RE: More Libertarian than Anarchy?
Here's the problem with the ideologies of Anarchism and Libertarianism...they're both ideologies. EVERY ideology is EXACTLY the same as EVERY other ideology, and ALL ideologies are inherently malignant, ALL to the same degree. How are Liberalism or Anarchism or Social-Karate'ism or Libertarianism et al ultimately any different from one another when ALL share the EXACT SAME ends: the ideology (aka Party) is greater than the Individual, the benefit of the individual is always secondary to the benefit of the ideology (aka Party), the ideology (aka Party) must eventually become the ONLY legal Party...err ideology I mean..., the ideology (aka Party) must be THE identity of the individual.
It's all just groupthink, and it's all exactly the same. It's the ultimate death for the individual, despite always being promoted as the opposite. EVERY ideology is replete with inherent philosophical and logical contradictions, which is why no one can ever explain exactly what their specific ideology is in spite of their professing belief in it and its value. It's EXACTLY. like a religion, only without any Mystery (spoiler: this is done ON PURPOSE). It should be self-evident that ALL ideologies are inherently and inextricably necrotic when you realize that every definition of EVERY ideology is completely incoherent. I have never understood why anyone would EVER want to adopt ANY ideology, its like voluntary mind-control (which should at least satisfy some tenet of Anarchism, Libertariansim). Its pathetic.
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. For the most part, it is valid... But I don't think it applies to anarchism. Anarchism doesn't really have "group think" or a "party".
Of course you don't, if you agreed then you wouldn't have adopted whatever the ideology is you presently identify with; almost like a proof of concept.
'Party' is just another word for ideology, it doesn't have or need to specifically refer to a registered or unregistered or affiliated or non-affiliated actual political or organizational entity. You could just easily use the word 'Cult' as a synonym for Party or Ideology: it is absolutely just as accurate.
There is no doubt that Anarchism has just as much group think as any other ideology (aka Party, aka Cult). The fundamental tenet of EVERY ideology is that the ideology is superior to any other ideology; it's 'answers' are more correct than any other ideology's. If another ideology had answers which were 'more correct' then why wouldn't you adopt that ideology instead? This fundamental tenet is foundational in Every Ideology, whether expressly stated or not. If it is a requirement of an ideology to believe that the ideology is 'correct' this alone is groupthink. And this is a requirement of EVERY ideology.
Ideologies are inherently collectivist, and anything inherently collectivist necessarily means that the individual is subordinate to the ideology (aka Party, aka Cult). Even if the foundation of the ideology is that 'everyone is, and should be, free to choose for themselves whatever they want to believe' it is groupthink. After all, if I were truly free then why am I not free to think that everyone should NOT be free to choose for themselves whatever they want to believe? When the foundation of the ideology is demonstrably false or self-contradicting then what real value is the ideology itself? Then what's even the point of adopting and perpetuating it? Every ideology is exactly the same when it comes down to it.
I think your ideology is bullshit. And yes, you are advocating an ideology. An opposition to all ideologies is itself an ideology, but also just committing oneself to intellectual dishonesty and ignorance insofar as you are committed to rejecting the truth if it happens to be an "ideology."
And anarchism has no party or group think, except a few cliques. As an anarchist, I never met a single person that really substantially agreed with me on much of anything. Anarchism is more of a guiding set or ethical principles, but people take those in radically different directions.
Also, my views are my own and no one else that I know of shares them. So I don't see how the personal opinions of a single person that are not shared by any group or other individuals constitutes an ideology.
Your anti-ideology ideology is fine, if that's what you choose to identify with.