Should social anarchists support Ron Paul?

[hmkpoker]

I'm not the most well-versed in anarcho-socialist/syndicalist theory, but from what I have gathered, a social anarchist America would basically be a loose confederation of many city-states, which exercise social democratic control of resources on a local level. These communities decide their own rules democratically, but recognize the sovereignty of other groups, making somewhat anarcho-capitalistic interactivity between communities.

While a social anarchist may feel differently about local politics than an ACist, I think we see eye-to-eye on national politics. They should be done away with. That's why we're both called "anarchists" after all.

How do the resident left-leaning anarchists feel about this?

[AlexM]

I'm no social anarchist, but yes.

[hmkpoker]

I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in that group as well, then. Although in practice, there is nothing stopping small communities from merging into big communities and looking very much like countries... which is why I don't see "AS/AC vs. Statism" as the same black and white issue that most here do.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in that group as well, then. Although in practice, there is nothing stopping small communities from merging into big communities and looking very much like countries... which is why I don't see "AS/AC vs. Statism" as the same black and white issue that most here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of an anarchist world presupposes the peoples' support for it (or else it would never have existed). If it were to exist at all, the people, by an large, would have had to favor the decentralization of the federal government, then the state governments, then (possibly) local governments. If the people are so actively supportive of decentralization, it's pretty unlikely that they would want to merge very much.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in that group as well, then. Although in practice, there is nothing stopping small communities from merging into big communities and looking very much like countries... which is why I don't see "AS/AC vs. Statism" as the same black and white issue that most here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of an anarchist world presupposes the peoples' support for it (or else it would never have existed). If it were to exist at all, the people, by an large, would have had to favor the decentralization of the federal government, then the state governments, then (possibly) local governments. If the people are so actively supportive of decentralization, it's pretty unlikely that they would want to merge very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for making my point in the great AC vs. Statism debate. If anarchy presupposes that the world by and large wants to have decentralization, then all the arguments against unfettered growth of the state are moot because people by and large don't want that anymore and won't support it. So, in effect, minarchy or AC/AS are basically indistinguishable and it's just a question of how much territory each "state" (or corporation, or individual, or group, or whatever) administrates on average.

Edit to add: And it also means that anarchists who scoff at those who would work or advocate to decentralize / limit existing governments (such as minarchists or libertarians), are actually inhibiting the very conditions required for their own system to ever emerge.

[Nielsio]

Kaj,

Territory implies violent aggression and violent conquering. That is opposite to voluntary and peaceful cooperation. Voluntaryists do not hold territory to be legitimate.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist.

[/ QUOTE ]


What's that?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

Territory implies violent aggression and violent conquering. That is opposite to voluntary and peaceful cooperation. Voluntaryists do not hold territory to be legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in an AC world, nobody can administrate over a territory? So if I want to set up a teepee in your living room, you don't have a problem with that? Seriously, dude, enough hyperbole! My little group and your little group can administer our separate territories and still exchange voluntarily with no violence or aggression whatsoever. And if we can't, then your dream world is impossible anyway.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Thank you for making my point in the great AC vs. Statism debate. If anarchy presupposes that the world by and large wants to have decentralization, then all the arguments against unfettered growth of the state are moot because people by and large don't want that anymore and won't support it. So, in effect, minarchy or AC/AS are basically indistinguishable and it's just a question of how much territory each "state" (or corporation, or individual, or whatever) administrates on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much how I see it. I personally think that modern technology would make small city-states the deepest level of decentralization, since a lot of the private services (like security) would probably be much cheaper to provide to a community than to individuals. It's pretty easy to move to a new neighborhood or town (unlike moving countries), so I consider the social contract with a local government more legitimate than that of a federal government, which makes it largely voluntary. That's what I think anarcho-capitalism is anyway.

I don't get why people think of AC as some ultra-deconstructed locale where property is 100% individualized and nothing is ever shared. Heck, I live in an apartment community that offers a shared pool, fitness center, security and clubhouse for a flat fee. It's like being in a collective government of sorts, but it's so small and easy to relocate from that virtually everyone would acknowledge my decision to live here as voluntary. And a lot of people live here, and in similar communities. There is a market for it.

Anarcho-capitalism is not a small town where all the private homeowners contract with samurai to protect their property. It's just a lack of big states in our prosperous regions.