I was recently observing a discussion in which a self-professed anarchist was arguing in favor of the suppression of hate speech. One commenter expressed puzzlement over how a self-professed anarchist could at one and the same time argue in favor of a micro-managed tyranny over something as fundamental as speech.
I thought it worth noting that an incoherent tyrannical anarchy is the natural end state of liberalism. The whole modern project revolves around avoiding the question of what is substantively right and wrong, instead mediating every political action, that is, every assertion of authority which actually binds, through the expressed will of free and equal modern supermen; free and equal supermen who have transcended history, nature and tradition; supermen who are self-created through reason and will, defining the meaning of existence for themselves. In order for that project to work everyone has to be equally able to say anything, independent of the substantive content of his speech and even independent of substantive judgments over what it means to “say” something (see flag burning, pornography).
As we have discussed a number of times, the whole project is ultimately an incoherent self-negation. The essence of authority is to discriminate: to make substantive judgments between claims, to pick the winners and losers in conflicts, and to morally bind those subject to that authority to act based on these determinations. Liberalism is ultimately a conception of authority which justifies itself on the premise that authority must be abolished; that free and equal emancipated man must be able to choose, in an assertion of his own will and reason, the ultimate meaning of his own life for himself. It is no accident that Marxists see politics as a kind of interim and rationally necessary tyranny exercised in bringing about the right state of affairs, after which authority simply disappears: as a 'dialectical' offshoot of liberalism, Marxism solves the paradox of forcing people to be equally free by making the disappearance of authority into a kind of parousia.
Because the whole liberal project is ultimately unnatural and incoherent (folks should read Jim Kalb’s book The Tyranny of Liberalism), the end-state liberal is quite naturally an anarchist tyrant. This is not surprising but rather ought to be expected; and it is only incoherent because the underlying liberalism is itself incoherent.