Yes I understand what the political compass purportedly states, but the fact is that the economic axis is not devoid of authoritarianism. If the left axis is about arbitrary allocation of resources (in this case, in accordance with some egalitarian distribution scheme), then it is authoritarian. That doesn't make it bad or good, it's just authoritarian.

Therefore, the best way to reason about the common political compass is that the vertical axis is authoritarianism vs libertarianism, and the horizontal axis is economic authoritarianism vs economic libertarianism.

> If the left axis is about arbitrary allocation of resources (in this case, in accordance with some egalitarian distribution scheme), then it is authoritarian.

It's not though. Your premise is not satisfied by definition because if someone were authoritarian then they would not be libertarian. It doesn't matter how people classify themselves, only their actual positions. A lot of libertarian socialism is about building cooperatives, unions, mutual aid, free banking, etc. You're just begging the question, assuming what you want to conclude.

> vertical axis is authoritarianism vs libertarianism, and the horizontal axis is economic authoritarianism vs economic libertarianism.

That's just nonsensically redundant and not useful.

This is honestly not the conversation I was inviting and am not interested in having for what is probably the thousandth in my life. The bottom line is that libertarian socialism is absolutely paradoxical, socialism is necessarily authoritarian. That doesn't mean evil, mind you, it just means that your personal liberties are overridden in service of some mandated objective.

Again, I'm not interested in having this conversation, so I won't be responding again.

> absolutely paradoxical, socialism is necessarily authoritarian.

Again, you're just begging the question and not giving any argument, despite being given counterexamples. No personal liberties are override by forming a cooperative.