[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

You mean

The only job as "regulator" that the State SHOULD HAVE[...]

don't turn your demands into presuppositions.

You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.

I am not a radical socialist, whatever that means. I am not also of the opinion that a large, bloated state machine is a good idea. I believe the state should eventually be reduced to various applicative but mobile units that loosely co-relate to directly serve the People. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative, via technological means (a terminal in every house and the such) where the political parties are reduced to propaganda suppliers, and the citizen is called to examine all different viewpoints (via said propaganda) and make up his mind and vote for each and all issues partaining to his city - state - country. As you can see, I'm in a way, a libertarian myself.

In the 8th grade, we all had to make a fictional country and design a system of government for it. I designed something similar, except that I advocated voting through the Internet rather than some seperate terminal (though that was brought up when my teacher asked about ensuring the poor can vote) and maintained a national Senate. Basically, the House of Representatives in American government was replaced with direct votes, with a few key differences as far as votes were required and a few tweaks - after all, without the Senate, the populace will be constantly bombared with too many propositions to keep up with at. I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.

My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice. Those communities can organize themselves democratically if they wish, but man should not have to adopt such a sytem out of force.

However, you cannot get here from there. For such a system to work, there's an intermediate step where the state will have to possibly get a lot larger before it can become smaller. The People should be fed, first, and foremost. To that end, I agree with any cookie-cutter variety Red. The classes will have to go, and if that has to be done in a reactionary way (extreme taxation), then so be it! Just as long as it is the will of the people, as expressed through an elected party (on that level). Then the people should be educated, to be given the means to liberate themselves from themselves. Then, when this is achieved, the state will defuse into the aforementioned structure, as it will no longer be needed to guide, but rather serve. We should not need any more leaders. Hopefully, the next few generations of them will be the last.

Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.

Socialism isn't an end in itself, it's a necessary stepping stone to something greater. Even actual Socialists will tell you that.

For some it's an end in itself.

You think? I fail to understand this, how?

You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.

This is laughable. Besides the actual examples of privatized policing forces (mercenaries, really) that have resulted to extremely unpleasant results, the fact and only that you're willing to put the interpretation of justice in the overzealous hands of competitive parties shows your utter lack of understanding of what justice, as a constant paradigm, is. I'll tell you what justice is not. It's not burgers. It's not different fast food joints competing for whom can make the biggest, fattest yet cheapest one. Idiot.

Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.

You obviously don't understand how ancap conceptions of private defense is supposed to work if you think that each competiting firm represents a variety of justice. Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.

Is that before or after such societies (communes, really) either gradually overpower the solo guys, or the private police forces of the solo guys beat the crap out of the societies? Seriously, do you understand anything about the concept of POWER AS AN END IN ITSELF that has been the staple of human behaviour since day one? We can only outgrow this by examining human instinct and hopefully defeating it. This can only happen when people have the time to do this at their leasure, not when they're half-starving to death.

Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."

So is this "I know mine is, but so is yours" or what? Of course any large State construct will be oppressive. In the case of what I am describing, the idea is that you don't just end with socialism.

You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.

I am not prepared to discuss economics, be them Marxist or not as I lack understanding of various aspects of the whole. Mainly because I find actual sterile economics very, very boring. I've read and understood parts of the Manifesto and Capital, but I haven't much looked into counterpoints and rebuttals. That Marxist politico-economical analysis is however, still very much applied in current discussions by people far more intelligent and well-read than me (be them Marxists like Hobsbawm or even complete opposite parties, everybody uses Marxist terminology) seems to suggest that you are also not exactly sure what you're talking about. But if you like regurgitating select catch phrases out of a silly primer textbook as you undoubtedly are, then go right on ahead.

All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.

Haven't read these guys. Their legitimacy as to what? Anarchism comes in serveral different flavours (you've chosen the most rediculous and far-fetched one, anarchocommunism being the most possible, given communistic foundation), and most have either been tested to horrible results, or remain untested. I remain unconvinced there's a valid way to go from globalized capitalism to anarchism.

Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.