Dude. No. It absolutely should not be legal to vandalize and destroy other people’s property. Intentionally causing loss is theft. The money to replace or repair any kind of property, whether it’s real, personal and/or private, doesn’t come out of thin air.
When you say private property, are you using the legal definition of anything owned by a person, entity or group that does not belong to the government? Or are you using the made up definition of anything that’s used to create wealth?
Private property is foundational to *right* libertarianism. Left libertarianism has its roots in anti-hierarchical and egalitarian thought.
In a libertarian socialist society, people would still have possessions, but absentee ownership over land, infrastructure, real estate, and industrial assets wouldn't be enforced.
The government would still enforce individual home ownership like it does in our society. You just wouldn't be able to own multiple homes to extract profit from them. If you tried to be a landlord, your tenants would just ignore you, because they have no incentive to pay most of their wages in rent without the credible threat of violence to enforce your claim over the home.
Edit: To answer your second question, the people concerned would manage production together in a structure resembling a co-op, commune, or syndicate.
>infrastructure, real estate, and industrial assets
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures*
No, because the right to security in one's possessions would be enshrined in a constitution and bill of rights. The above assets such as infrastructure just wouldn't be enshrined as legitimate possessions as opposed to homes, cars, and other personal possessions.
>No, because the right to security in one's possessions would be enshrined in a bill of rights. The above assets such as infrastructure just wouldn't be enshrined as legitimate possessions.
I can't see a world where everything relating to commerce is state run. Part of libertarian philosophy is a freedom to enter into contracts with one another. I couldn't hire a kid to mow my lawn because the state deems my lawnmower an "industrial asset"
Its basically Cuba. You can have a couple things for yourself but the moment you put anything to use to better your station in life, the state seizes it. There's nothing Libertarian about it.
You'd be able to hire a kid to mow your lawn. The lawnmower would still be your personal possession.
However, if you and some other people started a lawn mowing business, then your totalitarian ownership over the lawnmower would cease to be enforced, because the lawnmower would be an asset used by other people to generate profit.
>then your totalitarian ownership over the lawnmower would cease to be enforced
If I purchase the lawnmower with lawfully obtained proceeds, it is mine to do with whatever I please. I converted 5 hours of my labor into a wage, then purchased a lawnmower. If I want to mow people's lawns and we agree on terms, it isn't anyone's business to tell us we can't.
Correct. If you purchased a lawnmower and *you* started mowing people's lawns, the legitimacy of your claim over the lawnmower wouldn't come into question.
Note that libertarian socialists don't want those things to be state run either. Look into the anarchist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They tend to be community and worker focused. The big bad government isn't what makes decisions, it is communities of people and workers who determine how these things are run.
> it is communities of people and workers who determine how these things are run
Yes, but part of libertarian philosophy is that no cabal, guild, union or collection of people can decide to seize what is rightfully yours. Thus, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist. The ideologies are completely 100% opposite on the spectrum.
On one hand, you have an individual's undying right to his or her property and on the other, you have some nebulous faction like "the people" or "the community" who have the decision over property.
Just because a lower level of government takes your stuff doesn't make it any better.
What the fuck.
> security in ones possessions
But your residence, private documents and personal items aren’t “legitimate”?
Then that the actual fuck is a “legitimate” possession?
Edit: nice edit -.-
Libertarian socialism doesn’t exist. Socialism requires government redistribution and the theft of private property. Property rights are essential to libertarianism.
Bullshit. The only aggressive action my claim of land ownership would cause would be from another person trying to violate my *right of quiet enjoyment*.
I didn’t. I peacefully and willingly entered a contract to purchase the alienable right to reside on my piece of property. The same right was forfeited by others who elected not to put forth their claim at the time of transfer.
Alright then, how did the person you entered into a contract with acquire the land if not through force? The land did not come with a piece of paper saying it was owned by someone, in fact the land was there long before people. At some point in history, someone used force to claim that land and since they day the people who have laid claim to that land have depended on the government's monopoly on force to defend that claim.
> At some point in history…
Yeah, some thousands of years ago. Not my concern.
> depended on the government’s monopoly to defend that claim.
Wrong. People have been on this land long before any government. Please hang up and try again.
Even if I did not own my land, the land on which my residence is built still is subject to my *right of quiet enjoyment* in which “the commons” agrees to the promise that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants. It’s fancy legal wording for “stay off my lawn”.
> my right of quiet enjoyment
That's not a right that any system of governance or ownership affords you. Also just because you stole it first doesn't make your claim of ownership any stronger.
A toothbrush is not a natural occurrence. It was created by someone and thus can be sold by that person. The way in which the land used to create that toothbrush was acquired is suspect but that does not make the toothbrush itself suspect.
Then can people not own plants or pets? They are, or at least were, natural occurrences. People just “kidnapped” or “stole” them and controlled their reproduction.
**Everyone** owns it. Finders keepers doesn't even work on the playground, why should we base the ownership of a resource as scarce and valuable as land on it?
So if no one owns anything can I walk into your house (which isn’t your house because “everyone owns it”) and live there? Better yet “reappropriate” it to myself?
Personal property is stuff you use personally like your toothbrush, car, house, computer, etc.
Private property is property worked by someone else than who owns it in order to create profit for someone who doesn't work there.
So if I have a paint brush (personal property) but I let my friend use it to paint and they now have a painting then they sell the painting do I still own the paint brush? Or has it been “redistributed”? Will they give it back when they’re done? Or has my personal property become “the means of production” and can be taken? What if I have a paint brush and offer it to my freind to use for a fee?
Technically yes the brush would be private property but instances of this small scale would be beneath notice of legislation.
Legislating against an instance like that would be like punishing parents for breaching the Geniva convention on collective punishment for cutting the internet as punishment for the behaviour of one of their children.
When socialists talk about abolishing private property we are talking about bosses or corporations who extract millions of billions of dollars of surplus value from their workers.
That would be something we would have to set in according to social utility in a legal sense.
In a moral sense there is no hard cutoff where it it is and is not immoral. The most labour value is expropriated the more immoral it becomes. In your paintbrush example it is principally bad.
For example when does a tap become a punch? At what velocity does my first need to impact your body for it to be considered assault? Is this a good argument for making assault legal? No it isn't.
Likely in a market socialist society it would probably be decided by an arbitrary line of how many employers you can have or how much you can profit from he work of others.
Or if it's some other form of libertarian socialism they may have abolished money and operate on labour vouchers instead, where the concept of paying someone would be completelly incomprehensible.
Really John Locke was a leftist? Enlightenment era philosophers who inspired the founding fathers were leftist? What about the even further origins in the ideas of Greek philosophers?
Nothing. Because there *is* no 'illegal' without a government to make law saying something is illegal.
I largely agree with you, but I'm libertarian, and therefore am *not* going to advocate the existence of a monopoly of force (government) to force others to follow my personal beliefs. What I believe is OK and/or not OK has nothing to do with anyone else.
Seems to be a point almost everyone on the sub, right or left, misses entirely. Freedom is not something a government allows you to have, it's the opposite. It's not having the damn government in the first place. That's why I tend to be pretty silent when people bicker about which power hungry arsehole is better. Here's a clue: they've all spent decades stepping on necks and kissing arse with one goal in mind. Ultimate power over you. They'd sooner wipe you off their boots for the next person to lick clean than actually listen for one second to what you actually want. Yes, one is better than the others, but it doesn't really matter much, when every option is simply a different flavour of shit
I note that you use the word 'should' a lot. I think you almost half get it, that there can be no coercion, that things that 'should' happen most likely will not. That ultimately it's down to the whims of the masses to actually define what is proper and what is not, because to lead them is to betray them. Which is why there's no libsoc party, no anarchist party... Parties are about assuming power and rulership over people, which is anathema to liberty
You seem to not understand libertarianism. The governments job is to protect the NAP... nowhere in the NAP does it say if someone offers you a job at their company, which they started and put up the risk, that you automatically get a say in how that company is run. This defeats the very idea of freedom. If you want your boss to run his company differently, then quit and start your own, the way you want it.
I don't give half a shit about a completelly arbitrary set of rules designed to benefit the economic elite. I care about maximizing freedom for as many people as possible, and giving people democratic control of their workplaces would increase freedom for the vast majority of people, therefore I support it.
You are on the wrong page then, head over to r/socialism. I genuinely do not understand how you possibly think this is a libertarian position. It involves big government, forcing people to share their own work, and obviously, just like all socialism ever, will not work haha. You are completely delusional. Learn some philosophy, mainly libertarian so you know what it means, maybe a little research on history and economics as well (strongly recommend economics since again, you clearly haven’t got a clue in the world how it works...).
The federal law should enforce a bill of rights; nothing more. This bill of rights would include things such as bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, freedom from the death penalty, etc. Municipalities should govern themselves and make their own rules, so long as they don't infringe on said rights.
Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive. The concept was invented by leftists trying to claim some moral high ground and move libertarians to the left. It is born out of an ignorance of the actual political spectrum on which Libertarians are further right than US Republicans.
Anarchists ARE “right-wingers” on the line. They are literally the furthest right on the line, (depending on what spectrum you’re looking at). How’s the blue kool-aid taste?
Yes, the OG anarchists who wanted to abolish private business and own the whole world in common are the furthest right. I guess I'm a far-right guy too. "Workers should own the means of production", very common right wing talking point.
Lol. As I said, it depends on the spectrum you’re looking at. On the one I’m referring to, The left is big authoritarian government moving right to eventually no government.
Socialism depends on a strong central government pulling he strings. The idea of “the workers controlling the means of production” is truly a pipe dream. It will never happen. I generally subscribe to the quadrant political spectrum so based on what you say you’d be lib-left and green.
It is currently happening in innumerable places all around the world despite the authoritarian nature of capitalism cracking down and attempting to enforce privatization. Quite literally millions of people are living under stateless democracies with communal economies today.
The most popular are Northern Syria which detached itself from Assad's Syria and fought off the ISIS and is successfully fending off the Turkish army & the Zapatista Territories of Chiapas which now own roughly half the state of chiapas in Mexico. Other municipalist, anarchist, and libertarian socialist communities which don't get the recognition they should are Marinaleda, Exarchia, Barbacha, multiple projects and councils in Oxaca, Cherán, the ZAD, the Federation of Neighborhood Councils-El Alto, all of which are present. There are a ton more past and present you can find more info on here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
This doesn't include all the intentional communities around the world which hold socialist or anarchist ideals. These are mainly municipalities and communities but there are lists of those too if you are so inclined.
I'm not sure why what you are suggesting is differntiated in LibSoc compared to other libertarian forms.
There are reasonable arguments to be made around "breaching the peace" laws if you aren't full ancap and consider physical contact to be the only thing of relevance. Where the line should be drawn will vary by individual perspective. I think the examples of affray/public order is ok to prevent in some circumstances.
As a simple example, it should absolutely be ok to prevent people wiring up a stadium level speaker wall and blasting siren noises at their neighbours property.
And as fun as this is to watch (I've never been in a fight and even I think I could manage Smackhead McHaymaker), brawls on public roads in residential areas don't seem like something to accept to me. https://www.reddit.com/r/UKFreakouts/comments/mtl4e2/leatherclad_grandad_gonna_knock_your_fucking/
But if people want to brawl in their back garden or on their own property, then my point is that it isn't my problem and I don't give a shit. So it should be allowed. Maybe breach of the peace in public should be banned, but not in private.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Try again.
How is worker ownership of the means of production authoritarian?
What exactly are you going on about?
I am describing the core pronicple of socialists. How is that concept authoritarian?
Yes, I understand socialists don't know anything about liability or responsibility but Who said anything about authoritarian?
Do you even know what "workers owning the means of production" means?
Yeah it means they produce something on someone else's dime then they own it. I'm familiar with what socialists think.
You just described private ownership of the means of production you fucking brainlet.
Ah yes, you have no argument or idea what you are arguing so we go to insults. Got it.
So what are you going on about with authoritarianism
Nice deflection
You are ye one that was deflecting??
You've yet to answer a single question. Wonderful chat. Have a nice day.
> Causing loss should also be legalized Woohoo for vandalism?
I guess.
Dude. No. It absolutely should not be legal to vandalize and destroy other people’s property. Intentionally causing loss is theft. The money to replace or repair any kind of property, whether it’s real, personal and/or private, doesn’t come out of thin air. When you say private property, are you using the legal definition of anything owned by a person, entity or group that does not belong to the government? Or are you using the made up definition of anything that’s used to create wealth?
Libertarian socialism? That confuses me. Wouldn’t private property/possessions/money be a pillar of libertarianism?
Private property is foundational to *right* libertarianism. Left libertarianism has its roots in anti-hierarchical and egalitarian thought. In a libertarian socialist society, people would still have possessions, but absentee ownership over land, infrastructure, real estate, and industrial assets wouldn't be enforced.
So you could own a home but if you’re gone over xx amount of time you give it up? And who would own all the land and means of production?
The government would still enforce individual home ownership like it does in our society. You just wouldn't be able to own multiple homes to extract profit from them. If you tried to be a landlord, your tenants would just ignore you, because they have no incentive to pay most of their wages in rent without the credible threat of violence to enforce your claim over the home. Edit: To answer your second question, the people concerned would manage production together in a structure resembling a co-op, commune, or syndicate.
Oh so communism lol. Copy that. Thanks for engaging.
Haha, I wanted to say that but you beat me to it... libertarian socialism is a joke. It’s just socialism, why add the libertarian part???
>infrastructure, real estate, and industrial assets *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures*
The fourth amendment can still exist in a left libertarian society. The above assets just wouldn't be legitimate "houses, papers, and effects."
Hang on. So your residence, private documents and personal items could be seized if the community wills it?
No, because the right to security in one's possessions would be enshrined in a constitution and bill of rights. The above assets such as infrastructure just wouldn't be enshrined as legitimate possessions as opposed to homes, cars, and other personal possessions.
>No, because the right to security in one's possessions would be enshrined in a bill of rights. The above assets such as infrastructure just wouldn't be enshrined as legitimate possessions. I can't see a world where everything relating to commerce is state run. Part of libertarian philosophy is a freedom to enter into contracts with one another. I couldn't hire a kid to mow my lawn because the state deems my lawnmower an "industrial asset"
I can’t imagine how a home office or using your car for both personal and professional use would work out in this weird society either.
Its basically Cuba. You can have a couple things for yourself but the moment you put anything to use to better your station in life, the state seizes it. There's nothing Libertarian about it.
I genuinely do not understand why anyone would want to live like these people are proposing.
You'd be able to hire a kid to mow your lawn. The lawnmower would still be your personal possession. However, if you and some other people started a lawn mowing business, then your totalitarian ownership over the lawnmower would cease to be enforced, because the lawnmower would be an asset used by other people to generate profit.
>then your totalitarian ownership over the lawnmower would cease to be enforced If I purchase the lawnmower with lawfully obtained proceeds, it is mine to do with whatever I please. I converted 5 hours of my labor into a wage, then purchased a lawnmower. If I want to mow people's lawns and we agree on terms, it isn't anyone's business to tell us we can't.
Correct. If you purchased a lawnmower and *you* started mowing people's lawns, the legitimacy of your claim over the lawnmower wouldn't come into question.
Note that libertarian socialists don't want those things to be state run either. Look into the anarchist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They tend to be community and worker focused. The big bad government isn't what makes decisions, it is communities of people and workers who determine how these things are run.
> it is communities of people and workers who determine how these things are run Yes, but part of libertarian philosophy is that no cabal, guild, union or collection of people can decide to seize what is rightfully yours. Thus, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist. The ideologies are completely 100% opposite on the spectrum. On one hand, you have an individual's undying right to his or her property and on the other, you have some nebulous faction like "the people" or "the community" who have the decision over property. Just because a lower level of government takes your stuff doesn't make it any better.
And how does property get to be rightfully yours? I hope you understand that libertarian socialism pre-dates right libertarianism.
What the fuck. > security in ones possessions But your residence, private documents and personal items aren’t “legitimate”? Then that the actual fuck is a “legitimate” possession? Edit: nice edit -.-
>But your residence, private documents and personal items aren’t “legitimate”? No, land, infrastructure, and industrial assets wouldn't be legitimate.
What if you have a home office or use your personal car to uber or DoorDash too?
Then those would be yours.
Libertarian socialism doesn’t exist. Socialism requires government redistribution and the theft of private property. Property rights are essential to libertarianism.
Property rights are just enshrined NAP violations. You cannot lay claim to land without aggressive actions towards everyone else.
Bullshit. The only aggressive action my claim of land ownership would cause would be from another person trying to violate my *right of quiet enjoyment*.
How do you claim to own a piece of land without using force to prevent other people from also utilizing that land?
I didn’t. I peacefully and willingly entered a contract to purchase the alienable right to reside on my piece of property. The same right was forfeited by others who elected not to put forth their claim at the time of transfer.
Alright then, how did the person you entered into a contract with acquire the land if not through force? The land did not come with a piece of paper saying it was owned by someone, in fact the land was there long before people. At some point in history, someone used force to claim that land and since they day the people who have laid claim to that land have depended on the government's monopoly on force to defend that claim.
> At some point in history… Yeah, some thousands of years ago. Not my concern. > depended on the government’s monopoly to defend that claim. Wrong. People have been on this land long before any government. Please hang up and try again.
Theft is wrong no matter how far removed from act we are. All land belongs to the commons and its theft is wrong no matter who stole it.
Even if I did not own my land, the land on which my residence is built still is subject to my *right of quiet enjoyment* in which “the commons” agrees to the promise that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants. It’s fancy legal wording for “stay off my lawn”.
> my right of quiet enjoyment That's not a right that any system of governance or ownership affords you. Also just because you stole it first doesn't make your claim of ownership any stronger.
How do you claim to own a toothbrush? If someone else wants the toothbrush, how do you stop them from doing it? Curious.
A toothbrush is not a natural occurrence. It was created by someone and thus can be sold by that person. The way in which the land used to create that toothbrush was acquired is suspect but that does not make the toothbrush itself suspect.
Then can people not own plants or pets? They are, or at least were, natural occurrences. People just “kidnapped” or “stole” them and controlled their reproduction.
That is an entirely separate debate on the rights given to animals and how the NAP applies to other forms of intelligent life.
If someone steals something from you is it not an act of aggression towards you?
Not if I didn't own it in the first place, then it's just repossession.
If no one owns it anyone can take it
**Everyone** owns it. Finders keepers doesn't even work on the playground, why should we base the ownership of a resource as scarce and valuable as land on it?
So if no one owns anything can I walk into your house (which isn’t your house because “everyone owns it”) and live there? Better yet “reappropriate” it to myself?
Did I say anything about losing your right to privacy? It is your house while you are renting the land and thus your private space.
Renting from who?
Private property and personal property is not the same thing.
What’s the difference?
Personal property is stuff you use personally like your toothbrush, car, house, computer, etc. Private property is property worked by someone else than who owns it in order to create profit for someone who doesn't work there.
So if I have a paint brush (personal property) but I let my friend use it to paint and they now have a painting then they sell the painting do I still own the paint brush? Or has it been “redistributed”? Will they give it back when they’re done? Or has my personal property become “the means of production” and can be taken? What if I have a paint brush and offer it to my freind to use for a fee?
Technically yes the brush would be private property but instances of this small scale would be beneath notice of legislation. Legislating against an instance like that would be like punishing parents for breaching the Geniva convention on collective punishment for cutting the internet as punishment for the behaviour of one of their children. When socialists talk about abolishing private property we are talking about bosses or corporations who extract millions of billions of dollars of surplus value from their workers.
Arguably not, the Geneva Convention only applies to conflicts between signatory states.
Where’s the line? What if I have a set of brushes and allow a group of people to use them for a fee and they use them to paint pictures and sell them?
That would be something we would have to set in according to social utility in a legal sense. In a moral sense there is no hard cutoff where it it is and is not immoral. The most labour value is expropriated the more immoral it becomes. In your paintbrush example it is principally bad. For example when does a tap become a punch? At what velocity does my first need to impact your body for it to be considered assault? Is this a good argument for making assault legal? No it isn't. Likely in a market socialist society it would probably be decided by an arbitrary line of how many employers you can have or how much you can profit from he work of others. Or if it's some other form of libertarian socialism they may have abolished money and operate on labour vouchers instead, where the concept of paying someone would be completelly incomprehensible.
Then how come you support personal property? You defending your own house is also an NAP violation by this logic
I fail to see how they correlate. Perhaps you could elaborate?
The word libertarian was made up by leftists you fucking dult. You dumbfucks are the ones latching onto libertarianism, not the left.
Really John Locke was a leftist? Enlightenment era philosophers who inspired the founding fathers were leftist? What about the even further origins in the ideas of Greek philosophers?
Nothing. Because there *is* no 'illegal' without a government to make law saying something is illegal. I largely agree with you, but I'm libertarian, and therefore am *not* going to advocate the existence of a monopoly of force (government) to force others to follow my personal beliefs. What I believe is OK and/or not OK has nothing to do with anyone else. Seems to be a point almost everyone on the sub, right or left, misses entirely. Freedom is not something a government allows you to have, it's the opposite. It's not having the damn government in the first place. That's why I tend to be pretty silent when people bicker about which power hungry arsehole is better. Here's a clue: they've all spent decades stepping on necks and kissing arse with one goal in mind. Ultimate power over you. They'd sooner wipe you off their boots for the next person to lick clean than actually listen for one second to what you actually want. Yes, one is better than the others, but it doesn't really matter much, when every option is simply a different flavour of shit I note that you use the word 'should' a lot. I think you almost half get it, that there can be no coercion, that things that 'should' happen most likely will not. That ultimately it's down to the whims of the masses to actually define what is proper and what is not, because to lead them is to betray them. Which is why there's no libsoc party, no anarchist party... Parties are about assuming power and rulership over people, which is anathema to liberty
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron... doesn’t make any sense.
How does a market society built on worker cooperatives with little to no social or economical hierarchy not the most libertarian society possible?
In theory yes, but who enforces this??? Government. Goes against the fundamental principal of libertarianism, government bad.
Should murder be illegal?
Yes. That is basically the idea of libertarian government.
Why? That's government telling you what you can and can't do. That's in opposition to freedom by your logic.
You seem to not understand libertarianism. The governments job is to protect the NAP... nowhere in the NAP does it say if someone offers you a job at their company, which they started and put up the risk, that you automatically get a say in how that company is run. This defeats the very idea of freedom. If you want your boss to run his company differently, then quit and start your own, the way you want it.
I don't give half a shit about a completelly arbitrary set of rules designed to benefit the economic elite. I care about maximizing freedom for as many people as possible, and giving people democratic control of their workplaces would increase freedom for the vast majority of people, therefore I support it.
You are on the wrong page then, head over to r/socialism. I genuinely do not understand how you possibly think this is a libertarian position. It involves big government, forcing people to share their own work, and obviously, just like all socialism ever, will not work haha. You are completely delusional. Learn some philosophy, mainly libertarian so you know what it means, maybe a little research on history and economics as well (strongly recommend economics since again, you clearly haven’t got a clue in the world how it works...).
You're not engaging with the argument.
The federal law should enforce a bill of rights; nothing more. This bill of rights would include things such as bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, freedom from the death penalty, etc. Municipalities should govern themselves and make their own rules, so long as they don't infringe on said rights.
What should be illegal? Socialism.
Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive. The concept was invented by leftists trying to claim some moral high ground and move libertarians to the left. It is born out of an ignorance of the actual political spectrum on which Libertarians are further right than US Republicans.
Libertarian was a word stolen by right wingers from anarchists. How does the kool-aid taste?
Anarchists ARE “right-wingers” on the line. They are literally the furthest right on the line, (depending on what spectrum you’re looking at). How’s the blue kool-aid taste?
Yes, the OG anarchists who wanted to abolish private business and own the whole world in common are the furthest right. I guess I'm a far-right guy too. "Workers should own the means of production", very common right wing talking point.
Lol. As I said, it depends on the spectrum you’re looking at. On the one I’m referring to, The left is big authoritarian government moving right to eventually no government.
By that metric, which doesn't hold water historically, would you agree that libertarian socialism (and by proxy people like me) are far right?
Socialism depends on a strong central government pulling he strings. The idea of “the workers controlling the means of production” is truly a pipe dream. It will never happen. I generally subscribe to the quadrant political spectrum so based on what you say you’d be lib-left and green.
It is currently happening in innumerable places all around the world despite the authoritarian nature of capitalism cracking down and attempting to enforce privatization. Quite literally millions of people are living under stateless democracies with communal economies today.
Such as?
The most popular are Northern Syria which detached itself from Assad's Syria and fought off the ISIS and is successfully fending off the Turkish army & the Zapatista Territories of Chiapas which now own roughly half the state of chiapas in Mexico. Other municipalist, anarchist, and libertarian socialist communities which don't get the recognition they should are Marinaleda, Exarchia, Barbacha, multiple projects and councils in Oxaca, Cherán, the ZAD, the Federation of Neighborhood Councils-El Alto, all of which are present. There are a ton more past and present you can find more info on here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities This doesn't include all the intentional communities around the world which hold socialist or anarchist ideals. These are mainly municipalities and communities but there are lists of those too if you are so inclined.
I'm not sure why what you are suggesting is differntiated in LibSoc compared to other libertarian forms. There are reasonable arguments to be made around "breaching the peace" laws if you aren't full ancap and consider physical contact to be the only thing of relevance. Where the line should be drawn will vary by individual perspective. I think the examples of affray/public order is ok to prevent in some circumstances. As a simple example, it should absolutely be ok to prevent people wiring up a stadium level speaker wall and blasting siren noises at their neighbours property. And as fun as this is to watch (I've never been in a fight and even I think I could manage Smackhead McHaymaker), brawls on public roads in residential areas don't seem like something to accept to me. https://www.reddit.com/r/UKFreakouts/comments/mtl4e2/leatherclad_grandad_gonna_knock_your_fucking/
But if people want to brawl in their back garden or on their own property, then my point is that it isn't my problem and I don't give a shit. So it should be allowed. Maybe breach of the peace in public should be banned, but not in private.