES NOT EXIST. It exists in our minds only. If we ignored it, like perhaps obnoxious people and criminals, it would go away.
The only reality is survival, pleasure, pain and one's ego.
However, some government functions are perhaps necessary and it is not going to just go away because some people want it to. It survives because we allow it to survive. It is also true that necessary social functions like road maintenance and the fire brigade can be performed without need for taxes, coercion or state planning. Especially if they are functions that everybody agrees with or needs.

What about the left-right divide?
Obviously socialists and liberals are more or less on the left while conservatives and reactionaries are on the right. There is also the divide between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. But Objectivism is certainly a reactionary ideology despite its pretentions of liberalism and many on the Left have just as much contempt for liberalism, democracy and, more than often, students and the unemployed. For evidence just use the internet, there are plenty of intolerant morons on there.

Psychologically there is the Left, which focuses on the ego. Leftists often agree on many things but detest each other's organisations and fall out due to differences in personality. For example Murray Bookchin in the late twentieth century (his conflict with Lifestylism) and the refusal of the Second International to allow Errico Malatesta (an anarchist) membership. But Mussolini was a member.

In many ways the Reactionary Left is the same as that of the Revolutionary Right.
Oh..
.......I meant....hah!

Rightists disagree about a lot of things and are often most vocal and critical about "The Government" or "The Liberal Agenda", but still maintain loyalty to the main conservative party in their home country. They also have a collective psychology e.g. racists, homophobes, Islamophobes all treat individuals as part of a collective and consider any idea they disagree with as part of some conspiracy by a tiny but somehow all pervasive and all powerful cabal e.g. "The Jews" or "Hippies".