It's just the paradox of tolerance again. Too much freedom causes a power vacuum, which almost inevitably causes some small but determined authoritarian group to gobble up that power until they get so big they can overthrow the whole system. And then you're back to square one, except now the system is probably fascist.
By promoting a culture of disarming using children safety as an excuse and allowing the government or police to have a violence monopoly to do whatever they want without consequence of retaliation by the people they oppress.
That kind of hypothetical system does not and will never exist.
Afghanistan was once an anarchist dream where remote mountain villages grew crops to sustain their local communities and were protected by tribal families who elected a local warlord, it was a shit life compared to the West
Now is currently getting wrangled under control by an oppressive Islamo-fascist theocracy who occupied the power vacuum that the Soviet invasion back in the 1980s created by destroying the Afghan monarchy and government.
I agree with you, but that is what true anarchy looks like in modern times. Some parts of remote Afghanistan currently have villages that all run like that.
That group won't exist in a vacuum. It needs to be resilient to outside interference. Even inside that group there are going to be people that only identify with it out of convenience rather than true belief. It is still possible for individuals to accrue social capital, form "inner circles" and individually stockpile resources - and stopping them would logically infringe on their freedoms to associate, freedom to dig holes, etc.
So you're saying that in whatever system is created for libertarianism there will be a potential for people to use their freedom to subvert libertarianism, right? That makes sense to a point, but it's the same issue that exists in every other system. Socialist need to have checks and balances to ensure the government doesn't subvert the needs of the people, capitalists need to bust monopolies to ensure someone doesn't takeover the market, etc. I know I'm mixing economics and politics, but I hope you see my point.
Stockpiling resources isn't possibly without exploitation. Why would anyone let you stockpile resources they create? These assumptions don't make sense
Right "libertarians" are more susceptible to power vacuums, provably so, with so many experiments going down the same way.
Reason for that is that they aren't really against authority, just not their kind of authority.
If you aren't entrenching the need for active resistance to power and hierarchy, you are expected to fall the same way, that kind of attitude is very much present in actual anarchists, left anarchists.
as if you're basing this off of some historical examples instead of just regurgitating the same bullshit argument you've heard repeated a million times...
the paradox of tolerance is about tolerating intolerant groups... not about maintaining some good powerful group to prevent some other bad group from taking power.
Libertarian Socialism specifies a wide range of systems of political stances that include most if not all forms of Anarchism (excluding AnCaps, if they weren't already), some varieties of democratic socialism, classical libertarianism, etc. It does not include liberalism, laissez-faireism (what some refer to as "libertarianism"), Social democracy, MLism, or any ML-adjacent ideologies.
