NationStates Jolt Archive

I am tired of some people eqiating libertarianism to anarchism. Libertarians call for limited government, smaller. Anarchists of varying sorts call for often no government. So do not compare us. If you have questions, comments, or have swallowed too much poison, call our posion control hotline, at 1-888-867-5309.

Also, us anarchists refuse to accept libertarianism as a true anarchy branch as capitalism is, by its very nature, authoritarian and causes inequality

Libertarianism has never claimed to be a form of anarchy. Those are so-called anarch-capitalists. As for libertarians and anarchists being different-duh. If people confuse them then just ignore them, they probably aren't worth your time.

Then again, the main difference is probably that libertarians want a free market with some people super wealthy and some super poor, whatever happens, happens, good luck. Anarchy wouldn't have money so there wouldn't be such a thing as rich and poor. Those who are naturally strong would rise to become leaders, rather than those whose ancestors got lucky, struck it rich, and landed them with a huge inheritance so they could not have to do anything and still be the big guy. I believe that those who were born to rise should be given the best chance to rise-government, inherited wealth, super conglomerations, and whatnot all limit the realization of natural ability and thus should be gotten rid of.

I am tired of some people eqiating libertarianism to anarchism. Libertarians call for limited government, smaller. Anarchists of varying sorts call for often no government. So do not compare us. If you have questions, comments, or have swallowed too much poison, call our posion control hotline, at 1-888-867-5309.
It's fairly close. Libertarians want "government" to be two guys in a pickup truck, holding shotguns.

I am tired of some people eqiating libertarianism to anarchism. Libertarians call for limited government, smaller. Anarchists of varying sorts call for often no government. So do not compare us. If you have questions, comments, or have swallowed too much poison, call our posion control hotline, at 1-888-867-5309.

Without demeaning or denying your position, I would ask you to define the line between the small, limited government you seek and a government that cannot sustain itself and collapses into anarchy.

Obviously there is some difference between those two positions, but I think what others may have been pointing out is that your liberatrian philosophy has the potential serious risk of dissolving the state entirely.

De facto anarchy.

Without demeaning or denying your position, I would ask you to define the line between the small, limited government you seek and a government that cannot sustain itself and collapses into anarchy.

Obviously there is some difference between those two positions, but I think what others may have been pointing out is that your liberatrian philosophy has the potential serious risk of dissolving the state entirely.

De facto anarchy.
Big government meaning a source of defense, and an umpire of the market. Most of my idea of classical liberalism is from Milton Friedman. A big government is what we have now, defining morality and playing with the market. Anarchu is a step below libertariansim, but I get irritated when people say they are one and the same.

It's fairly close. Libertarians want "government" to be two guys in a pickup truck, holding shotguns.
Or maybe automatic assault rifles, seeing how we're anti-gun control :D

It's fairly close. Libertarians want "government" to be two guys in a pickup truck, holding shotguns.
what would your idea of government be?

Without demeaning or denying your position, I would ask you to define the line between the small, limited government you seek and a government that cannot sustain itself and collapses into anarchy.

Obviously there is some difference between those two positions, but I think what others may have been pointing out is that your liberatrian philosophy has the potential serious risk of dissolving the state entirely.

De facto anarchy.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the line between libertarianism and other forms of more authoritarian governments is taxation. Taxes on individuals or businesses (which is basically an indirect tax on individuals) lead to increased money supplies for the government and a more authoritarian system. Selling public lands and tariffs are the primary means of earning money for a libertarian government (or maybe leasing public lands to businesses, but I'd think there wouldn't be any public land in a libertarian system). After the intitial boost from selling off the public lands the government's revenues would be severely limited to just tariffs. No more entitlement programs, no more military spending I should think or if there were it would be severely cut back, just general administration costs of maybe the most important executive departments-like say the state department and...I can't think of any others that are really that important. No pay for legislators probably, but what am I talking about? I'm sure the other guy knows more about libertarianism than me. Basically it's just late 18th century all over again.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the line between libertarianism and other forms of more authoritarian governments is taxation. Taxes on individuals or businesses (which is basically an indirect tax on individuals) lead to increased money supplies for the government and a more authoritarian system. Selling public lands and tariffs are the primary means of earning money for a libertarian government (or maybe leasing public lands to businesses, but I'd think there wouldn't be any public land in a libertarian system). After the intitial boost from selling off the public lands the government's revenues would be severely limited to just tariffs. No more entitlement programs, no more military spending I should think or if there were it would be severely cut back, just general administration costs of maybe the most important executive departments-like say the state department and...I can't think of any others that are really that important. No pay for legislators probably, but what am I talking about? I'm sure the other guy knows more about libertarianism than me. Basically it's just late 18th century all over again.


then again since 18th century Americanism lead straight to what we have today and Big Government, it's not really that sustainable, neh?

Or maybe automatic assault rifles, seeing how we're anti-gun control :D
Yeah, sorry, let me clarify things.

Libertarians want the government to be two homosexually-married, immigrants, on drugs, driving a tank. And no matter what they do, everyone has the opportunity to vote on what they do. But that's pretty much meaningless, though, because the world is also dominated by one international corporation, free of taxes, laws protecting the environment or workers, and their owner is pretty much God. So, the planet is fucked, children work in sweatshops, and although we all have the right to participate in the government and sodomize eachother in public, AOL-TimeWalmicrosoft owns fucking everything, including a large private army of mercenaries which outnumbers the various rebel militias.

That is Libertarianism. See why I call it Anarchism now?

Yeah, sorry, let me clarify things.

Libertarians want the government to be two homosexually-married, immigrants, on drugs, driving a tank. And no matter what they do, everyone has the opportunity to vote on what they do. But that's pretty much meaningless, though, because the world is also dominated by one international corporation, free of taxes, laws protecting the environment or workers, and their owner is pretty much God. So, the planet is fucked, children work in sweatshops, and although we all have the right to participate in the government and sodomize eachother in public, AOL-TimeWalmicrosoft owns fucking everything, including a large private army of mercenaries which outnumbers the various rebel militias.

That is Libertarianism. See why I call it Anarchism now?
......

Yeah, sorry, let me clarify things.

Libertarians want the government to be two homosexually-married, immigrants, on drugs, driving a tank. And no matter what they do, everyone has the opportunity to vote on what they do. But that's pretty much meaningless, though, because the world is also dominated by one international corporation, free of taxes, laws protecting the environment or workers, and their owner is pretty much God. So, the planet is fucked, children work in sweatshops, and although we all have the right to participate in the government and sodomize eachother in public, AOL-TimeWalmicrosoft owns fucking everything, including a large private army of mercenaries which outnumbers the various rebel militias.

That is Libertarianism. See why I call it Anarchism now?

No. I'm against corporations on general and conglomerations in particular. Whether all other anarchists would agree with me or not I don't know. Individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they want, but businesses should be severely limited. Not by laws of course, but by individuals realizing that their economic freedom depends in large measure on avoiding those stores that pop up by the thousands all over the country, I forget what they're called, and more on focusing locally on self-sufficiency within the collective and between collectives. Mega-conglomerations are the result of capitalism and libertarianism, not anarchism.

......
I second that with a :rolleyes:

That is Libertarianism. See why I call it Anarchism now?
Good job with the generalizing of the most extreme libertarians to all libertarians!

Plutophobia, that...er...brilliant...thing you just...presented..no comment. But here is a question dealing with that libertarianism->anarchy debate: If L does -> A, does that mega corporation with the super mercenary army eventually become the new state? After all, it appears as if it is in a very comfortable position to do so, owning everything and the army and all.

what would your idea of government be?
There is no such thing as an ideal government, but just what that country needs at that specific time, and what the people would consent to. Every government eventually destroys itself, but anarchy wouldn't work, either.

The only "ideal" government is one where, through scientific research (if possible) human beings are engineered to be less selfish, and we are ruled by a one-world government, with one currency, in which there is the House of Representatives (elected leaders) and the House of Citizens (non-elected, volunteers-anyone can join). Law would be passed the same way it is now, without a "President" that has the ability to veto, although there would be a prime minister who would be sort of the "head of state", but mostly, a chief diplomat, with no actual control over the military or the ability to pardon criminals. Judges would not be elected or selected (because that leads to bias), but rather, they would be given a multiple-choice test of their knowledge and intelligence, and those who are most competent would be given the position, not those who the current politicians like, and want to use in order to further their agenda. Social welfare and a minimum wage may or may not be necessary, depending on how selfish human beings still are. And there'd be no military. All bank accounts would be Federally run and have total visibility. Anyone could see anyone else's bank statements, although not be able to withdraw money. This would be an effective method of stopping money laundering, embezzlement, etc.

The only other possibility for an "ideal" government would be one where a truly wise person or wise group of people develop a machine which fools the human race into thinking it governs itself, when it actually doesn't, and destroys all technology once we gain the ability to destroy ourselves or discover the machine, then allows us to prosper. I've also played with this idea on what I call an "economic reset", a way of making an economy explode every 50 years by evenly distributing all assets, as if it were in Communism, but then letting people gain\lose what they want. The problem with this, though, is I'm not sure how I'd distribute PERSONAL items or land.

As for a practical goverment. Well, it depends and it's debatable. I can't claim to know everything, like most people do, but I do know what a practical government would NOT be: and that is it would not be a dictatorship or Communist. It would have to be a democratic, mixed market. Other than that, I'm not too sure.

Er...wrong.

Yo, Capitalist.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), whole cities and regions declared "comunismo libertario" [Libertarian Communism]. Anarchists and syndicalists had been using the term "Libertarian" for at least the previous century.

To cut to the chase; stop using our moniker (and tarnishing its good reputation), kthxbi.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8451611&postcount=50

I said your idea, not ideal, but I appreciate your opinion.

Exactly, RPP.

Plutophobia, that...er...brilliant...thing you just...presented..no comment. But here is a question dealing with that libertarianism->anarchy debate: If L does -> A, does that mega corporation with the super mercenary army eventually become the new state? After all, it appears as if it is in a very comfortable position to do so, owning everything and the army and all.
Of course it does.

But actually, I was mostly just being facetious. Libertarians would promote corporations' rights once they start moving in that direction, but once they're getting closer and closer, we'd swing back in the other direction and suddenly start cracking down on businesses. It's kind of a pendulum. Businesses become corrupt, so we regulate. Then, we regulate too much, so we loosen our control. Then, they become corrupt again, so we regulate.

This is why I say that there's really no 'ideal' policy, but only what needs to be done at that time. With the laudnry list of problems with Wal-Mart as well as Microsoft (trying to copyright the letter "N" in Europe!!), I feel that they need to be regulated more.

Er...wrong.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8451611&postcount=50
Damn right.

Yeah, sorry, let me clarify things.

Libertarians want the government to be two homosexually-married, immigrants, on drugs, driving a tank.
OMG, I would so vote for those guys! :D :fluffle:

Actually, we're already halfway there!
http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2004/Starchild,%20catwoman.gif
("Starchild", Californian LP delegate 2004) ;)

Actually, we're already halfway there!
http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2004/Starchild,%20catwoman.gif
("Starchild", Californian LP delegate 2004) ;)
w00t.

I am tired of some people eqiating libertarianism to anarchism. Libertarians call for limited government, smaller. Anarchists of varying sorts call for often no government. This is an exclusively North American definition of liberterianism. And a reletively new one too.

As the preface to the Wikipedia article on Liberterianism states:

"This article explicates one interpretation of the term libertarianism as it is often used in the United States and Canada. An alternative use of the term libertarian that is common in other countries is explored in libertarian socialism. Those who defend civil liberties may be called civil libertarians, regardless of their positions on other issues."

There is a world outisde of Anglo North America you know.

This is an exclusively North American definition of liberterianism. And a reletively new one too.

As the preface to the Wikipedia article on Liberterianism states:

"This article explicates one interpretation of the term libertarianism as it is often used in the United States and Canada. An alternative use of the term libertarian that is common in other countries is explored in libertarian socialism. Those who defend civil liberties may be called civil libertarians, regardless of their positions on other issues."

There is a world outisde of Anglo North America you know.
I am aware of that. I was using libertarianism because thats what classical liberalism is called these days, or branches from.

There is a world outisde of Anglo North America you know.
I'm sure someone else could point out the irony in his statement, providing he was speaking to American libertarians. :p

yes, avoid any real discussion by blasting extremist stereotypes, which of course there are none in any other philosophy or ideology. you fully realize theres either the tree-hugging neo-communist or the born-again theocratic neo-fascist in whichever of the main parties you're in, but naturally thats "those" people and aren't *really* members of your party. plz.

libertarianism does NOT equal anarchism in any manner, and those of you that believe a government needs to be huge and strong to prevent itself from collapse have zero understanding of what government is.

(i recommend all of you to view this flash intro to the concept of self-ownership, which libertarianism is largely based on:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

there aren't federal or state police in your town, there are local police. reducing the size and scope of firstly the federal government, then eventually state governments, would not entail dismantling the respective police departments.

the police are the ones who maintain this order you people seem so obsessed with, and they are needed to protect your true rights; your rights to life, liberty, and property. They won't be going anywhere under a more libertarian government, albeit since they aren't busting people for being gay, using drugs in their own homes, or enforcing other religious or community morals, we prolly wouldn't need so many of them on the force. Or, that current manpower could be better used tracking down murderers, thieves, and rapists; the real criminals.

libertarians beleive in a free and COMPETITIVE marketplace, and will use the power of the state if monopoly or oligopoly forms to indirectly rob you of this freedom to enjoy the benefits of capitalism. if you're afriad of super-companies monopolizing industries, i'd suggest you hate on fascists, as they propose a virtual marriage of government and big buisness, with speciality laws, subsidies, and tariffs to protect these big businesses.

btw, if "super-poor" means you're not recieving a welfare check from my taxes, then, well, i think you need to get a job. and also, you think the poorest citizens would be better or worse off with no sales taxes, no taxes on gasoline, and no property tax? of course not, that money is partially used to pay for their own welfare checks. [sarcasm]

libertarians do not endorse anarchy, as anarchy paves the way for your rights to be trampled on by other people with no redress. government exists to protect your rights as a citizen, which only cease when they interfere with anothers rights.

government does *not* exist to put into enforceable law the morals, ethics, or religion of the majority upon you; how would you like it if a muslim majority forbid you from eating pork? Pretty silly thing to go to jail or be fined for, you didn't harm anyone but yourself with this sin. Sound familiar?

to the libertarians that have posted, you guys are moving in the right direction, just learn more so ignorant people can't trap you in a corner with basic questions and idoitic stereotypes; a tip, if you don't know, don't speak, you'll just be adding fuel to the fire.

as for the gun comment, you anti-gun people would've been on the sidelines, screaming for order when the real americans were fighting the revolution to give you the freedom you so happily piss away. theres a reason the amendment for you to own a weapon is second only to freedom of speech. i suggest for you to learn more about the original revolution; you may even find that if you placed yourself in that time period you would have supported the british; i'd then suggest you renouce your citizenship and leave the country.

I found a site, its a hell of alot better than political compass, still simple, but a little better. Thought that would be interesting to discuss with the topic.
www.orgburo.com

Point of Interest-

Can we specify Anarchy here because I'm a little confused. Anarchy is different from Libertarianism but only by degrees. Anarchy= no government, Libertarian= no government except a "night-watch" government i.e law and order defence. But you can be Anarchist and capitalist, in fact in my opinion it is practically impossible to be an Anarchist and not Capitalist. Anarchy in its most basic form is a lack of centralised government, therefore it is practically impossible to become socialist , and therefore capitalist unless collectives are formed. As it is unlikley that a collective can own everything they need (it is envitble that opinion and needs will alter and as collectives need to have the same opinions and needs they wouls envitably be more then one) they would need to trade to recieve the goods they needed. The money need not be issued by governments but by independant banks, or by bartering for directly for goods with more goods, services or capital. Short of living like cave-men who can you have a non-capitalist Anarchic system exist?

We could use the wiki version of anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

What I'm not getting: Why isn't there a Conservtism isn't Anarchism thread?
If the same standards for libertarianism were applied... :confused:

What I'm not getting: Why isn't there a Conservtism isn't Anarchism thread?
If the same standards for libertarianism were applied... :confused:
No ones brought up the subject.

What I'm not getting: Why isn't there a Conservtism isn't Anarchism thread?
If the same standards for libertarianism were applied... :confused:

I know your all going to hate me for saying this but the British conservative Party were famous for "roling back the state", which is closer to both anarchism then the Labour Party. So in a practocal sense I suppose you could argue....

No ones brought up the subject.
Well, I'm suggestiing that by the same standards liberal ideologues impose on defining libertarianism as anarchic, then conservatism also qualifies as anarchic as well.

It just makes them uncomfortable to admit as much, as it makes the liberals sound, by far, like the most "square" philosophy around. A position they're definitely not happy with. :D

Or maybe automatic assault rifles, seeing how we're anti-gun control :D


They'd have rocket launchers and grenade launchers with mustard gas in the grenades.

You need those things to put down slave worker revolts and protect yourself from road pirates.

They'd have rocket launchers and grenade launchers with mustard gas in the grenades.

You need those things to put down slave worker revolts and protect yourself from road pirates.
Mad Max, ehehe.

Well, I'm suggestiing that by the same standards liberal ideologues impose on defining libertarianism as anarchic, then conservatism also qualifies as anarchic as well.

It just makes them uncomfortable to admit as much, as it makes the liberals sound, by far, like the most "square" philosophy around. A position they're definitely not happy with. :D
Sure he's a liberal? I wouldn't be so quick to say.

Sure he's a liberal? I wouldn't be so quick to say.
Are we both talking about Plutophobia? Isn't he the one who brought up (in another thread) the libertarianism=anarchism subject, which you replied to here?

If he's not a raging liberal, my vibe has been way off.

Are we both talking about Plutophobia? Isn't he the one who brought up (in another thread) the libertarianism=anarchism subject, which you replied to here?

If he's not a raging liberal, my vibe has been way off.
He is, I was just hesitant.

Different country hae different definintions of Liberal, in Britain it means the kind of person who would legalise hash or aloow guns and limit the state but in America it meanmore of a Left-winger

It's fairly close. Libertarians want "government" to be two guys in a pickup truck, holding shotguns.

I want to change my vote in the other thread you are a troll.

I want to change my vote in the other thread you are a troll.
GIT OFFA MAH TRUCK! *bang*

But no, I am a liberal. Generally somewhat of a centrist, though. Both parties exaggerate statistics and sometimes outright lie, although Liberals tend to mostly be at fault for arrogance and Conservatives tend to mostly be at fault for greed.

And so, I try to find some kind of compromise in the middle, rather than outright denying one or the other. On most things, too, I need to do more research. Most people (including here) are ignorant of their beliefs, but believe they're the Gospel truth.

About lying.. Bush is a damn liar for saying the war was about WMDs, then saying it's about Iraqi freedom. Kerry is a damn liar for saying we'd have been out of Iraq in four years.

I think we'd better fit a gyroscope in Albert Metzer's grave.

I think we'd better fit a gyroscope in Albert Metzers grave.
Who is he?
I get about 4 results when I search for his name on Google.
It appears he wrote a book about anarchism, but I cannot seem to find much information on it

Who is he?
I get about 4 results when I search for his name on Google.
It appears he wrote a book about anarchism, but I cannot seem to find much information on it
Metzer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1873176570/qid=1112471265/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/103-3401600-1587811?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Who is he?
I get about 4 results when I search for his name on Google.
It appears he wrote a book about anarchism, but I cannot seem to find much information on it

First anarchist to come into my head since I'm reading a book of his at the moment.

Point of Interest-

Can we specify Anarchy here because I'm a little confused. Anarchy is different from Libertarianism but only by degrees. Anarchy= no government, Libertarian= no government except a "night-watch" government i.e law and order defence. But you can be Anarchist and capitalist, in fact in my opinion it is practically impossible to be an Anarchist and not Capitalist. Anarchy in its most basic form is a lack of centralised government, therefore it is practically impossible to become socialist , and therefore capitalist unless collectives are formed. As it is unlikley that a collective can own everything they need (it is envitble that opinion and needs will alter and as collectives need to have the same opinions and needs they wouls envitably be more then one) they would need to trade to recieve the goods they needed. The money need not be issued by governments but by independant banks, or by bartering for directly for goods with more goods, services or capital. Short of living like cave-men who can you have a non-capitalist Anarchic system exist?

The original anarchists practiced anarcho-socialism. This was possible because, as you said, they formed collectives, but also because they abolished money, as there was no need for it. Anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new form of anarchism, although plenty of anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism as not being actually anarchist.

bump

What I'm not getting: Why isn't there a Conservtism isn't Anarchism thread?
If the same standards for libertarianism were applied... :confused:

probably something to do with the fact that conservatives keep trying to institute a police state and go on imperial adventures whenever they get into power - no matter what bullshit they say when they aren't.

probably something to do with the fact that conservatives keep trying to institute a police state and go on imperial adventures whenever they get into power - no matter what bullshit they say when they aren't.
Why aren't more of the liberal/socialist members more like you, FS? :fluffle:

If it weren't for the obvious membername, I'd have taken you as a libertarian in quite a lot of your posts.
Are you actually more of a libertarian-communist? If so, you're a rare breed indeed. ;) Also, if so, I'd like to know what reference materials you guys appreciate? (Maybe I'm off-base on this though.)

EDIT: Did you design the site in your siggy? If so, I'm way diggin' your design & branding style (comin' from a pro here :D)

The original anarchists practiced anarcho-socialism. This was possible because, as you said, they formed collectives, but also because they abolished money, as there was no need for it. Anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new form of anarchism, although plenty of anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism as not being actually anarchist.

And rightly so. Anarchists are against all forms of heirarchy and control. This includes capitalist institutions. Like banks, corporations etc. etc.

And rightly so. Anarchists are against all forms of heirarchy and control. This includes capitalist institutions. Like banks, corporations etc. etc.

So how would society function, exactly? Aren't communes just another name for centralized power (this time through masses of people)?

So how would society function, exactly?

Similar to some parts of Spain in the 30s. And a splattering of places around the world at the moment I would think.

Aren't communes just another name for centralized power (this time through masses of people)?

How do communes = centralised power?

libertarians beleive in a free and COMPETITIVE marketplace, and will use the power of the state if monopoly or oligopoly forms to indirectly rob you of this freedom to enjoy the benefits of capitalism. if you're afriad of super-companies monopolizing industries, i'd suggest you hate on fascists, as they propose a virtual marriage of government and big buisness, with speciality laws, subsidies, and tariffs to protect these big businesses.


.

One question if we cant trust the gov. we elect to be free from curruption, why should we trust buissnesses that are even less answerable to us to be free from curruption? and how can we trust the gov. to keep buissnesses from becoming currupt if it itself is easily curruptable? Could not the buissnesses just buy off the gov? So what is suppose to keep the two from both becoming currupt and decinding into Corporationism?

How do communes = centralised power?

Doesn't one mass of people directly determining things (via direct democracy) qualify as centralized? Are there competing parties (like in a GOVERNMENT)?

Doesn't one mass of people directly determining things (via direct democracy) qualify as centralized?

No, not automatically.

Are there competing parties (like in a GOVERNMENT)?

Nope.

Though, I am hardly the best person to ask on this form of Anarchism (Anarcho-Communism, or Communist Anarchism).

Why aren't more of the liberal/socialist members more like you, FS? :fluffle:

If it weren't for the obvious membername, I'd have taken you as a libertarian in quite a lot of your posts.
Are you actually more of a libertarian-communist? If so, you're a rare breed indeed. ;) Also, if so, I'd like to know what reference materials you guys appreciate? (Maybe I'm off-base on this though.)

EDIT: Did you design the site in your siggy? If so, I'm way diggin' your design & branding style (comin' from a pro here :D)

if more socialists were like me, we'd have actually won a long time ago [/conceited]

and yeah, i'm about as libertarian as you can get - in fact, my economic ideas stem from my conception of what a libertarian system of production and distribution would have to be like (while retaining multiple person projects and enterprises, ayway). and while i am a libertarian communist by inclination, i have this mysterious lean towards the more market based socialism of proudhon and tucker. i've also read a bunch of stuff from various capitalist libertarians - like david friedman's "the machinery of freedom", for example - and am not adverse to reading justin raimondo's antiwar.com.

have i ever pointed you in the direction of kevin carson's site, http://www.mutualist.org/ ? you might find some of what he has to say interesting.


and no, the site is run by a couple of friends of mine - one of whom is a bit too authoritarian for my tastes, but you know, eh. the design work is theirs, i'm just advertising..

Doesn't one mass of people directly determining things (via direct democracy) qualify as centralized? Are there competing parties (like in a GOVERNMENT)?

1. not necessarily. if everybody collectively decides everything, maybe. but if decision making happens on multiple levels, with most of it occuring on the individual level or the relatively small-scale collective level, then you do not have a centralized system. decisions affecting individuals and groups must be made. the question is what is the proper level for them to be made at. if we decide that it is at the 'lowest' level possible, then we have a decentralized system.

2. there would certainly be factions, the same as there are almost always factions that arise in any group decision. but without a particular kind of system in place, there isn't much of a position to be filled by a party organization. in fact, i would wager that factions in a libertarian commune would wind up being particularly loose and only really operate together on one particular issue at a time, with different factional splits occuring for different issues.

i may be wrong on this, but it seems to me that part of what makes factions cement their continued existence into parties is the function they fill in a representative system, where the benefits of cooperation with a party organization for representatives are high enough to ensure that they generally toe the party line on most issues. change away from this model and you undermine the party system.