It was a very interesting discussion between the both of you, and thank you both for keeping things civil.
With that being said, what’s dangerous about Mr. Malice’s stance in this discussion is that a Leftist or an Islamist can use it to justify just about every instance of Left-wing or Islamist violence, from Charlie Kirk’s murder to the Bolshevik Revolution to 9/11, without needing to change very much. Perhaps Mr. Rothman’s arguments have some weaknesses, and Mr. Malice makes some valid points at times, but I think Malice’s overall approach is thoroughly dangerous, counterproductive, and anti-liberty - it would result in a much more authoritarian world that Malice does not want to bring about.
The irony of libertarians and anarchists (people who supposedly know about the economic concept of time preference) is that many of them have a very high time preference for achieving the political world they want and impossibly high standards for what that word should look like.
Voting *does* result in actual change. It just takes more time than most of them are willing to devote to make their desired political ends come about (certainly more than one election cycle). It’s, frankly, a juvenile way of looking at the political world: “I can’t get what I want immediately, so I’m gonna go home and throw a tantrum in my room about it!”
Liberty is won and lost on the margin on a daily basis in different ways and in different places all over the world, and there will never be a world permanently free of any form of government (which is essentially what anarchists quixotically hope to achieve) - because the social forces and human impulses that caused the first states to emerge in human history will always be there (unless we evolve into some different kind of species, which will take a few hundred thousand years). A permanent anarchy would be nice to have if it was possible, but it simply isn’t - in part because even anarchists can’t agree on what anarchy would actually look like or how anarchist law would actually operate in practice (or, at least, how it wouldn’t just devolve back into she statist system it supposedly overthrew)
What anarchists actually mean by anarchy is “choice in legal systems” - specifically the exact legal system they prefer. The problem arises when an anarchist who subscribes to Sharia law feels justified in forcing his legal system on a non-Muslim - because that’s what his subjective legal code says he is allowed to do, and his fellow Muslim anarchists who run the private Sharia courts to which he’d bring any suits to adjudicate (because he won’t agree to hear those cases in any other courts) would agree with him.
Now, you have conflict - probably only ultimately resolvable by “war” (that is, physical coercion between two or more parties at odds with each other).
Obviously, the problem is not just with Islamists, but that’s simply one example of an imperial legal system that at least some people in an anarchist world would subscribe to; there are plenty others, and in a world of anarchy, people would be free to come up with literally any legal code they want.
What you would eventually end up with is a bunch of large states that impose a single legal code over a particular geographic area that sometimes band together to stop aggression from other states that try to impose their legal codes on them.
In other words, you’re… right back where you started 😵💫
Unlike communism, real anarchy *has* actually been tried before - and it ultimately lost out to states. I don’t like it, but it’s just the way it is. 🤷♂️
(Yes, folks, that communism quip is a joke - socialism and all its forms is the worst legal and economic system to ever have been devised by humans.)