The problem of this argument is its perspective. A libertarian* perspective makes understanding anarchism impossible.
Happyhippo wrote:The main argument is that the individual`s choice in socialism is always subordinate to The Group, no matter how we arrange our society.
This is naturally true on a few levels.
The first is the definition of society and politics.
Everything is subject to the whim of those with power. That's the nature of human society. Even in the most libertarian universe one can think of, where all laws are "universal" it is only those who have the most, usually economic, influence that can determine what is a murder and what is self defense. So in a anarchist society, instead of focusing on making imaginary "non-political zones", we want to take the power back tot he people (the true meaning of democracy). In a sentence, the tyranny of the majority cannot truly be prevented, but the tyranny of the minority can be.
The second is on a social level. Indeed, individual`s choice in
everything is always subordinate to The Group. Socialism in deeper than some political schema, its about social change. The way I see it any "political body", collectives and unions for example, in anarchism is just an artificial form of something that exists within society already. The ultimate goal of any such body is to be unneeded, that society itself will adopt their functions. And yes in society people are part of a bigger group, and are subject to it. There is nothing tyrannical about it, its how people work.
The part I don't understand, in the article, is the one about opting out. You can't "opt out" because anarchism is not a proprietor. There is no "anarchist land", or "anarchist law". You can't opt out of society, because opting out is a social stance. I don't see any reason for an anarchist collective to harm or hound anybody who does not feel connected to it, anymore than any society does by being a society. and if one shall harm the people, by exploiting them or, say, building a waste plant in their drinking water, common in capitalism, they can't hide behind their opting out. Without a state to protect and alienate them they will have to face the people themselves, although even than I believe the people will not need to resort to violent measures.
Kman wrote:Our ''tyranny'' is almost non-existant, in a libertarian society you can trade with whoever you want for whatever price you want and you can engage in practically every kind of behavior you want as long as your not harming anyone else.
For that sentence to be true you will have to both forgo both the common definition of tyranny and harm.
Kman wrote:If you want to start a business selling shower curtains then you can do so, you cannot do that in a libertarian socialist state since they have alot of rules prohibiting you from engaging in tons of consensual behavior.
Wrong.
Kman wrote:Yeah but I cant hire anyone even if they would love to work for me
You can try, but I suspect they will eventually demand equal ownership of the tools they are using, in which case there will be no state to say "No, we reserve his privilege to profit effortlessly!".
*
Right libertarian, I am using the term to describe only them, to avoid confusion.