Roderick here claims that the hostility between libertarians and leftists is due to mistakes on both sides. He says that people from the left typically assume that the state is needed, one way or another, to deal with systems of oppression based on things like gender and race. So libertarians see these issues/movements as inherently connected with state power in some sense.
I really don’t agree with this view, I do know where he is coming from and I know that it is accurate up to a point. But the history of identity and gender movements is too rich for this to explain everything. And there are too many psychological reasons why people go to libertarianism to act as though all libertarianis are reasonable people or honestly only care about liberty.
It’s not that Roderick, of all people, doesn’t understand any of this, but I think he holds back a little in order to not alienate the libertarians. The fact that the group who most successfully scares people into walking on egg shells is the tough normal masculine men, white ones in particular, is itself pretty telling. It’s sort of like how the most conforming and male-approved women are the ones who are most successful at silencing those whose criticisms of sexual norms “go too far”.
There is a difference between having a thought and having a principle with which you identify. It goes into the whole question as to whether or not the identity forms of ideology are actually connected in any meaningful way to ideas. In other words, do “libertarians” have some monopoly over the idea that the state uses violence to keep order; that regardless of the good things the state does, the fact that people are made to behave through fear of state violence means it is not justifiable? Well, no.
Therefore I think the ideas at the core of libertarianism are safe if I were to suggest that many people become libertarians precisely because they hate the radical gays, women, and etc who criticize everything that these libertarians have been conditioned to regard as normal and good. I think if Roderick were honest he would be more adamant about this, as opposed to saying that libertarians only hate the identity movements because the identity movements are friendly to the state. As he well knows, there are plenty of people who want to see the end of compulsory heterosexuality, sex roles, racism, and etc who are against the state, and who are also against identity politics.
I’ll name a few in case you don”t believe me, and because they are much less known than the pantomimes who participate in the identity politics circus:
William Dubay- Gay Identity, The Self Under Ban
John Lauritsen- Freethinker’s Primer and History of the Gay Movement
Philip J Hoskins View From the Sixties
There are plenty more, but there are not a lot of online resources.
And the illiterate caveman-wannabe libertarians believe that postmodernism and queer theory are all about an attack on white men and are a threat to western civilization’s rationality. But though the sociological milieu and other related fields have not done enough to discipline bad work (understatement of the century), there are nonetheless well respected scholars and researchers who are doing work that questions common sense notions of sexuality and sex roles. But in the past, before the fundamentalist vs identity politics circus took off, there were even more people who took inequality between men and women, and subtle forms of racism for granted. The irony is that radical feminists and other people of Practical Politics despise postmodernism and queer theory for various reasons that I may or may not get to in this post. But essentially all of the things they label as postmodernism/individualism/libertarianism, which are often not postmodernism or queer theory at all, are bad because they are theories that see people as participants in how society operates, as opposed to the idea of class-based oppression being all that there is.
For the record, I hate hate hate hate queer theory, and I rather don’t like the continental philosophies. But, as with all ideology-as-identity circuses, people tend to accuse whatever they don’t like of being postmodernism or whatever other boogieman. Michel Foucault, considered by many libertarians to be one of the founders of cultural marxism and considered by leftists to be a dangerous denier of class and power, was actually an anarchist. Foucault believed that anything could be used to exert power, and you can see more of this in his book Biopolitics.
Jeffrey Weeks- Sex, Politics and Society
In this book Jeffrey traces the politics of identity which means he sees the emergence of identities politics as evolving alongside the state. This means that, while he does probably support the state (but in a more moderate liberal sense), he does not subscribe to the idea that men/straights are an oppressor class while women/gays are politically oppressed in quite the unsophisticated way that a lot of feminists, leftists, and identity politics people do. His work, this book and others, is more accepting of the idea that society is an emergent phenomenon, that as bad as things may be, most of it is chaotic and incidental.
Roger Lancaster- The Trouble with Nature
This book does annoy me, on the one hand there is some pretty good dismantling of bias that has troubled science and science-turned-into-pop-culture for a very long time. On the other hand he suffers from the typical queer-theory delusion that things are changing. Weeks, Lancaster, Tatchell, and ilk all claim explicitly that the homo/hetero binary is breaking down, but I don’t see how this is the case. They suffer from living in their pop culture/middle class/urban/university bubbles, not realizing just how powerful the politics of the gay role (the minority model) is. It’s not what I would call a great piece of work, but I do think it is at least a step away from total mediocrity. More to the point, Lancaster avoids defining the politics of gender and sexuality as primarily, or really at all, about oppression. The book is really a dissection of group think and universal tendencies than it is about which class of people dominates another (or all others).
Anne Fausto-Sterling – Sexing the body – gender politics and the construction of sexuality
C.A Tripp – The Homosexual Matrix
If this book be outdated–which I don’t think it is really–it stands as the best piece of history there is to discover what sexology was like before the rise of the fundamentalist vs gay identity circus. Also Tripp demonstrates how a non-feminist, non-millennial, non-political writer can write openly about the abuse and subordination of women that has gone on throughout human existence.
Other authors who have talked about misogyny from a non-feminist and non-political perspective: Misogyny: The Male Malady and A Brief History of Misogyny: the World’s Oldest Prejudice
Edward Sagarin – Deviants and Deviance
Like Tripp’s book this serves as an example and a historical artifact. This is a huge book that explores and critiques every single sociological explanation of homosexuality (and deviancy in general) that has ever been offered. The amount of work that has gone into this, and its rigorous sophistication should be the standard for anyone who wants to keep sociology proper science, and interesting.
Speaking of which, a much more recent work that surpasses Sagarin’s book, but this time in philosophy, is Edward Stein’s The Mismeasure of Desire. This is a proper philosophical book, again, this should be the standard for anyone who knows that us being a sexually dimorphic species that has evolved to have certain reactions to and expectations from the opposite sex is a proper topic for philosophy.
David Barash (yes the sociobiologist) – We Need a General Theory of Individuality
Pretty much all of the evolutionary psychologists claim that all men are rapists and that the inequities between men and women are rooted in nature.
Now back to the video.
Roderick says that there are forms of oppression that are not directly rights violations. He says market libertarians might say there cannot be that much discrimination in the market because the market would penalize those who jeopardize their sales by discriminating against employees or customers.
Where do I even start?
First of all, there is life outside of the market. Secondly, one would have to prove that people’s desire to succeed in business is stronger than prejudice, meaning that their rational calculation of self interest is stronger than largely subconscious prejudices and emotions. Uh, no? But that doesn’t mean I completely throw out the notion that having a free market would decrease discrimination, I definitely disagree with the notion that a free market by default leads to more discrimination and inequality. It is definitely the case that as people become more so consumers, producers, and owners, and less dominated by theocracy, and other forms of nationalism (as opposed to individualism) they should become less prejudiced.
So the idea is sort of right and wrong. It is right to assume that moving away from being primarily a citizen of church/state/nation and being more your own person exchanging equally with other beings who have your exact rights might lead to less prejudice. But at the same time in a world where prejudice and “spectres” are already rampant, to believe that somehow rational calculation can right here and now decrease discrimination is not in line with human nature.
Roderick says that in large firms there is very little price feedback to accurately determine the cost-benefit of any single individual. Therefore they have to make their decisions based on other judgement influenced by widespread social ideas and prejudices. One reason why giant bureaucratic firms exist in the first place is of course the state, which played a crucial role in their creation. So, what he is saying is: no state, no giant bureaucratic firms; not giant firms, less judgement based on social stereotypes. Yes, it’s easy to see that there is some sense to what he is saying, it’s possible that getting to know people more directly could, logically, make it so that people would see each other for who they are rather than as walking types. But let’s get real. In the past people were far less alienated and there existed no large firms. Was stereotyping and strict division of labor along gender lines more or less obvious in those times? I’m not saying if you get rid of large firms more discrimination will probably follow, because women doing male jobs is already ingrained in the culture. If you get rid of cars will everyone die from Typhoid?
Also, while you can say logically that large firms are alienated from the process of actually hiring the most efficient workers, the fact is that the real world is often different from abstracted assumptions. Perhaps bosses who want to hire men over women are doing this based on experience? Why is it that without exception everyone who prefers to hire a particular type of person for a job is just following some social stereotypes and not acting based on experience? The thing is, people who hire believe in social stereotypes, but so do people looking for work. We are all raised with certain beliefs, maybe men and women do work differently because they grew up hearing the same things as the boss. But because the boss is higher up in the hierarchy, in a different class as leftists would say, they take more blame.
Just as there is no political fix, I also doubt there is a market fix. Policies and law can force people to not discriminate and require quotas, but is this actually a tool of progress? The use of policy has also led to more division, and a backlash against ideas of sex role and sexual liberation in the non-professional parts of culture. For people like me who would like a different culture in general, this latching unto the professional world as the only place that can be forced to change does not seem like a good thing. It’s practical, but so is factory schooling. Practical things have their merit, but they are nonetheless a product of laziness and, for some, entitlement.
In the market, it may be the case that people are punished for allowing stereotypes to make them pass over the best candidate for the job. But, how many jobs actually have the situation where some people do so much better than others? I think the cases where certain traits and abilities make a meaningful impact on efficiency are so blatant even the bureaucrats of the giant firms can see who is qualified and who is not. Also, if those of us looking for employment have internalized stereotypes, won’t the stereotypical assumptions affect worker behavior as well?
I think the answer to discrimination and inequality is the freedom to make your own way in the world. Instead of trying to keep up a system where people are running around on hamster wheels trying to get ahead, why not refuse to participate in the system of excessive competition and false progress altogether? Why do the social justice movements always seem to be about getting into the well-paying jobs and never about securing a comfortable life without having to make work the center of your life?
For the kinds of bad things that might exist in a free market, Roderick mentions solutions such as private associations, consciousness-raising groups, and unions. And if libertarianism is right, then those solutions would be “better than one size fits all top-down solutions anyway”. I totally agree with this.
In the discussion on political correctness, Roderick claims that political correctness refers to a lot of stuff, and with all such broad terms, some of that stuff is bad, but some of it is good. Obviously a form of intolerance of thought is practiced, but, Roderick says, some things that get dismissed as political correctness are genuine and reasonable attempts at civility and recognition of harm and inequity. I agree that many things are smashed together as political correctness. Calling someone an ignorant jerk is the same as “not allowed to say” something.
Looking at the construction of the word, it seems that politically correct suggests that a person who wants people to buy their stuff, vote for them, like them, or who wants to be popular has to be careful what they say and do. That is not the same as not being allowed to say something. In order to not be hated, attacked, or thought of as an annoyance I keep about 99 percent of the stuff I actually think to myself. I live in a regime of political correctness where I cannot say that children are annoying, that most people are awful, that homosexuality is better than heterosexuality, that pornographic sex in mainstream media is not liberatory, that starving people shouldn’t breed, and so on.
Obviously everyone experiences a political correctness that they have to navigate. But the type of complaining about political correctness most of us hear is the mainstream’s victimization of itself. In a world where every bar, classroom, household, and piece of literature takes heterosexuality for granted, somehow I am an agent of political correctness as opposed to a victim of it. What I am saying is that if political correctness means that you have to be careful if you want to keep your popularity, job, or voters, then how is it possible that the most widespread beliefs can be considered politically incorrect? Perhaps that’s just clunky phrasing. Or perhaps a bunch of soulless bros who’ve never faced an actual problem in their lives are just looking for something to be victimized by?
I mean, obviously there is a big problem with people yelling at other people and trying to get them ousted from their work or whatever. But let’s be serious here, the percentage of human beings who participate in this particular type of expression of indignation is minuscule. If five people out of ten thousand followers go nuts over a racist tweet, is this some kind of authoritarian thought police situation? No. Since it’s obvious that the worst perpetrators of political correctness are a laughably small minority of people, I err on the side of skepticism when someone claims to be threatened by political correctness. It does happen, Meghan Murphy and Julie Bindel have been barred from discussing prostitution and transgenderism many times. Charles Murphy was harassed at multiple universities. I recognize that this is a problem, but I just also recognize that many people have pounced on this phenomenon like vultures, profiting in all sorts of ways, sometimes launching whole careers around it. Like with any other cultural thing: first as tragedy, then as farce.
He talks about how in the 19th century there were more people who recognized that the issues with the state and the other forms of oppression were interlocked and connected, but by the end of the 19th century the left and the libertarians mostly went their separate ways. They have both continued to make great insights but have neglected each other’s work. He claims that there would be a lot of good if they were to come together and once again connect the forms of oppression to the existence of the state.
That’s lovely, but surely he must know that many feminists and leftists already do understand the state. People in all of the supposed identity social justice movements do this: Silvia Federici, Mario Mieli, Bayo Akomolafe, Michel Foucault, Deleuze and Guatarri, Catherine MacKinnon, Mannish Jain, William Dubay, John Lauritsen, and the legion of queer anarchists. All of these people hate the state, and many many people have connected race, gender, and sexuality to compulsory education: non-radical sociologists, Vishal Wilde, and the shikshantar group. Jacques Donzelot was a student of Michel Foucault and he connected the rise of the welfare state to the rise of feminism (as does this work) and the normalizing of gender roles and sexuality. William Dubay connected the state, welfare, and above all else, schooling, to compulsory heterosexuality and the elimination of ambiguous gender roles.
My point is that there is no lack of good theory connecting gender and sexual oppression to the state, if the very clever and well-read libertarians just needed work with high standards they would have found it. Yes it is true that the majority of what we see is at best minority model liberal civil rights politics or college kid three years studying sociology crap. But when you choose to participate in the circus rather than focus on the good work that is done, this indicates that you are participating in identity politics and you are not providing any serious critique of it. It seems that what they are really interested in is playing into the pop culture spectacle that is identity politics.
He ends in discussing what I think is a very important part of libertarianism. The radical feminists that I was involved with were adamantly against individualism and libertarianism. Julie Bindel says that andrea dworkin once said to her, “the libertarians are winning”. She meant that the libertarians who were fighting against her to keep pornography legal were winning. For a long time radical feminists have connected things like defending pornography and prostitution with libertarianism. Like all political identities libertarianism acts as camouflage so a certain type of person can hide behind a political movement. When one hides behind a movement, there seems to be this sense that they are less responsible for their claims and opinions. And political identities also act as a scapegoats, so people like andrea can say that libertarianism is the problem because it is safer than saying that the individuals who buy porn are the problem. In both cases people avoid the messy clash of personalities by creating this weird sort of alternate dimension where everyone pretends that these objective ideas and political stances are not affected or chosen based on individual personality. I welcome, with skepticism, the studies now “discovering” what has always been obvious: that the brains of liberals and conservatives are different. Hopefully more people will come to realize that there is no such thing as politics, in the sense that politics is that special realm where all of our biases and emotions don’t matter.
But the thing about libertarianism is that it is actually radical, and the further you bring it into the very core of life and being a human, the more radical it is. The idea that society turns us into something it can live with by chiseling away a lot of our potential is individualism taken to its most honest conclusion. The most popular famous writer associated with this form of individualism is Max Stirner. He called all identities and social roles spectres. Many anarchists who go far beyond libertarianism reject identity politics from this point of being against all spectres: see here, here, and here. Though these are fringe people most people have never heard of, the things they say can be found in academia in the work of the existentialists like Simone de Beauvoir. It also shows up in the work of Patrick Hogan Colm who is a literary professor also involved with his cognitive science department. A great book on this is The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin.
But, to take a more moderate view, such as Roderick’s, you just have to think about how every society has had its state, theocracy, king, chief, bloodthirsty gods, etc. Libertarianism takes power away from everyone, whereas a lot of the social justice/identity movements seek to rearrange power until it is distributed more equally. People like me don’t want more diverse power, or more female power, I want the elimination of all power.
So the left believes that libertarians will and do defend the rich and would allow all sorts of inequality as long as no ones’s rights are violated. Libertarians believe that leftists want to use the government to reduce equality and limit what the rich can do with their own property.
Roderick claims that it is not the market, but the state that is the cause of all those inequities. You have to understand the difference between Roderick and what you might call an anarcho-capitalist. In left libertarianism people usually believe that free markets will include things like bartering and communal sharing. What matters to them is not so much the traditional form of market exchange, but rather that everything is voluntary. Most left libertarians see a form of communism as the natural end of open markets.
While it may seem annoying that someone is claiming, once again, that the state created things like sexism, racism, and misogyny, it also has some truth in it. If you want to do research I recommend, of course, William Dubay’s Gay Identity for what is, in my opinion, the best book connecting social problems to the rise of the state. You can also research Silvia Federici. But for now I’ll just say that economic inequality on its own exacerbates and causes people to take advantage of prejudices and inequities. The state has created poverty and economic inequality throughout human history.
Also when people are used to relying on the bureaucratic state-capitalist system as opposed to free exchange, and when they are indoctrinated into it in public schools, their minds close to ways of living, producing, sharing, and creating that do not follow the state-capitalist way of doing things. Thus many people never think of building networks or infrastructure outside of the capitalist system. I see very little identity politics connected to institutions like Local Futures or the Institute for Local Self Reliance that are involved in building markets and services outside of the corporate economy. I don’t particularly care that “libertarians” and “leftists” don’t agree or have the same goals. What I do mind is the way in which identity politics causes people to think that getting the state’s help is the only way to deal with discrimination and inequity. This is not so much because the state is evil, though it may be, but mostly because I believe that no one can be free if they do not take full responsibility for their own life, their own place in society and the economy.
It is also true that the state, like all institutions that have special rights over resources that the people outside of those institutions don’t have, can and has doled out power selectively. This has had the effect of creating hierarchies of losers and winners, good people and bad within the various social categories as well as between the social categories. So, for instance, fighting racism becomes all the more difficult because some black people are rich, respected academics, or presidents while others are poor and invisible.
People will say, well, but the market will create power too. But there is a confusion between corporate power and state power. Again, this gets into a whole area about the myth of corporate power and the way that people have invented this drama of corporate rule (The Man) over The People. But here are some resources to get started: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I plan on doing an in-depth exploration of this at a later time.
The thing about corporations is that they are many, while the state is one. That is the difference. With corporations, if one refuses to be less sexist, you can encourage people to abandon it by rewarding a corporation that is different. Clearly this process is already at work since so many platforms and schools do not allow offensive or discriminatory language. But the state has no competition. When you disagree with the state there is no where to go but off grid, and even then you are under threat if that state decides it doesn’t like you.
To put it more clearly, people tend to associate free markets with no safety net and no rights. The problem with that is the assumption that people won’t take care of one another. But there’s more to life than the market and the government. Hearing this thoughtless assumption from a mainstream media that constantly writes about social alienation that without government there is nothing left of society is really tedious. But what’s more, even if you are not particularly against the state, as I am not, you can still appreciate the fact that the only way to fix the state is to fix society. The state is alienated from the people because the people are alienated from one another. I hope you get what I am trying to say. Again, until I get to this topic later on on this blog, here are some resources: here, here, here, here, and here.
Returning to Roderick, he says that it is weird that libertarians think it’s wrong to push people around by force, but not wrong to manipulate them or push them around by other means. It’s not that they should be dealt with in the same way, of course, but those non-force forms of pushing people around are legitimate things for people to talk about and try to change.
Why might libertarians care about economic inequality? Because in a world of extreme economic inequality, libertarianism might be difficult to maintain. People with much more wealth than most other people might naturally start to use force or exercise power. There is a famous example of Rockefeller (I think he was the one) being asked what he thought of his hired guards killing a bunch of people in some riot and he responded that he didn’t know anything about it. He was not an evil man who ordered women and children to be shot, he was just completely unaware of what was going on in his massive corporation.
Libertarians often defend sweatshops as the only option available to very poor people. This argument is exactly the same as the argument that without the state there is only the soulless market. Of course right now their only option is a sweatshop, but that is due to an entire history of colonialism, poverty, and empires/feudal kingdoms transforming into nation states, and other things that are most certainly not just village/tribal/peasant people developing industrial economies. I mean, for one thing, the whole point in eliminating the state-corporate system is for people to be free to innovate new ways of producing and exchanging. It’s not always about white saviors swooping in to make sweatshops illegal, sometimes it is just about removing the things (power) that make sweatshops the only option for development.
Then he gets into the whole thing about the difference between free markets and corporatism. A lot of people argue against this dichotomy, mostly because they say that free markets will always lead to corporations. My god. I don’t know how people get away with this stuff. Sure, corporations will always exist, but sometimes those corporations will be able to get buddy buddy with states that control a military, and sometimes there will be no state and military for the corporation to get buddy buddy with. Again, in some philosophical sense of course corporations are prone to evil, but so is the state, so are men, so are mothers, so are teenagers, so are chimps. The state is the one who can and has done colonialism and protected people’s rights to own slaves.
It’s the idea that power is power, inequality is inequality. That is not the case. The state has a special protection against those who object to it in a away that corporations do not. yes corporations and other powerful entities can hire death squads and armed guards, but think about how easy it is for the community to decide that it’s not going to put up with corporate thugs verses a community deciding it’s not going to put up with the state any longer. There is a difference.
It leads to the question: if free markets will lead to corporatocracy, so what? Why are people so afraid of corporations being big and powerful? Corporations lobby to the state because the state has power…if there is no state corporations would be forced to answer to us. There is a sort of agreement amongst everyone that corporations are evil. I don’t understand how such a childish view can be so pervasive.
Those who are sympathetic to socialism should consider that corporations could provide workers with lodging, food, day care, and education, as some in China do. Now, there are issues with the way many Chinese workers live, but not every instance of factories providing lodging is a case of ill-treatment. Corporations can and do give back. I am involved in the movement to radically re-think education. Aside from grassroots organizations forming schools or collectives, no government actions has been taken to incorporate new information relating to schooling and childhood. But Jeff Bezos has started a Montessori school in honor of his own education at Montessori schools. People are constantly bringing up the fact that a well educated populace means a more flourishing economy, why do they think that will work to convince governments, but not people running corporations? All of the arguments about the benefits of equality, peace, and education are no more likely to work on governments than they are corporations. Alright, more information here, here, and here.
Most of his talk about very large firms only existing because of subsidies and copyright laws is a bit too much for this essay. There are a lot of things that even well educated economists do not understand about markets. The theories about firms setting the price so that their profit is maximized, which means that marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost if I remember correctly, and that they experience a peak where the supply line crosses the demand line, and from then experience the law of diminishing returns is highly theoretical and difficult to observe in the wild. Someone needs to do some serious machine learning work to figure out how corporations actually become very large before I am going to join the legion of people who are very arrogantly declaring how corporations operate and how they fit into the economy.
But the whole thing with copyright laws is something I will comment on. Once again this is a complicated issue, and the people in power are absolutely sure that intellectual property rights incentivize innovation. Fair enough. But the thing about Roderick and others like Kevin Carson and myself is that we are not interested in maintaining a centralized highly industrialized economy. Intellectual property is good for a particular type of economy, I said the same about voluntary work in my post on David McMullen and the left. Economies can exist that flourish well without intellectual property rights, they just wouldn’t be like the one we have now. As I said in that other post, the question is not “are intellectual property rights good for the economy”, the question is which economies benefit which people. More: here, (video)here, here, here, here.
He then talks about something that is probably what I have most in common with libertarians as opposed to anarchists and insurrectionists. He talks about how the power of the rulers is the acquiescence of the ruled. Many people working in anti-oppression or liberation movements get very annoyed if you claim that the victim class is in some way responsible for their own oppression. But the radical lesbian feminist Bev Jo is one feminist who does not shy away from holding women responsible for participation in, as she calls it, patriarchy. According to her, in the seventies it was not so unusual to talk about how women make choices that harm other women, whereas now pretty much everyone gets terribly offended and calls you a misogynist if you judge women’s choices. On the contrary, the various black anti-racist or anti-assimilationist movements are much more forthcoming about blaming black people for not doing the right things: for being too black, being too white, going along with capitalism, wasting time on a socialist revolution that is never going to happen. But there is still a powerful idea that one cannot blame the victims when it comes to racial inequality.
Blame is such a loaded word. A lot of confusion comes from widespread ignorance of how the human brain works. Humans make very little conscious rational choice, our behaviors and reactions are programmed into us through all kinds of unchosen experiences we had from birth onward. No intelligent person believes that people choose to be oppressed. Of course people choose safety, security, comfort, and avoid force and violence. That’s the point. People go along with the state and the corporate economy because it can be relied upon. This is what it means to say that evil is banal. Most prejudices, even when they manifest in the most violent of ways, are a result of little things here and there that were communicated to a person in their childhood. I think the gay rights movement should always start by asking people searching for some way to tolerate homosexuality, “why do you have a problem with homosexuality”. I can guarantee you that it won’t take much prodding to reveal there is no reason at all.
So it is with government. No one asks children if they think the factory school systems are the best way to teach children to become thoughtful members of society. Nobody asks them if they feel that schools helps them learn new things and answer questions. People are plopped into schools and then grow up living comfortably with the terrible school system because that is what they grew up experiencing as normal. And people grow up with the government as well, and no one ever seriously asks them what they think about the government and if they know about its origins. To even bring up the concepts blame and choice is to completely miss the point. At the same time if you keep insisting, as libertarians do, that the state is so obviously violent and awful, you are going to make it hard to truly understand why people would participate in their own “oppression”. The state does provide a practical and easy sort of stability, and people go along with the state because of that.