I'm glad to see a post on your blog and glad I never dropped my RSS subscription. I too have been neglecting my blog. Part of it is writer's block on my part, as I have pretty much run out of things to write about #anagorism and my own sense of blogpride rests more on not posting redundant content than posting frequently (as was the rage a few years ago when too many bloggers were cultivating something they called "professionalism.") Another factor in my blog neglect is the fact that, quite frankly, the blogosphere is dead. Blogging is "so 2006," as they say. Nobody reads blogs any more. The online business giants are phasing out RSS support everywhere. Posting (like prayer) feels like talking to a wall. But I want to break the social media habit so I turn to the blogosphere, even though it has become lonely and desolate. Very nice to see some green shoots, especially at one of my favorite blogs ever.

It may be that Diaspora* is even deader than the blogosphere, but I applaud your efforts to get a pod going. In fact, I think I'll visit Diaspora* today. Thanks for the inspiration. FWIW my profile there is https://joindiaspora.com/u/n8chz

I find that hard to believe. When I was in school I lived for the 4 or 5 percent of teachers who were bad in that way.

A libertarian slogan I find particularly grating is from Russ Nelson: "Businesses persuade. Governments force."

In a stateless society of the dystopian kind, not governed even by moral principles (warlordism), territory is conquered by martial means, while in market anarchy (i.e. anarcho-capitalism), it is conquered by economic means, as the "non-aggression principle" is in place, and "force and fraud" will NOT be tolerated, so the alpha types have to settle for manipulation, intimidation, or whatever competitive tactics can be found by some private tribunal to be within the boundaries of the "non-aggression principle." The common denominator is that territorialism is part of the human condition in both cases. The weak will be pushed off the more desirable lands by the strong. It's merely a question of whether we mean weak or strong in martial skills, or weak or strong in business skills. For this reason I consider the persuade vs. force thing a matter of degree, not kind.

The solution to the problem of authority, if there is one, is not to replace force with persuasion, but to replace competition with cooperation.

My recent post n8chz pushed to master at n8chz/typing-practice

I guess what it boils down to for me is that the idea that markets can be non-"cash-nexus" or contracts can be non-feudal requires just as much suspension of disbelief on my part as the idea that municipalities can be non-policing. Maybe more. Polycentric strikes me as polyarchy-lite, with the implied understanding that law, justice and even community membership are the purview of competing commercial vendors (i.e., capitalism). Perhaps anarchy is an asymptotic goal, because freedom to and freedom from can't be entirely reconciled and some polyarchic marketplace of libertarian (and possibly other) ideas is the best we can hope for, so each individual can hopefully find their way to whatever explicit social contract they find least unpalatable. The assertiveness with which left libertarians categorically prioritize freedom from over freedom to leads me to classify them as, broadly speaking, a right-of-center tendency. But of course that is according to my own personal understanding of the right-left dichotomy which probably has no objective basis, anyway.

Murray Bookchin was certainly one of the first three or four writers who influenced me in a generally antistatist direction. Post-scarcity is important to me because not only is it the key to making economic allocation less of a harsh mistress (in my wildest dreams, making the market allocation obsolete), but the political tension between freedom from and freedom to, also. For me, the opposite of anarchism is not statism (at least not statism expressed as some narrowly-defined version of coercion) but human nature essentialism. Taking an empirical rather than metaphysical approach to human motives and conduct may suggest that people aren't all that different from rats, and will probably be more vicious under conditions of scarcity and more benevolent when they are fortunate enough to experience material security. That is why I see competition (economic competition, anyway) not as a mechanism of accountability, but (at best) as a symptom of scarcity. It does not, from what I've seen, bring out the best in people.

My recent post n8chz pushed to master at n8chz/typing-practice

the ruling class (how wide to cast the net of that definition is up for debate, but it certainly includes politicians and criminal billionaires)

Politicians-without-adjectives, and criminal billionaires. The studied consistency in message discipline (or C4SS editorial policy) is certainly impressive.
My recent post n8chz pushed to master at n8chz/typing-practice

I think enlarging the constituency for left-styled libertarianism will involve a little more than encouraging people to think outside the box. I've never been under the impression that government and business are on the same side. What sticks in my craw these days is the "it's really corporatism you're against" mantra championed by market advocates ranging from left-libertarians to anarcho-capitalists to tea party types. I don't accept that concerned others know me better than I know myself. For the record, what I'm really against is the profit motive (especially the effects of that motive under competitive pressure). If I say I'm anti-capitalist, the word capitalist should be taken to mean "business owner" (which absolutely is one of the standard dictionary definitions of "capitalist") and for that purpose I don't differentiate between big business and small business. Explaining my reasons for seeing commerce as inherently problematic would be beyond the scope of a quick blog comment, but my propaganda on that subject is easy enough to find in quantity, if not quality.

Only two or three clicks away from the admittedly pathetic (especially on the part of those arguing for the left) Twitter argument you link to is this exchange between @gnewburn and @AaronMDellutri. @gnewburn (apparently an ancap, or market anarchist) is slinging the tired "aggression is aggression" refrain, while @AaronMDellutri is trying to make an argument for the idea (which I agree with) that private property is an institution which rests on aggression. In @gnewburn's particular Wonderland, the "property crime" of non-payment of rent is taken to be "initiation of aggression" and the hierarchical consequence called eviction, in @gnewburn's book is "retaliatory." Honestly, people like Greg Newburn (@gnewburn), not people like John Stossel (@FBNStossel), are the reason I distance myself from the libertarian brand.

My recent post n8chz pushed to master at n8chz/typing-practice

This is interesting. I have basically no philosophical training and generally elect not to wade in those waters. Certainly I don't dare post a comment on the BHL blog! :-) Nevertheless, sometimes I read some dumbed-down explanation of some philosophical "school" and something about it simply resonates with me. For now, my philosophic infatuation is with negative utilitarianism, which is a minor variant on straight-up utilitarianism.

One someone explained deontology as the idea that a human individual is an end in itself, which is to say, not a means to some other end. Perhaps I was misinformed, or perhaps respecting individuals as ends in themselves and doing one's duty are two sides of the same coin.

This term eudaimonism I have not heard anywhere other than the left-lib quadrant of the blogosphere. My internal pseudo-Greek dictionary reads it as "good demon." For some reason the decades old pop lyric "every single one of us got the devil inside" is playing in my head. As for virtue, it's practically a dirty word with me. This is mainly because you could literally organize a drinking game around instances of the word virtue (and of course virtù) in Burnham's book The Machiavellians. Virtù seems to be something that a lot of Italian proto-fascist-leaning "Machiavellians" were very enthusiastic about. But I must admit that as a neg-ute (as with any ute) I owe an intellectual debt of gratitude to Pareto for a kickass set of analytical tools. Then of course there's William Bennett's Book of Virtues. Perhaps "virtue," like "market," is a good word that has been discredited by being used to promote unworthy causes, and Bennett is to "virtue" as Koch/Cato is to "market" or something.

My recent post n8chz pushed to master at n8chz/typing-practice

Like all objections to anarchy (one possible consequence of statelessness), it boils down to a vote of no confidence in human nature; a belief that a political power vacuum will be filled by something; probably de facto rule by warlords (the "anarchy in Somalis" narrative--repeat until true). I just saw an example of this kind of thinking that appeared in the blogosphere about the same time as the present post.
My recent post n8chz commented on issue n8chz/prostetnic#4

"Large-scale corporate manufacturing, despite propagandists of mass production like Schumpeter, Galbraith and Chandler, is actually less efficient for the most part than small-scale production close to the point of consumption."

What about propagandists of "long supply chains" such as Böhm-Bawerk?

"If all consensual activities like drugs and sex work are legal, what will be the revenue base?"

Perhaps non-consensual activities. Black markets and consensual crimes are sombunall of the business model of organized crime. There's also the fencing of stolen goods, putting hits on people, etc.

If state-backed capitalism dies of bankruptcy and resource/input crises, I don’t see the corporations beating the Second Law of Thermodynamics and unscrambling the egg."

Cute. When I read the paragraph about the magical disappearance of state but not commerce, the first thought that came to my mind was "Maxwell's Daemon," but as usual, you beat me to the punch.