Anarchy or Liberty, part three. Or, Why I am not a Leftist?

Hello again. I feel like I'm on a roll with this one.

Been starting to realise just how right-wing libertarianism is. Perhaps I should say "economic authoritarianism" to refer to it or Objectivism, assuming the two are the same. The opposite ought to be a form of "cooperativism", perhaps socialism is a misleading term. The left-right divide can be replaced by individualism and cooperativism on the one hand and political and economic authoritarianism on the other.

It is right to use these terms when one extreme opposes any form of non-state or independent cooperation (Objectivism), political parties/activism and the forming of trade unions while the other end can encompass most forms of socialism and forms of political activity, including anarcho-syndicalism and "Lifestylism". I'm not quite sure where to put Fascism on a purely left-right scale so political authoritarianism definitely fits-Objectivists oppose any political activity, putting any other philosophy and ideology to its Left.

Of course, if one disagrees fundamentally with freedom of association then one really ought to oppose all prisons, assuming society doesn't have the right to choose who it associates with. Think about it.

Yes, anyone reading my blog will tell I have an obsession with prisons and criticising a crazed obscure "rightist" ideology.
And I do.
The reason for this is twofold and connected: the right-wing media in the United Kingdom and how often people on the traditional "left" and "right" ends of the political spectrum use the same arguments to support different positions .
I often find myself reading between the lines and it is very clear to me that the poisonous, insidious half-philosophy known as "Objectivism" or libertarianism is a present influence in the editorial content specifically of the Times newspaper, the modern Conservative party and the online magazine "Spiked Online". The latter is generally quite obscure but is often quoted by the BBC, RT, The Times and the Daily Mail.
Even though they support legalising all forms of pornography, including examples of which are too obscene to describe and involve no reasonable measure of consent.
This is not exaggeration, Spiked are fanatically committed to the most extreme forms of free speech while opposing any and all forms of political activism ("Activism equals Anarchy", to quote their God Ayn Rand). Finding objective information on Spiked is difficult, but they actually grew out of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain. Presumably they decided capitalism will only be overthrown after it has reached its worst excesses and so have to argue fervently for any conservative cause while keeping to a libertarian agenda.
The newspapers mentioned are typical of right-wing newspapers in the United Kingdom, which are highly critical of campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians for example. All journals seem to harbour particular ire towards the campaigns in favour of organising economic and academic boycotts of Israel in order to pressure and isolate their government. Which to The Times is basically against free trade, although surely people have a choice of who and where to by goods from and who they associate or do not with?
This is where contradictions are raised, or ought to be.
I can just about forgive the Hate Mail when it criticises capitalism on moral grounds. This is a very sound argument in fact, as is opposition to capitalism on environmental grounds.
The issue of association and choice is fundamental to the issue of establishing or not trade unions and prisons, I shouldn't make that point further? However I would clarify that a very big problem with prisons is how they are organised and the insatiable reliance on them when there is no clear empirical evidence that they actually reform criminals and deter crime. I think, without contradicting myself, prison is one of those problems that are not easily solved and that there is no clear answer to the situation.
But it is obscenely hypocritical concerning the existence of the state: being that if the state is defined by the legal use of violence that effectively means that murder, in a very real sense, is legal. As is theft or extortion as the state is effectively a huge self-sustaining protection racket. It is important considering the above points to consider this when mainstream conservative and Conservative commentators criticise Social Anarchists for not agreeing with their concept of a minimal state. But: short argument-who builds and maintains the roads? Private individuals could not afford to. Towns and villages could be linked by private railways but many would be unprofitable and the owners would go bankrupt.
So, what happens if the government can tax people, but people can't form trade unions or political parties? Also, no-one is responsible for roads, hospitals and schools because these should all be privately run. And there'd be no prisons because practically everything would be legal.
Like infanticide.
In other words, why listen to the arguments of morons?

Another dickhead is Friedrich Hayek. Thatcher was a massive fan (no surprise there) due to his book "The Road To Serfdom" (not read at present but do I need to?) which basically argues that welfare systems are wrong and interfere with individual freedom because there is no fool proof way of objectively determining how much money an individual would need to live off or proving if they have other sources of income. But how can one decide, similarly, if a criminal is guilty or even, say philosophically, if a crime has even been committed, so the argument goes round in circles? All it proves really is that the arguments against communism or socialism used by Hayek, Rand and Thatcher are the same for opposing any kind of centralised coordinating authority one could think of.
Besides, a welfare state is not the same as socialism.
Also, surely any idiot could give a reasonable guess on how much an individual's living costs would be? Say, by estimating or working out by statistical means the total cost of a loaf of bread, two bus tickets and a pint of milk then multiplying that amount by seven to give a low but reasonable cost of living. Money or vouchers or credit could also be supplied to cover the cost of clothes, heating and rent over a certain period. Welfare costs hardly make up a large amount of government spending and most forms like pensions and child support are provided to people who do or used to work. Welfare is not paying people not to work and abolishing unemployment benefits while maintaining a prison system is effectively rewarding criminal behaviour as desperate individuals would be forced to commit crimes simply in order to receive healthcare or a roof over their head.

Other forms of anarchy face the same arguments against them as well as hostility from other Leftists.
Anarcho-primitivism and green anarchy support a return to a pastoral or even hunter-gather society. In so many obvious ways this is evidently backward and counterproductive but does hit a chord with conservative arguments, especially conservatives critical of relentless progress at a Human cost. It also supports a non-hierarchical alternative to industrial capitalism while consistently keeping to the traditional arguments against socialism. In terms of bringing it about, many Primitivists consider it inevitable considering recent historical developments, the suicidal reluctance of governments and corporations to work towards a sustainable future for Humanity (a heinous crime of non-action in itself) and the obvious absence of "The Revolution", alongside the perpetual bickering, splintering and infighting that plagues left-wing organisations.

Agorism is sometimes called "anarcho-capitalism" even though "anarcho-capitalism" is non-anarchic and Agorism is not exactly capitalism in the traditional sense. However, like Mutualism (another branch of political anarchism) it defines what Objectivists confuse capitalism to be, being straight-forward equal trade between consenting, rational individuals. Do I need to explain why this isn't really capitalism?

Lifestylism is pretty self-explanatory in itself, based on the belief that the life choices of individuals can bring about real social change. This, perhaps again, is (probably) what people often limit or confuse anarchism with. Murray Bookchin, among many others, was a critic.
But what is the alternative? "Getting a Job like a Good Communist"? Isn't this Lifestylism? Or is it just surrendering one's autonomy to the state or an employer who lives off your labour. Another subject that just goes round and round and never gets satisfactorily resolved.