&gt; I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency<p>While I&#x27;m very fond of anarchism (<i>not</i> its libertarian interpretations), I&#x27;ve always find its libertarian forms completely <i>in</i>consistent (and very, very restrictive and far from free) under a guise of consistency (and freedom). The key is that everything can look consistent if you ignore the facts. It&#x27;s ethics for spherical cows, and it&#x27;s not simple but simplistic. <i>Every</i> ethics begins that way, but then there are lots of complications that stem from how the world works. Libertarian anarchism stops there, at the logic stage. It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world.<p>The main issue is what constitutes aggression. A clever teenager could say, &quot;let&#x27;s draw the line at physical harm!&quot; but an educated scientist <i>knows</i> that physical aggression is rare, and is only used in those circumstances where common aggression fails. Common aggression works by intimidation (as I&#x27;ve shown -- even in the animal kingdom) and emergent social forces (like economics). You can only draw those arbitrary lines if you <i>choose not to study aggression</i>. If you choose not to learn something, then everything seems simple and consistent because it remains a Platonic ideal. Once you study aggression and see how it really works you realize that preventing aggression requires a very intricate ethics.<p>Which is why I&#x27;m for anarchism <i>without</i> false and arbitrary restrictions on aggression (which only serve to increase it in its common forms), <i>or</i> an intricate system of ethics and law that serves to really reduce aggression, but is a far cry from anarchy.<p>Just to very quickly explain the difference, in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression. If it isn&#x27;t, there&#x27;s no balance in the system. The rich can inflict economic aggression without fear of reprecussion. Once you add &quot;no-agression&quot; to anarchy, you&#x27;ve basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system.<p>&gt; Yes. I don&#x27;t understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word &quot;allowed&quot; - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy.<p>I used the word &quot;allowed&quot; loosely in this case, to mean a combination of ethics and a possible enforcement structure. The belief that only a central authority grants permission is a common mistake among libertarians, that, as I said, stop at the logical reasoning stage and don&#x27;t examine the facts. Centralized government is a recent invention, at least in the Western world -- 400 years or so (that the Roman Empire appears to us like a central authority is an anachronism based on extrapolation from what we know). Yet enforcement has existed throughout human history in much more diffuse ways.<p>Now, back to the example. So you say it&#x27;s OK to say, &quot;if you deny evolution, I will stab you&quot;. Fine. Now what happens when I deny evolution? If I know you&#x27;ll never stab me then there must be some enforcement at play. But that means that I know your threat to be empty to begin with, and so no intimidation took place. In the real world, that&#x27;s not the case. The possibility that you will stab me is always on the table. If so, stabbing me for denying evolution is most certainly a restriction of my free speech. And if that option exists, intimidating me with the threat also restricts my free speech.<p>&gt; It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice<p>Because that&#x27;s how human society existed until not too long ago, it isn&#x27;t some thought exercise, and we know how that looks in practice. That <i>is</i> a form of governance, but without a central authority.<p>&gt;  your first two paragraphs are totally wrong<p>No, they are not. Your confusion stems from the anachronistic conflation of laws with a central state. Laws are rules based on ethics with some enforcement mechanism. That enforcement can be excommunication. In fact, that <i>was</i> the primary form of enforcement until not long ago. A highly distributed system of justice was the norm (again, at least in the West; I haven&#x27;t studied the history of Asia).